Untitled

i just feel that the resemblance to a portrait painting is almost indistinguishable and that is a brilliant trait to have caught on film, i think this is done by the perfect light and the overall softness of the picture.

Excellent comments, Marc.

I can't recall specifically saying that we "shouldn't ask pictures to be something else than what they are trying to be"... perhaps your paraphrasing causes some translational loss. I actually feel that photographs, and most good art, causes the viewer to create their own interpretation of the various stimuli contained in the image, based on their own cultural context, sexual orientation and personal history. So regarding your comment that "we are left here to guess who she might be", I don't find that to be substantially different in this example than in any other photograph, especially since we have so litle to work with in this example. For instance the title "1231732"... is not much to go on. Nor is her expression, gesture or the contextual signifiers in the image (which are very few).

Iconography comes with a set of visual clues that pre-load context. Had this portrait been contained in a Vesica Pisces, or a subtle hand gesture offered, I might have been able to consider this woman as a portal for the spirit made flesh... the madonna who seemingly has no child. But the scarf is a subtle reference to something I can't seem to invent, and the background is devoid (perhaps a subtle halo would push me toward the iconic form you suggest).

I think a good piece of artwork initiates a conversation between the viewer and the work, but this one just stares. Perhaps an appreciation of the immutable is required to enjoy it, and I can appreciate a good enigma as much as the next fellow.

I value a spirited discourse that addresses substantial issues. Nice to hear from you... t

Fine portrait, good soft lighitng, wish it was larger to see it bit more closer and also if there was some catchlight in the eyes. Very simple and beautiful overall. Regards, Javed

It's simple why this is such a great portrait. It's simple, well lit, and the subject is a simply pretty girl that was presented in a wholesome way. It may refer back to an old style of portraiture, but in this era of flash and pinash, this kind of photo is a case of what's old is new again; and it moves us.

Don

It's mostly three things at once that emotionally work for me. As other have noted the serene expression, and the Vermeer like diffused lighting of the face. In addition, the color's evoke for me a contrast between the grays of the background and scarf and the colors of her face, the life peering out from the gray. This contrast is emphasized by the use of the gray scarf; otherwise the models red hair might interfere with that contrast. A masterful and emotional use of color and light.

I uploaded this image, cranked up the green, and sure enough, the scarf is loaded with it, so I'm pretty sure that's where that hue comes from. With a different neutral scarf, I think the problem would be solved.

I imagine that everything has been said by now. So I only intend to make a comparison with the icon this photo has been compared with.

The Mona Lisa is definitely an overrated ugly itch, (is she?). What makes her so special is the fact that there are no other paintings like her anywhere.

 

Here are the comparisons:

 

Mona Lisa: The use of warm bold colors and deep shadows combine to create a dramatic portrait, while at the same time, her facial expression gives it a sense of peace and tranquility. The background adds interest to, and frames the subject. Her face and relaxed arms display lots of emotion. The detail in her dress, including highlights in wrinkled sleeves, add an element of beauty. The painting is set in an undeniable rule of thirds and each third is filled to its utmost.

 

(The lower third) GRACEFUL hands and the strong diagonal line these create. Wrinkles in sleeves and complete darkness around these accentuate hands.

 

(Middle third) fine detail in dress by chest area fading into full darkness. GRACEFUL tension created by the use of two opposing curves (top of dress and cloak at shoulder).

 

(Top third) GRACEFUL smile and relaxed appearance coupled with the fact that she is not making eye contact with the viewer add a sense of mystery and freedom to inspect subject freely. It doesnt look contrived. When you look at the Mona Lisa, your eye travels in a smooth transition from top to bottom, to scenery of painting behind her, and back again to do a double take. All the while your eye experiences complete delight in every inch of the painting.

 

The photos plain background, while concentrating attention on the young woman, makes the whole photo very plain and insipid. The photograph seems cold and lifeless, almost detached, in spite of the fact that she is looking straight at the viewer. Her expression shows a little inhibition.

The photograph contains only two elements of interest, mainly, her face and scarf.

Your eye travels from the scarf to the face and from the face to the scarf and that is all that is provided for the eye to inspect and appreciate. What do I rate the photo? Two sevens without hesitation. An excellent photo by all its rights, but pales (pardon the pun) when compared to the Mona Lisa.

 

This photograph runs circles around the Mona Lisa as far as beauty is concerned. And in fact before I took a look at the Mona I thought this photo was far better then it. But a quick look at the Mona and even a blind man can see the difference.

 

This photo, by the way, was inspired by the Mona Lisa and who can deny that?

Hey! How about this! The photograph is an image of a young woman created by Leona

The Mona Lisa is an image of a young woman created by Leona-rdo.

 

Here is a link to the Mona Lisa for quick comparison.

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/vinci/joconde/joconde.jpg

 

Thanks Sergey for the link.

I have not read all responses but most.

First let me say that I like the portrait very much. Putting the technicalities aside, which, by the way, are very well executed, I believe that the charm of the picture comes mainly from the engaging model.

 

As for the model, her character comes across not from the environment, but from the slightly distant look in her eyes and the slight smile, this together with the clothes bring out a character which I can identify. The easiest way to explain what I see in her character would be to say that when I look at this photograph I see in front of my eyes the character Marya Bolkonskaya from War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy. Because of the look in the eyes and the smile she comes across as not waiting for the shoot to be over but telling the photographer "I know you're there, but you're presence is not at all important, I can see beyond such petty things."

 

The emotions that this portraits evokes in me are mostly on a spirtual level. This can be good or bad depending on personal outlook.

Nice picture yes, perfect no! Give it 7/10

 

Some of the problems:

1. Background- poorly seperated from subject which tends to float against dark background.

2. Scarf- the knot is sloppy, and "competes" with attention with subjects face (biggest problem), it should have been at least burned down. Better yet it should have been moved lower in frame and burned. The scarf also looks phony on her, she looks like she never wore one before(and this knot sits on her shoulder). She also doesn't have the farm girl look. She also looks to young for it.

3. Facial flaws- right eye is on edge of background and bridge of nose cuts it off (face should have been a bit more toward camera). Her left eye has a red blemish in corner of eye. (retouching).

4. Lighting- too flat, a higher light ratio would have increased the three dimensional look. Stong shadow on left cheek. Also appears to have color crossover in neck area.

5. Cropping- bit to tight, although I would like to see it first from farther back to say for sure.

6. Burning in- needed on bottom half, and especially over the knot area, perhaps some across back of scarf to emphasize face more.

 

 

Of course it's hard to make a perfect photo, but when I read others saying it's better then the Mona Lisa, well...it didn't get famous by having tons of flaws (although this girl is much prettier then Mona). It's easy to pull this shot off using flat lighting. This picture did catch my attention, but it does have flaws. I'm not perfect either, just being analytical. Pleasing overall, the customer would not be disappointed.

Also the second photo is nice, but again bottom area needs burning, hands are same zone 6 as face, and bottom half too busy (burning helps). Again competing for attention.

Nice picture, but I immediately was distracted by a color cast. Didn't anyone else see this?

Don't want to be discouraging or anything, but it's a terrible photo! The scarf is simply awful and should never have been used. It is ugly and dominates the picture. The subject is the model, and she is certainly interesting, but has not been directed well. She looks extremely uncomfortable about being looked at, so does the second subject in the second photo. The discomfort of the model is a reflection on the discomfort of the camera person.

The shot was really great, pose,lighting and the rest.

 

But i think what really makes this photo outstanding is the exoticity of the model's beauty.

 

I beleive if you will use another model with a different race, you will not obtain the same effect as what you have captured on this one.

 

Try it and inform me of the result.

 

Gary

Take note: Given the exposure it deserves, including professional publication, this image will ride the journey of time to gain the status of "Classic". This portrait would stand proud aside photgravures of Camera Work just as well as amongst the best of any of today's modern art portraiture. I want one.

 

Dear Leona, It's beautiful. KP. (...I really do want one.)

I think this photo, and the attention it has garnered is of great interest to all of us here in the PN forums. Not only because of the technical proficiency with which it was attained but because of the 'look' of the subject.

As far as technical values, I would say it is fairly well done. The wardrobe choice could have been different in as much as the black top she's wearing reads as nothing at all. While this draws us into the face more, and despite it's having been slightly delineated by the background, it's still featureless. Would a dark, dull grey or brown not have worked better?

I believe the yellow under the chin is due to the use of a C.T. Orange gel on one of the lights, or a gold reflector--not poor dodging. The three catchlights show us one that is yellow/gold. I like this part of it though. It's a common trick in stage lighting to use one cold and one warm source to create the illusion of depth and has been used well here. Nothing new is being done here. But then again, NEW is not a word typically associated with 99% of the portraiture I've seen in my daily life. Yes it's well done, the model has a certain paradoxical look in her expression and the lighting is fairly well excecuted. But what is this image doing to inform the viewer about the nature of the sitter? About the possibilities of photography?

I would submit that it's not much at all.

This is a classic example of how to make a good studio photograph.

 

1. Start with an attractive model!

 

2. simplify, simplfy, simplify.

 

This photogaph has an excellent choice of background and wardrobe. The coup de

grace is the grey head scarf. By using this scarf and the grey and black clothing

everything in this portrait is dark grey or black.

 

Only the face stands out. Perfect, no distractions.

 

The lighting looks simple as well, just two lamps on the subject and maybe (I can't

tell) a separate light on the backround. The key light, the one to camera left, is at the

best angle to light the subject's face with a minimum of shadow. What shadow there

is, is filled from camera right at about 1 stop less intensity from the key. A simple

set-up that anyone can do at home with a couple large, soft, light sources.

 

And the pose is very flattering to the subject as well.

 

I would retouch the shadow on the girls nose, but that's just me. I'm a perfectionist.

 

Superb job, one to emulate

Here's the retouched nose.

Review: Wow. I am new to photography, but no matter how much I learn, photographs such as this will always remind me of my own ignorance.

 

Why is this photograph good. 75% lighting; Please let us know the lighting set up. 25% expression. What I hate most about photographing people is that as soon as the see themselves int the cross hairs of a camera the truly intresting expression on their face disloves into the usual cr@%%y expression I see in almost every Kodachrome snapshot in my family photo album. In your portrate the subject is not expressing much emotion but is also not staring into the camera. Compare/contrast this aspect with the other photograph posted. This leads us to take more intrest in the subject. When poeple stare at us intently, even if from a photograph, we tend to look away.

I thank you for contribution and all that I have learned from the other comments on this photograph.

I dunno, I'm trying to figure out why this photo doesn't do anything for me...

 

On the face of it (if you pardon the pun) it seems like a technically well executed image, though as a photojournalist, studio work is somewhat alien to me and therefore I'm not going to criticise the methods or equipment used to obtain the end result.

 

Regarding the photo itself; there's no *POP* to it, no "capturing of the moment". It feels too set-up with no spontaneity at all and very little apparent chemistry between the photographer and the subject. Overall, I find it rather wooden.

 

The subject seems all too aware of the camera and very self-conscious about the whole situation - IMHO a portrait should be as natural as possible, whether a set-up studio shot, an environmental portrait or a candid - and it should be the photographer's objective to make the subject essentially forget that the camera is there.

 

My experience is that people ARE nervous about being photographed, and putting the subject at ease (humour is a very useful tool here) will create a much more natural look that is more representative of the person being photographed.

This photograph's model eye where trying to speak something. The photographer had made it very conventional.

I don't think this photo is technically perfect - assuming that the web verison posted spans the color space of the original rgb - I see completely blocked low tones in the black outfit beneath the scarf and the center of the forhead is prectically clipped - a hotspot. I like the image, though.../

Some interesting discussion here about the relationship of the model to the photographer, and the insistence by some that the photographer has a responsibility to alter the reality of the scene in front of his or her camera ... an insistence that the photographer interpose an artificial element ("putting the subject at ease," etc.) to make the subject "look natural" for yet a third party, the viwer of the result. I must admit a weakness for images in which the subject is at least relatively unguarded, let alone having been manipulated, in his or her reaction to the lens.

The photo technique is very good, but what makes it, at least for me, is that the model is gorgeous - I fell instantly in love with her. She looks innocent and sexy, and has beautiful features.

The photograph is excellent. The cropping could be greatly improved. Are you photographing

a beautiful woman, or a beautiful scarf? The right side crop should go through the left tip of the

black band on the scarf at the woman's shoulder. The bottom crop should be somewhere

through the "tail" of the knot on the scarf--just cutting off the tip of the tail.

 

NOW the "primary optical focus point" for the viewer is the woman; the scarf isn't even seen. If

you are selling scarfs it is cropped well as it is. If you are capturing a woman's image for the

ages, forget the scarf and force the viewer to concentrate his eye on the subject. Recropped,

I'd say this photograph should get the highest of ratings. (Forget photoshoping the nose unless

it is for advertising illustration; in ten years this woman won't look like she does in the photo and

she and her children will appreciate the reality of an unadulterated image.)

It is a likeable 'creation' but the scarf ruins it. It looks 'placed' and awkwardly so - as though she is afraid to move her head lest it falls off. So, she looks stiff. I bet the scarf was a problem for you both in this shot... The scarf knot also looks misplaced - on the side like that. Really? Sorry, but this is a good example of what NOT to do.