***

It's different and I like different. Shoot looking up and shoot looking down. Give us some new views.

Nothing wrong with the classic portrait but nothing wrong with branching out. I like the vintage feel and tones you provided. Good job but I do agree the featureless bright spot on her chin is a nit against..

I'm often struck by how important "different" can be. In fact, sometimes the only attribute a photograph may have is that it's "different," and that attribute alone is sufficient in the minds of many to give the photograph high praise. I saw this in recent years with completely over-the-top saturated colors made by pushing sliders to extreme levels, and the resulting comments were on the order of "fantastic colors," terrific colors," or "colors like I've never seen before." Of course they hadn't been seen before -- they were created, but at least they were very, very different. That newness, or that element of being different, was all that many viewers apparently needed to like the photograph.

In a similar vein, my son often tips the camera 30 degrees or so when making a photograph of someone. He, like a number of others, is apparently tired of the unchanging and boring effects of gravity (this is, in essence, his explanation to me), and effects very new and very different can be photographed with that minor tipping of the camera. That difference alone can earn high praise from some viewers. Quality of light or normal compositional elements don't seem to matter as much as that element of being different.

Perhaps its the ubiquity of cameras and the ubiquity of Internet sites displaying staggering numbers of photographs that has led to this desire for difference, and if difference can be achieved, that's the only criterion needed for success in the minds of many viewers. That's the reaction that occurs inside me when I read the opening lines of the previous comment, although it also comes up very regularly when I read comments on non-POW photographs. Being different can often be exceedingly important in today's photo-saturated world, or so it seems.

Stephen, isn't "different" really an attribute to be sought after? Aren't we trying to establish our difference as people and as photographers? The problem, IMO, is when different is the only criteria and everything else is dismissed. I think that is why some things are so short lived. They tantalize with their difference but there is no substance to them and the fade away. And often, it is time and knowledge that is needed to differentiate the empty from the sublime.

In photography, we see this repeatedly--some of the same things--as people discover photography and then photoshop or the equivalent, then HDR, then whatever. We see the same monstrosities created over and over--and over the years-by new people and then the praise they get from their peers. The funny thing is that I created some of those back in the mid 90's as part of a series for a major (think top 3) computer companies promotional efforts--and they were used! I have seen lots of "flimsy" trends in commercial work which got their 15 minutes and do their job in the short run and then other innovations that stick around until they are so copied that the become too ordinary and something new appears on the scene.

Recently, I actually saw some work/websites of some very well respected photographers that appear to have just discovered Photoshop. One was a very innovative photographer from the 70's and his new series seems like what most of us do when we discovered--when it first came out for me--the liquify tool. Some of the work seems to work but others seem like idle play. Just my opinion. The website I saw was for a couple of more prominent artists today and maybe was more like the images you described in your entry--crazy color and like PS was just discovered. I really didn't explore too far to see what was going on and it may have just been play--I need to go back and check it out again.

Different is exciting, we just have to ferret out substance vs sugar... sometimes I think that takes distance and time, sometimes not so much.

We all know that there each of us has a unique point of view. That's what makes photographers unique. I Like the overall effect and mood of the photo. However, my initial response was that it is a bit muddy. I would play with the contrast without loosing the aged look. If it is meant to look old then softening the skin may have been a good idea, given that lenses may not have been as sharp, thereby killing two birds with one stone. I also agree with a previous comment with regard to "artifacts" in the background... unless that too was meant to give the illusion of an old photo that's spent time in a shoe-box. Otherwise, a good photo to be proud of.

I like the overall feel of the shot. For me, the composition is well done with one major exception, the vestigial left eye. The little wisps of hair between the nose and lips are also distracting. Nevertheless, the lighting is dramatic and the subject's expression is enigmatic enough to make me ponder.

John, I posted this at 2:00 a.m., and when I went to bed, I realized that I had made a gross generalization, and I expected (and deserved) the kind of response you made - thanks for making it. A different point of view, a unique take on a common subject or common place, a photo that sees something in a way that hasn't been presented before, those are good aspirations and something many photographers strive for, and I try to compliment them when they do so, even if the might fall short (trying new approaches is not easy -- there aren't many guideposts).

Those are attempts to find new, fresh avenues to subjects that have been photographed many times in the past. A new perspective is the goal.

What I'm trying to refer to are those photographs where the primary purpose seems to be not a new perspective but rather simply something different -- different for the sake of being different. And then the praise that follows of "fantastic colors" and the like.

The real difficult question, for me at least, is how do I tell the former from the latter. Usually it can be found in the question I pose to the photographer: "Why did you do it this way?" Some can give a logical, coherent reason, regardless of whether I (or others) think their new approach worked. Others give a much more simple answer: "I wanted something different." I really thing the underlying motivations between the two extremes are fundamentally different, and like many things in life this is probably a continuum and there will be examples that have characteristics of both motivations.

So when I see green skies over a purple sea, I want to ask why was this done? Was it to interpret the sea and sky in a new and different way to project a new appreciation and impart a new feeling for those elements, or was it done simply to have something radically different in terms of colors primarily just to be different? The former I can applaud, while the latter seems to be borne of sheer boredom and without any new insight that provides a basis for the change except that it's so easy to do.

Does that make sense?

Someone said "the photo is B&W, probably trying to achieve old age effect. It would be better in color. B&W tone is depressing."
I couldn't disagree more with this statement. I think the tones are beautiful and I think they suit the model's pensive expression and pose. They're somewhat unusual and so they cause the portrait to stand out from the thousands of color photographs we see every day. I also think the point of view from which the portrait was made is very effective, again because it's different from the typical "straight on, head and shoulders" portrait that's so common. I don't think that "different" or "unusual" in and of themselves are necessarily qualities that should be automatically praised. It's easy to be different, unusual, and not very good. But when the aspects of the image that are different and unusual contribute to the effectiveness of the photograph, as I think they do here, then they deserve praise. Overall I think it's an excellent portrait.

Far from distracting, the stickback chair is very well used in that position, binding and complementing other parts of the composition. A beautiful model, very well lit and depicted, nose-and-all. So far as the many crit's on post-processing flaws and missed opportunities are concerned, this week's news of Kodak imminently going down the pan serves to remind me what a sadly negative contribution (pun not intended) digital photography has made to the art of portraiture, amongst other photographic genres. Too much attention is now paid to trivialities, and too little to fundamental photographic effect through proper use of the lens and light.

To me this photo does tell a story. It looks to me as if the woman is in morning, for who? We don't know, but she is holding a cane that appears to possibly be of an elderly man? I don't know and it doesn't mater. The perspective might possibly be of that of a child looking up at their mother. She is looking up and seems very contemplative, perhaps she is questioning her own faith, common during periods of loss.

The props, if they are indeed props, are spot on, very well done!

The one thing I don't like is the lack of touching up to remove dust and noise and might just be a little over the top (or possibly not enough) for creating the gritty period feel of this photo.

By the way, a very nice portfolio.

Stephen, my take on saturated colors, use of unusual perspective, and most other choices made by photographers is that what's crucial is the way elements are integrated . . . it's a matter of harmony, discord, and counterpoint.

Andy Warhol's colors could be somewhat extreme and could be criticized for being too blatant and over the top, likewise some of the Expressionists were extremely bold with color. Warhol's colors wouldn't have worked with a different kind of subject matter and overall style. The bright orange backgrounds, for example, wouldn't have worked without Marilyn being the subject and without her face being repeated on that background. He integrated his colors into his overall expression. A viewer might not like it but it can certainly be seen that his work is integrated.

As for slider bars, I wouldn't want to make a universal assertion, though it's rare I see them used effectively when used to the extreme, precisely because it often comes across as an add-on, a photographic bell and whistle rather than an integrated expressive element. That being said, some very realistic sunset colors drive me as nuts as extreme slider bar manipulation. These sunsets just seem sappy and those colors start to grate on my nerves when they are part of a very typical sunset pic. If there is something personally expressive in the photograph itself, in the lighting, in the perspective, in the atmosphere, in the photographer's engagement with the scene, then those colors might very well work. But the vast majority of unmanipulated red sunset pictures turn me off as much as the vast majority of manipulated-for-saturation landscape pictures.

_______________________

Keith, digital photography has nothing to do with it. Critics have always had to reach some sort of balance between the emotional effect of a photo and the technical aspects of a photo. I can't discount either. For me, the emotional effect is strongly influenced by the technical aspects, though I agree with you that technical pixel-gazing can be taken too far. But that's been the case long before digital. One of the biggest criticisms of Ansel Adams was that his technical genius superseded and may even have diminished the emotional content of his photos. Just as I said above in response to Stephen, I'd say the same thing here. It's the way technique and emotion are integrated that ultimately determines how I feel about a photo. I refuse to ignore either at the same time as I refuse to allow either to completely dominate my experience. Most of the arts are a combination of inspiration, creativity, emotion, and craft. They all work together.

Stephen, I think we can applaud good motivations for doing something different but I think we still have to make a determination if it worked and if it is something that is truly well thought out. My normal "look at the body of work" for hints, I think, is really important in these sorts of cases. Is the work a random piece among random pieces or maybe a random piece in a larger body that is consistent otherwise or is it a consistent piece in a well thought out body of work. The work in one's portfolio will generally also inform you as to where the person might be in their development and give us clues as to their predilections as to how they see the world even if their craft is not yet evolved. These are all clues that help us read a piece and what someone may or may not be doing in reality.

I would add to the discussion of technical considerations that an image can exhibit awful technical qualities but when that works in that image, then it works and is not a deficiency. There are too many photographs out there to settle on images that don't come together in a unitary way--where the technical and aesthetic considerations work together.

Certainly, one can recognize the positive attributes of a photo but let's not get carried away with an image that otherwise has significant issues with its presentation that do not otherwise work with the image. It is not being overly sensitive to technical issues to evaluate an image that fails like this--unless we are talking a singular image of a singular, historically notable event where such unity is secondary.

Well, I think that finding the composition to be unbalanced is a substantive criticism. I'm not basing this criticism on how I think a picture should be composed, but on how I perceive it every time I look at it. Just feels awkward. I don't think that a square format works here.

A detail that I just noticed which bothers me a little is that the bit of left eye that is visible seems unnaturally white. Some of the technical glitches that have been noted don't bother me terribly because I assume they could be easily fixed .

Great lighting and face expression, but what's up with the walking stick? Or is it an umbrella?!?

Fred G, I'd have preferred our discussion to have gone, perhaps, down the path of the place of the stickback chair in the composition, as I'm happier with the firmer ground which that provides :) However, having started the comparison of digital versus film, please allow me to follow that up just a little further: There's much in what you say, and thank you for your erudition in stating it. However, I persist with thinking that film offers the photographer a closer artistic link between seeing a picture (or creating a posed one) and emotionally achieving a great result, even with Ansel Adams's techniques being used against that argument. Digital, merely by generating so much discussion of the possibilities of getting the "best" result, as in these interminably detailed Photonet postings on PoW, shows itself as diminishing original artistic flair by getting perfected results from post-production technical fiddling. To my mind there is no comparison between the two that deserves any closer examination. One is either in one camp or the other, and no end of rationalisation of the merits of digital, or of my error in claiming a positive differential for film, will divert me from my prejudice against it. Probably it's my loss, but there we are...I'm a lost cause :) BUT, I am dedicated to valuing difference, so long may the debate continue, so long as memories permit!

Keith, I agree that the chair back is used well and adds a nice element of design to the image. It relates well to the curve of her dress against her chest and also to the handle of the cain or umbrella. It's a nice graphical accompaniment.

John A

You are perfectly right in respect to the comments on the thight crop. It is not a universal truth.

But in this case the issue is related to how the model is placed within the frame, and since the vantage point is low, by the way determining the emphasis of the nose you have pointed out.

So it is not so much an issue of close crop, but of positioning the main subject within the frame.

I do not see the lighting issues of the nose and the chin.

Honestly, I'm having great difficulty in understanding or imagining how film offers a "closer artistic link" between seeing a picture and emotionally achieving a great result. It's just light falling on different things at the back of the camera. I'm also not sure that I could go along with defining "artistic flair" as something that's inherent in the medium of film; that seems to me to belong more to the photographer. Finally, if you want to see digital results that are far, far from perfected, just look at any of my digital photographs (they are mixed in with photographs taken with film, so you'll have to look at the details tab).

Lucas, we just disagree, I don't feel the crop is an issue here at all.

I do agree with Stephen as I don't see any difference between film and digital with regards to Keith's comment. Since I have been shooting for almost 35 years and only started shooting digital regularly about 4 years ago, including commercially-which means much more time behind a camera than most for the last 20+ years--I think I would notice the difference. (Keith, I don't know anything about your reference point with regards to this issue, so it is hard to actually know what you mean) There are differences but I don't think where Keith suggests and I think where I see them, it is a matter of minor tradeoffs rather than deep valleys.

I like the image. It might have commercial value to the subject. It lacks enough mid-tones.

Very contrived image, suitable for advertising or a model's portfolio. Good composition and stylization showing creativity.

Stephen, I think the reason that film is generally considered to be a 'truer artistic medium' is because it is a more hands-on process, and the artist is (theoretically) involved from start to finish. Of course this is BS, since there are always people like Robert Mappelthorpe who didn't develop his own film, and hardly ever set foot into a darkroom. Ditto for Avedon and a hundred others. I'm not starting a debate here ... just saying that there are arguments on both sides, and most of those arguments have so many exceptions that they're basically all bunk.

I am going to play devil's advocate though, because I like how this has turned into a conversation about art, and not just the photo.

Is different always better? What about Araki and his bondage photos? Or Mappelthorpe's 'self portrait with whip'? Those are different. Are they universally good? Who gets to judge? What about Irving Penn's portraits from 'Small Change', which were all of blue-collar, everyday workers? Those aren't different at all: does that mean that the critical reception it got was incorrect?

And for those of you that think this is different ... have you been on Deviant Art lately?

Zack, I think different isn't always just visual. But different isn't the only thing that is important either. Avedon and Mapplethorpe also had distinctive styles and bodies of work that informed everything they did. Different can also be an idea, the ability to see relevance in what others see as irrelevant.

There are lots of factors and different is neither unidimensional nor exclusive to what makes great art.

The composition looks more balanced if the proportions are altered a bit.

See attached.

A very theatrical image (varied compositional elements - different symbols - dramatic lighting choice and perspective - a number of repetitive forms - a particular expression of the subject and her hands - the reality effect of evident small blemishes of the model's face and long neck - resulting in good image intensity) that I think is ultimately providing too much, and is consequently a bit unconvincing - there seems to be no discernible root from which springs a particular meaning of the image. He has thrown a book of tricks at it, which is quite impressive, at least in the short term. One is forced to sit up and take notice of this epicurean portrait, but I believe it is too eclectic to focus a specific emotional or even visual experience for the viewer. He is an interesting commercial photographer, especially as some images of his varied portfolio (and home web link) succeed in providing more real elegance, simplicity of means, and communicative effectiveness. A portfolio of interest.