Untitled

http://img.photosight.ru/2004/01/08/383545.jpg

etc. here

Nice work of art. I reminded me of the Mona Lisa.

Attractive subject, good lighting, standard studio background, standard pose, good use of props . . . . oops . . . light reflected off the scarf which produced unwanted color on the neck.

Nice soft light. Congrats!

I think what is captured here that appeals to most is the expression; which, IMO, the modle has done an exceptional job. All technical aspects looks average here.

Certainly the subject and make-up play a large role. However, I believe the choice of scarf (clor and pattern)and background provide an interesting but not distracting contrast with the skin tones. Combined with the well controlled concentration of the main light on the face, an almost three dimensional element is achieved and thus, in my opinion, draws the eye to her face, which I think all agree has very pleasant features.

I'm not really sure why this portrait has received so much praise. I guess, like any art, it's very subjective. To me, this is a good portrait (much better than I could do!), but certainly not exceptional. I find the lighting a little flat, and the model isn't really all that attractive (not unattractive, but nothing special that grabs my attention). Pose and look is nothing original. It's something I would expect from a portrait photographer.

For those who find this an unexceptional or boring portrait, I'd be interested in understanding the qualities that you'd view as making for a great portrait, and perhaps an example or two.

 

There has been much discussion about the eyes and the smile. I think the eyes and smile have a lot to do with what makes this engaging, as for me they do the job of bringing the subject to life despite the general lack of context. Even though we know very little about her, still there is a detached warmth to her, and for me that is in the eyes and smile. This portrait does an excellent job of capturing something I find very personal.

 

My suspicion is that those who find this inadequate as a portrait don't really like portraits -- or prefer environmental portraits. There is a way in which a good, simple portrait like this is far more "Zen" than last weeks composition.

The black space in the bottom left (shoulder) adds a lot of strength to the overall composition, its shape is dramatic to the shape of the face...the scarf and background are excellent choices...the shadow line and neck are disruptive, both sharp and odd or out of context with the rest of the photo...the eyes, skin and hair are very well presented...the technical photography expertise and the eye to put all these elements together is commendable...however, the facial expression is uncapitvating to me, and the overall photo does not catch my interest, to me the subject is lifeless ...

While so many aspects of this portrait are classic and remarkable, I am disturbed by what is, on my laptop monitor at least, a sort of sickly yellowish/greenish cast to the shadow at the lower right and on the neck of the subject. I do think that it is fine that there is a shadow on that area of the face. But is the color issue just in my monitor? To me this issue upsets this otherwise terrifically-beautiful rendering. If it IS my monitor, which is a recent one from a major vendor, then this points up one of the the perils of web publishing of photos. What do we do about THAT?

One of the things I always do with a portrait, photographed or painted, is obscure each

side and observe the other independently. When I do this here, I see the eye on the

viewer's left looking slightly left, and the eye on viewer's right looking directly toward me.

I like what Marc G. said about the double catchlights, but to me, that's what's more

'mysterious' about her eyes. Also, due to the tipping of her head, the pupils of her eyes are

just slipping under the edge of her eyelids, though they are mostly open. This gives her

eyes that serene, peaceful, almost slightly sleepy look that many old masters favored,

Rennaissance or otherwise.

I dont' think that color in the neck is a bad light reflection... It looks to me like some dodging gone south... JMO.

Of course I noticed the nice lighting... and I thought the subject looked plain, but then noticed she is quite beautiful. Not sure why, just like this hidden beauty came out. Something peaceful about her too... I really don't want to anylize it, just enjoy the simple pleasure of looking at the image. By the way, my eyes don't quite "line up" perfect, and I didn't notice this about the model until someone mentioned it, but then again I'm not sure some of it's an optical illusion because of the camera angle and light positions. The shadow mentioned (cheek/neck) doesn't bother me a bit, if anything it adds to the image... nice curve and all.

I like the portrait, dont get me wrong, but I think its trying to be too much like Steve McCurry's 'Afghan Girl', and maybe thats why everyone likes it so much.

 

Its got good tones, and I dont care about the shadow on the cheek/neck, because you have to have some difference between highlights and shadows somewhere in the pic.

 

Its a nice pic, but I personally think its lacking in something... maybe a story, or some more mood. If its meant to be more arty, then it needs to be more porcelainy (in my opinion).... which is all this is... opinions.

 

Nice portrait though. Clean

The image Sergey posted is so much more interesting, having narrative, lyric, emotional and metaphorical qualities that are completely lacking in this POW which strikes me as aloof in content and intent. Our subject (titled "1231732") appears only to be waiting for the moment to be done. She seems devoid of any emotional presence...even the scarf is animated by comparison.

The "popular" images of women here on photo.net are either over the top hyper-sexual fantasy babes advertising their sexual availability, or unobtainable iconic ideals suffering from some equally disturbing malaise of artificial purity (note the "celestial" light in this POW that leaves her face devoid of any shadow that might hint at complexity of character or thought).

We praise the narrowest versions of Aphrodite and Hestia, and ignore Diana, Athena and Atalanta. It's a sad, imposed polarity that ignores all the complexity and fascinating variety that women contain and reflect back into the world.

Perhaps I've pushed my point a bit far. I find this image to be technically adept and an excellent commercial portrait... but unremarkable otherwise.

I am captivated by the expression and the stare. The only thing that keeps this from being a great portrait is the extremely flat lighting. I really like the scarf and the way it surrounds the central focal point of the photograph (the face of the model) but I just wish there were a little more depth to the portrait. I feel that if the fill light were off or toned down about a stop and a half, it would create more modeling on her face and significantly reduce the shadow on her neck.

hello everybody....well first i wanna say that this one here is a very nice portrait, for sure!!! but whats special about that? i mean its nothing special about it i think, its a portrait with good lightning, but its so easy to make, and everybody- i mena not everybody, but if u have a little interest in photography and have the money for equippment....- can do it, there is nothing unique about it, or its absolutely not creative, i think. but don't get me wrong, its a nice portrait, i like.

To get back to the original questions...I think the praise for this picture comes mainly

down to compositon. This portrait follows the rules of the golden section (almost 38% /

62%) with an intersection falling between her nose and her left eye. Basically the picture is

almost perfectly balanced. The scarf is used cleverly as it is similar to the background but

different enough to create a "vignette" around the face, drawing the viewer into the point

of interest. These fundamentals of compostion are why so many comparisons have been

made to "The Masters" such as Vermeer and the others. (RE Sergey's photo - While

technically it is probably better - compositionally there is too much going on at the

bottom for you to be drawn into the subject).

On an emotion level the viewer is left with a "is she / isn't she?" feeling from her

expression, and the styling has given her a demure quality, but as a portrait, I feel we are

left knowing more about where she is from, than what she is like.

Tom, I generally share your views on many studio images of people that I read here and there on the site. But when you say "She seems devoid of any emotional presence", while I agree with you entirely, to me this is a good thing in this case - and that's what caused so many comparisons to classical paintings and russian iconography. My point is just that we are left here to guess who she might be. I don't think that's necessarily bad, and rather I find it very interesting personally. You have been pleading a couple of times on the site for the idea that we shouldn't ask pictures to be something else than what they are trying to be. I agree. But in this case as well, why not simply keep on staring at her expression for a while, and see what happens. In fact, the Mona Lisa works exactly the same way - eventhough I am not suggesting that this photo is as good as the Mona Lisa. Cold art invites imo to a deeper viewing beyond the surface, and this picture does that - at least it does for me.

For example, the portrait uploaded by Sergey, while at first sight more interesting, warmer, more alive, and equally well done technically, does nothing at all for me. On Sergey's upload, I find that the model's expression is nowhere, whereas the POW's expression is "elsewhere". I also agree with Ian that the bottom of this image posted by Sergey is too busy and too bright. Bottom line, as I see it, the real artistry of a simple classical portrait lies in very fine things, and the most alive portrait is very often the most boring photo after the first minute of viewing. My personal preference goes to more moody ultra-expressive portraits over cold art, but apparently lifeless portrait have great merit imo if they manage to take the viewer a step beyond the face - and that's happening here imo.

When I read that a portrait like this is something anyone can do, of course it's a figure of speach, but even as such, I disagree. Technically, yes, it seems easy - and it is to some extent. But the "flat" lighting that retains a great 3D feel is one of the most difficult things in studio portraiture, and to match the light perfectly with the subject and her expression requires a high degree of finesse. If somebody looks superficially at this image, then it's indeeda very flat and superficial image; indeed it looks like a thousand of other portraits we see elsewhere. But 2 things, imo, pull it far above similar attemps: 1) The expression, if you get to the point where you try to read beyond this "mask"; 2) Fine details that require analysis to even be seen. The reason why I liked the elf's comment very much this week is that it takes this picture at face value and invites us to dig deeper to articulate our likes (or dislikes). To say that it's not an emotionally charged portrait is imo obvious. But that's where the analysis should start, not where it ends. Rigidity is really one of the 2 sides of Russian art, and has to be understood, just like anything else. Condemning a picture for what it attempts to do (i.e here: to be rigid and apparently lifeless) is imo the equivalent of expressing personal taste: ' I do not like portraits that are emotionally "empty" ' is just a general opinion as valid as any other one. But trying to see the merits of such artworks by analyzing them carefully can open number of doors to our own perception of things.

I absolutly love this. It's the best portrait I have seen! It's so warm and comforting. It reminds me of Scotland and the warm women there. I think that there is nothing more you could improve on this. It's perfect! I truly enjoyed it. Thank you for sharing it with me.

Comparizon with Russian Icons works also here ... and not only because Leona is from this part of the world,... Mona Lisa too although it is quite a far over-rated painting IMO but so many are...

very interesting to see how many different ways people judge/appreciate/like/dislike the same image... /

I have been looking at that green neck all week and was afraid to mention it thinking it was just my 3 monitors! Thank-you for the relief.

http://www.garageglamour.com/tips/smile.php

A simple explnation of possible why this portrian gives the viewer a sense of serenity and beauty.

I find some of the technical merits hard to evaluate, simply because the upload is severly

pixelated, particularly around the nose. I do find the originality score exceptionally high

for this type of image, and maybe that is just a result of a basic misunderstanding I might

have on how to quantify such a thing. Is this an original image? Does it have original

elements? Does the combination of elements create something exceptionally original? I

guess that is something for each individual to determine. I find that there are literally

thousands of uploads to this site that get remarkably lower marks for originality, that in

my estimation show a much higher degree of originality in so many ways. There are

technical flaws in the image, nothing Earth shattering, but they still exist, as they do in

almost every image. The question is, does this stand out from the crowd of images, or

even those in its own genre? Obviously it must to some, I am not of that group. J.

i understand that everyone loves this photo because of its classic feel. i do not feel this way. the hairstyle appears too modern underneath the headscarf. the pattern of the headscarf does not present itself as being traditional, which would have added to the classic feel. i believe the eyes probably should have been aimed a little lower instead of directly at lens level. the background is too generic of modern times. this does not feel like a classic painting. but, like many others say, not a bad potrait