Untitled

This has a subtle feeling, something like the Mona Lisa portrait by that Leonardo guy. Its like 'neither this nor that' kind of feeling that it evokes that maybe the reason...

Love the picture, great work.

-Naveen

I see a Mona Lisa quality to this as well.

A moody use of dark tones and a great makeup and/or retouch work on the flesh tones. Very Russian, my friend - and your other portrait as well - a touch of the eternal sadness. But we both know that this ain't quite the hyperbolie we're seeing above..

 

dos vadanya

An earlier post described this image as "...subtle..." My criticism would be: "not subtle

enough." As I look at this model, I imagine the head scarf falling away and all that is left is

a very pleasantly executed studio head shot. Sorry. I actually agree with many of the

positive comments made here, so perhaps it is the light weight critiqueing I take issue

with.

The Mona Lisa must be respected for the context, of our civilization, in which it was created, the elements of atmospheric perspective that it pioneered , and for the period of art that it began or at least influenced. Personally, I never found it "moving" so I will bow to the opinions of the experts on this particular image.

Here's a case where we should bend the rules and ASK for an oversized version, since the subtleties of this photo could best be appreciated with a near full-size picture. Surely getting the PoW could justify bending the rules, if the photographer is agreeable to doing so.

 

I saved it and doubled the size on the viewer, and, even with the pixelization, there is something special when seen larger. It is really quite beautiful.

Excellent! Can you tell us what equipment you used and how you used it to attain this fine piece of work? I aspire to this!

This picture fits my criteria for hanging whether I know the subject or not. It has a painterly light and tone and a timless effect of the scarf.

Great work really great work

The simple explanation to the question posed by the elves is that this portrait exemplifies all the qualities typically looked for in a portrait (composition, light, pose, color, etc, etc). It leaps off the monitor as quality work.

Again an outstanding portrait photo and those eyes just "glow"!

Some portraits are successful because they tell us a lot about a person. In fact, for those portraits, the really good ones might tell us more about them than they would want us to know. On the other hand, some portraits can be successful because they depict a mood or convey an emotion that is very striking, even though it has no real basis in the person photographed. I would submit that this photo is of the latter variety; I don't really look at the photo and think that this person wears a scarf and looks demurely over the left shoulder of the observer as part of her character. And in a world of strong emotions and opinions, the mood of this photo is subdued, perhaps ethereal, almost docile. I think the contrast between the mood of the image and the mood of most others we see is what makes this one striking. Its understatement is a rather strong statement in the end because it is uncommon.

 

I've seen a variety of comments about catchlights and lighting above. I'm not really convinced that there is any right or wrong number of catchlights, but for what it is worth I see three catchlights corresponding to lights or reflectors to photographer's right, to photographer's left, and to photographer's lower left.

I don't really understand all the praise, this photo does not grab me at all. Even after reading all of the comments, I can understand why it might be perceived as a good portrait, but it just seems boring to me.

Like Mark, I echo Faith's sentiment that the understatement of undramatic lighting in complement to the mesmerizing eyes give a juxtoposition of effect that intrigues.

May I suggest that this portrait is *cold* art, rigid - which is why I compared it earlier to Russian Iconic Art, and which may be why some people find it boring, or at least lacking this "spark of life"...? But is this rigidity necessarily a weakness of the picture, or are this contained smile and these unreadable eyes the cause of the etheral quality some (myself included) have found in this picture...? I perceive this portrait as one that may well *lack life* at first sight, but which may generate a lasting interest for those who will delve in those eyes.

To me it is a well done (good pose, good light, good tones) pic, a mixture of Mother Mary, Mona Lisa and Steve McCurry's Afghan girl and because it is so classic not too original. But I'd be happy had I taken it.

I first saw this portrait well over a year ago, when I first joined PhotoNet. At that time I rated it conservatively a 6/6. My attraction to this photograph rests on many levels. The lighting is flawless; no harshness exists, yet there is enough strength to exquisitely elucidate and model the subject's features. The color and saturation of not only the skin tones but also the drapping shawl are an accomplishment that I certainly envy. The RDP was an excellent choice. Further, the composure of the subject is relaxed and natural. Her eyes are captivating and do not stare at the viewer.

 

All the above were not happy accidents but were thoughtfully planned. My father, who was a portrait artist with paint and canvas, would have said of this photograph that "...it is very painterly done...". I can only reitterate that sentiment now and complement the photographer with a job well done. Regards.

just because a picture is flawless technicaly it doesnt mean it is a good photograph

 

i would much ratherhave a very astheticly pleasing, low quality image than a perfectly alligned perfect exposure shiznit

 

i personaly think this photo is very poor

i dont really care that this photo was taken with good equipment, and placed correctly

just because this person looks a certain way and was captured a certain way doesnt make it good

im not exactly how to explain this, im not very good with words

 

but i think photography, and all of art needs to have flaws

i dont know lol

it seems like alot of you have a very good education in classical art, that might change the way the image speaks to you but just because this image is "simalar" to the mona lisa, does not make it speacil

why like a photo because it reminds you of something that was came up with already

why not apreciat a photo for its orginality for something that is new about it

 

this photo has nor originalty at all

This was and is one of the best loved and favorite portraiture of mine in this site. It has a mystical quality. I congratulate the photographer again.

Very nice, nice colour, lighting.

A competent portrtrait, such as can be seen displayed in the windows of front street portrait studios in every small town.

 

As someone else pointed out, the yellow neck is disturbingly artificial-looking.

Yes, I like it a lot.

It is a classical italian painting. The composition and colors evoque - for me - the italian

painters of the 17th and 18th centuries. Since this is one of my favorite periodes, I can

only like this portrait !

Bravo

Lenny

Hoya!

 

Hey! We finally found who Mona Lisa was! ;-)

I do like this kind of portrait very much. It is so classical that it becomes timeless.

I hope I will be able to do this kind of things one day!

 

A.

Well, I think you got a good light and expression, but this is a very commum picture. Look to composition... there isn´t nothing special.

Pushkin, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy could capture the Russian Soul with words and this Russian photo-artist can capture it with a camera. Congratulations Leona!