***

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

Photo is excellently composed. We see the face and hands, which are most important objects in the portrait. By the way model has very nice hands. Skin is not blurred, so photo is more realistic, we see the real person. The photo is B&W, probably trying to achieve old age effect. It would be better in color. B&W tone is depressing.

I like the idea expressed in this picture but I don't like the execution. This is a very attractive model and the costume and props are fine. Even the de-saturated effect post processing looks good. The specular highlight in the eye gives a nice focal point to the image. The composition is balanced well enough although the overall effect is one of heaviness.

What I don't like is the camera angle which not only makes her strong chin even more pronounced but I'm looking right up her nose, which I might add is very bright via the lighting. It's a very strong point of contrast and my eye keeps going right up that nostril. I am going to take liberty and assume the dark, dingy background, frayed shoulder of her dress, unkempt, almost dirty looking hair are intentional for effect and I think are fine. However the completely un-retouched condition of the model skin I find disturbing (I did zoom in a bit). Clearly, heavy retouching would out of place, but some would make this image easier to look at and linger. And what's that thing on the wall behind her mouth and white line through her index finger knuckle? This is a very nice idea that didn't quite jell for me.

Very nicely composed & exposed with a pensive expression. I like the toning as well. There seem to be artifacts in the background, especially behind her, though

She appears to have a "reptile" eye, as the pupil looks elongated on my monitor. I like the sepia tones.

A beautiful model. I like the pose, but the de-saturated or b/w effect takes away from the overall photo.

The square format works very well in this pose. Initialy I was turned off by the colors of the tone. However while viewing the image and listening to the feelings it invokes, I grew to like them. Although the camera angle does lengthen the nose and chin, it also accentuates the models lovely long neck. Facial expression really helps make this image. Very good colaboration of artist and model.

A little bit of touch up would help this wonderfull image. The light spot above the upper lip, and what looks like a dust spot on the neck. Over all I really like this image.

Steve

It's a sedate portrait. The angle, for me, is evocative and does accentuate her neck and chin, which I like. It also captures some beautiful lines and sensuous curves. Her expression is soft, the light travels nicely to her eye, which is demurely framed by her bangs. It's a kind of set piece. I get a feeling of old time photograph and a more universalized sense of something womanly, thoughtful, a bit seductive than I do that I'm getting to know THIS woman. That's a fine way for a portrait to work, IMO.

The toning feels off in that the purple really comes through quite strongly in places, like the top of her hat and, in some places like on her hair just under the hat, it feels more like a kind of unwanted film than something coming from the photo itself. I don't mind the toning per se, just the quality of it. Though I like the perspective, particularly the angle and shape of her neck, I don't like the shadows on her neck. They seem to dirty her skin rather than shade it. Part of that is because they are so gray compared to the redder areas but part of it is just the quality of the shadows and the way this was exposed and processed. I agree that the tip of the nose could be toned down some. Not all portraits suggest perfect skin or a better makeup job (the face feels a bit cracked and pasty), but this portrait does seem to want a softer and more even approach to the skin, however that would be accomplished.

Mark's portfolio shows a committed vision to a kind of iconic, statuesque, almost mythical view of his subjects. This photo has that tendency but is also on the more intimate end of his work.

The various curvatures in this shot are so subtle that one has to add them up to realize their impact. Well conceived and completed photography.

To my way of thinking it is badly unbalanced, untidy with the chair distracting, and the hand is badly attention grabing out of proportion to the face. Beautiful image quality wasted.

There has been some discussion here about desaturation and toning. My thought is that this may be the result of a PS duotone (maybe tri-tone), using a purplish color for the dark tones and the tan for the light ones. The odd, bluish crossovers are very indicative of this sort of process and the solarization on the hands and other mid-tone areas (not banding but the low contrast, muddy feel), a result of the curves being poorly applied. Anyway, that is how it reads to me.

Unrelated, but there is an odd line cutting across the frame from the right and ending on the forefinger of her right hand. Another odd seam comes into her head, above her eye from the top of the frame. Then there are some odd artifacts around her head, in the background. Just saying'.

I do like the drawing of her left hand here (not the solarized look) but am not sure about the pose. A case where a part might be better than the whole.

This also might be a case where I can't get too into this image as I think the rest of the portrait portfolio just far exceeds this one. Even the other shot of this woman in the same hat, although completely different, has more substance to it and feels more organic. This one just feels like an attempt at a period piece and I guess I don't get any sense of where it was supposed to go. With so many technical flaws, I am want to work too hard to figure it out.

I will say that while I think the model is a nice looking young woman, the pose and the handling of the light did her no favors. This is not a dainty nose and everything here works to accent that in a bad way, IMO. I think the working of the light, it being toned down or maybe the rest bumped up, would be at least called for. I think that both the angle and the light would be less an issue if she had had a more pixie-like nose. Certainly, this might seem like a rude comment, however, this is not a street shot or a decisive moment, this is an arbitrary portrait and I think we need to be sensitive to these sorts of things as photographers. I've worked commercially too long to worry about discussing these things, models often participate in such discussions when these issues arise. I am not saying that it shouldn't be done but I think it then has to be finished with care and attention--which seems missing here. Again, the other shot of her, which doesn't ignore her nose, feels so much more unitary and flattering.

I too think this was meant to be a period piece, and I get that from the toning or color processing, the hat, and curved metal (apparently) headboard. I especially like the catchlight in her eye - it comes across very well. I generally don't mind the artifacts we see except for those that actually occur on the face. I'm either less observant or more forgiving, perhaps both. I'm intrigued by the cane, and I think that's a key part of whatever story Mark-Meir is wanting to convey. Because of her youth, I sense that it belongs to someone else, perhaps the person she may be thinking about at the moment, and in a somewhat somber way. That's just how the photo comes across to me. I think that John makes a very good point about a portrait that is thought out and set up and that should therefore be more free of the apparent artifacts; I can't help but wonder if Mark-Meir intentionally left them (in part because they are so obvious) with the hope that they might further contribute to the apparent age / era the photograph was intended to represent.

It's not for me. I just can't get over the nasal passage. Portraits from this angle are always problematic and looking up the nose is one of the problems that one encounters often when shooting from this angle. I also find it hard to buy-in to this. The elements seem forced and not naturally consonant. I have to say that IMO, the Elves picked one of the worst portraits in Mark-Meir's superb portfolio. In most of his images there is something naturally interesting about the work. There is a mysterious look, interesting light, fleeting moment or unique approach. Here I just see a series of elements put together in a rather photographically clumsy, ordinary way.

I want my critique to be in the spirit of this forum -Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography - Here goes. For me the image from a technical point of view breaks quite a few rules, first of all contrast in a lot of the image is very very flat, especially the bun part of her hair. There are also quite a few areas of the image that have no shadow detail at all. From a colour perspective tones are what they are, but they are not "true". Her left eye is really strange (what we can see of it). Now let me put that all aside and offer what i really think of the image. Firstly rules are there to be broken, this includes technical rules! So to that end although we know it is a portrait and it is not meant to be a "True to life" offer of the subject, the portrait offers us something differnt, The image gives a sense of time (period) the dress the fasion, the way the image is produced. To me it could be someone from the post war era of europe. The hands are delicately placed on the Cane, they are positioned so they do not dominate the image but offer something about the woman. I like the fact that her face is presented with all of the imperfections. These imperfections are also story telling.
For me It is not the pretiest of images, it is also not the most stiking of images, but it is very well crafted and also has a level of interest in it. I personally dont liek the colouring, i am not sure it offers anything to the image. I think if a time period was the intention, this could have been achieved to teh same extent by removing colour altogether. The image would be different but for me perhaps more apealing.

NOTE - I wrote my critique with no knowledge of the photographer, I chose not to visit their page so that the only thing i was critiquing was this image. I have now seen their work, Great Stuff.

I make this comment often, but I think it applies here as much as ever.

This photo is confused. It has no idea what it wants to be. It's not a good glamour shot, because her hair is messy, the skin is unretouched, her nails are dirty, and you can see up her nose. It's not a revealing portrait, because great attention is paid to her hair (it's done to look messy, but still done), and she's obviously posed. It's not a proper period piece, because her clean skin and hair and her makeup say 'high class', while her dress, dirty nails, and woefully unadorned cane say otherwise. It's not even fantastic as a technical showcase, for reasons already stated.

That said, that doesn't mean it's a bad image. It's an excellent image, and it very much deserves to be Photo of the Week. It does mean that a month from now, I'm unlikely to remember this photo.

If I were to offer advice, I would say to pay more attention to what you want from your model while you are shooting, and don't be afraid to run the shoot. Directions are good, but even the lack of direction, or even the lack of doing anything ... making ... her ... wait ... until ... you ... are ... good ... and ... ready ... can have an important impact on how the photo is taken.

I feel like you didn't give your model clear enough direction here, or that you didn't give her enough time to get 'in character.' Her top hand is definitely posed (too unnaturally - like you just moved it a moment ago), while the bottom one is merely supporting the cane, and lacks the grace of the upper hand.

The best way to take this photo is to use a wireless remote, or a long cable release. pose the model, and then walk around so she is looking directly at your face, rather than up at a light. Then just wait. Silently. Until she is uncomfortable. Then wait longer. Don't smile, don't say anything, just wait. Stare her down, if you can. And then when she feels nervous, and uncomfortable, and about a foot tall, THEN you take the photograph. And when you do that you get the look that you tried to pose her in; but this time, it's natural. She's actually feeling those emotions, rather than being told to pretend she has them.

She's a pretty girl with nice nails. The eye is in critical focus. There's nothing busy in the background to detract from her. I too don't like the angle though. Also she needs some additional room on the right. She seems to be looking out of the picture at something not apparent to us although her face looks in another direction. Her left eye looks like it's missing because of the way her nose cuts across her face. Her face should look more towards the camera so both eyes are visible or turned more left for a true side view. I suppose the muddy and tinted finish as well as the style of her hair is to project a period piece or editorial type image. Nice shot.

[The] reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography.


I do not like to repeat the same lesson week after week but repeat it here I must. This is a novelty photograph. It depends on some sort of gimmick to make you interested in the image. Usually the novelty wears off. After that you have an uninteresting image. I believe that is what happened here. It is overkill prop-wise and technique-wise. It's everything and kitchen sink here. And it does not work. Why?

Photographs tell a story. They can be decisive moments or they can been elaborate visual comedies like the very good image of the lady sitting on the springs of a bed a few weeks ago. If they fail in telling a story they are dead images, no matter how clever the photographer is.

I do not know what the story is suppose by here. I do not care because the elements in this image are mere affectations. The double canes, the hat the net say nothing. The heavy sepia does nothing except make the image look like its been doused in sludge.

The model is pretty and I for one like her nostrils. If all the props were taken away, including that distracting chair and she was shot in ordinary black and white we might have had a good portrait here.

Alex, I do not think every photo should tell a story. And by the way, this photo tells me a story of a fiction of the thirties of the previous century There are some clichés: the cane, the soft hat, the net, the chair. Somehow it resembles a still photo from a film of the thirties or a theatre image. Chaplin?
The grey, the contrast and the toning - there is some sort of halo around her head - are quite right.
The crop is too close, it gives a feeling of compression of the subject, and I would wish a bit of more "air" around the top of the image, not much, just to avoid this feeling of a "roof" over her head.
The devil is in the details, which are not always visible in the viewfinder: I would have tried a slightly higher vantage point to get closer to the eye-level and show at least a fragment of her left eye, and moved a tad to the right to to separate her right iris from the lock of hair.

I have to agree very strongly with Alex. This image does not tell a story. This image attempts to tell a story in the sense of a period piece, but as myself and others mentioned, the elements of the image are not accurate to any particular time period ... it's just 'old stuff.'

I'm going to talk about one of my own images that is very similar, because I don't want to sound like I'm being overly critical of Mark's photo. As I said ... it may not stick with me, but it is indeed an excellent image.

In my portfolio is an image called 'The Repair Tech' - it is a young woman putting a pair of calipers up to a camera. Sorry for not linking, but it's giving me some trouble. At any rate ... my image suffers from the same problems this image does. The props and background are all WWII-era (the backdrop is actually surplus camo netting), but the woman's dress is not. She has the pin-up spit curl, but her makeup is done in a modern style, her shirt is the wrong cut, and her nails have a design on them - something that never would have been done at the time. One or two of these flaws may have been okay, but the combination of all three make it clear that this is NOT a "real" pin-up photo: it is a modernized pin-up-style photo that would normally feature a roller derby queen, or chicks with lots of tattoos. It just so happens that this paticular modern pin-up has authentic props. That doesn't make it authentic.

More importantly though, my image is posed. The woman is looking up like she was distracted in the middle or working, but that wasn't what actually happened. To really capture that feel, what I should have done is posed her, and then yelled her name and snapped the photo the second she looked up. That would have been much more natural, rather than having her gaze into the camera, which is what I did instead.

I hope I didn't confuse matters by critiquing myself here, but like I said ... I think Mark is potentially on to something if he changes a few things, and I don't want to sound too negative about him and his work, but I think understandng the shortcomings is helpful to others.

John A ../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif, January 17, 2012; 04:11 P.M. nailed most of my opinion;
the purplish tint is a weakness, in that the net result is a picture of technique rather than the subject in this part of the photo.
One strength for me (that has not been mentioned yet) is the echo of highlights in the cane and the eye. Without this echo, it would be much weaker.
Sum: strengths drown weakness to make a fine photo.

Tone is stunning - I feel it really adds to the mood of the image

Nice but nose seems overexposed.

Even if it was shot in a square format, the picture feels too tightly cropped. I want to see the picture extended down to the waist, approximately.

The eye, if anything, seems a little too sharp in comparison to the rest of the picture. It stands out a little too much because of that.

I don't think the upward tilt of the head or the nose, or the sharpness of the nose, is bad. They seem to evoke an aspirational quality; a sense of looking toward the future (with nose tilted up, I guess). Since this is a "period" picture, not a modeling picture, these things are not bad, I do not think.

I would guess that it is an umbrella, not a cane, that this young Victorian lady is leaning on.

I keep reading about the tight crop here and I know that is an individual opinion. But I do think that is a bit of a red herring. There are lots of great images that are tightly cropped and I personally don't see that as an issue here. There are just too many flaws in this image (I didn't mention the awful "patch" on her chin before, but it appears to be another bad fix here to add to the other technical flaws--including the issues with the skin). I think this image is just weak and cropping is the last thing that plagues its success. Just my opinion.