Untitled

[The scarf] does compete for the face, which is one rule broken. As a beginner the shot may look great, but most pros can pick off a lot of faults in this shot, and that is what makes them a pro! All the faults once corrected does improve a shot, from improved color balance, proper burning in of the scarf, darkening the bottom to mover your eyes more to the face, etc, etc. If there was a side by side comparison, you would better understand, until then you tend to accept it as good (you just don't see the flaws which come with experience).

Also, the lighting is soft, yet casting the hard shadow on the face is plain amateurish. Accent lights, fills, need to be handled properly to avoid this kind of mistake! It is a bad one too! You won't see this in a quality portrait studio. Also if you had any professional skills, you would realize that ONLY ONE catchlight should be visible in the eyes ( the main light), and not three! It's a lucky shot, pleasing, but far from perfect. It has color tones off, cross-over possibly in the neck, hard shadow on face,lack of powder to reduce hot spots on face, needs burning in a few places (especially scarf knot area), basic retouching to remove extra catchlights/red skin around left eye. Finally, does she look like a farm girl to you, or shot in the middle east, does she look comfortable with it, does it not appear unnatural to have this scarf on such a young girl wearing modern cloths and makeup, isn't it out of style with the rest of her stuff including hair do?????Things don't jive! The message the subject communicates is false. It's a clean shot, but has plenty of room for tweaking in printing while some errors are too late to correct.

With my monitor turned right up I still do not see shadow detail in the dark top she is wearing. There are no white areas to get blocked, so additional exposure could have helped! Again, another flaw. I assume the image was "underexposed" a bit and adjusted digitally to bring the image back, however the shadows which were lost could not be brought back, and I think this is what has happened!

Remember it all looks good on the monitor(if it isn't, we just tweak the contrast/brightness controls to taste), but getting it to look good on print is the hard part! Traditional printing takes skill to bring out the best from an image. Bad printing can make a good image still end up in the garbage! Digital makes things easier, but knowing what constitutes a good print, and what corrections to make all takes experience and skill. The more you know, the more flaws you see, and the more things you can improve. I think this is why some of us rate this image highly (most amateurs would), and pros/prosumers rate it lower. I see many many many images far nicer then this one every day.This is something I expect from a Wallmart portrait studio, not a high end studio. In that sense it is still a good image.

"There are no white areas to get blocked, so additional exposure could have helped! Again, another flaw."

 

The center forhead would blow out if high tones were pushed any more - maybe a little midtone push...

...things don't jive!! This model looks like a Star Trekkie who forfeited her traditionally

stereotypical garb for the headwrapped-saint look. I'm not trying to bash her, she just

doesn't fit.

I like the photo. I would say it is 'good' whatever that means. But how could it

be one of the finest portraits? In order to make such an overwhelming claim,

one would have had to evaluate every portrait ever composed, which given

the huge number of portraits is probably physically impossible.

 

I don't understand what is so original about it. It has one of those standard

portrait backgrounds, used in a variety of situations including school pictures

for kids.

 

And comparing photography to painting is fairly absurd. Comparing this

photo to the Mona Lisa, or the 'masters' is completely absurd. I would like to

see photographers who compare photos to paintings, to produce a

reasonably competent painting. Painting and photography are not the same

process.

 

Painting is a much more arduous process. I like taking pictures, but choosing

an aperture, some lighting, ISO, a lens, composition, and so on, is nothing

like the physical experience of mixing paints, and knowledge required to

paint competently.

 

Any human with a pulse can buy an expensive camera with good glass, and

start taking some decent looking photos, with the occasional 'good' ones, and

once in a while beautiful, or 'wondrous' ones.

 

Especially with the new technology. 1k now buys an 8 megapixel camera,

and 5k a 14 megapixel camera.

 

It's not all about money by any means, but production value is tied to the cost

of the equipment.

 

I like the picture, but what about it is masterful? It seems that sometimes

high ratings are given because of an assumption that all POW are great

therefore raters are required to give the high rating given by previous raters.

 

Blind Conformity?

"There are no white areas to get blocked, so additional exposure could have helped! Again, another flaw."

The center forhead would blow out if high tones were pushed any more - maybe a little midtone push... ------------------

 

I highly doubt the forehead would blow out(if powder was applied it definately would not be a problem).

 

1. The skin is zone 6, and not really showing any major specular reflections off it. The eyes are actually even brighter then the skin, and no where near blowing out either(by the way, the eyes look yellow and a bit dark, the whites could be cleaned easily today in Photoshop). I guess we will never know for sure without seeing the bracketed exposures (if any).

 

2.Remember, increased exposure effects the toe and shoulder of the film characteristic curve least, and the greatest changes in density occur(when opening up one stop) in the straight line portion of the curve. So a slight increase in exposure will have a bigger affect on the midtones then on the highlights, and can make the difference. It might just get the dark sweater to show some detail as it just gets out of the toe area, whereas you got a ways to go to approach the shoulder at the other end of the scale where compression of highlights begins.

 

3. Due to lack of any detail in the dark sweater, I still feel this image was underexposed to begin with and brought back digitally by adjusting brightness/contrast, but nothing could be done about the lost shadow detail. So were judging things blocking out(eg- forehead) based on a manipulated image (not original image). Most films should be able to record white and black cloth with some texture in both(eg-wedding shots) when receiving the same level of exposure from the main light(metered for main light), this image shows nothing.

 

Before saying how great this image is, remember your judging quality based on looking at a 5x7 image on your monitor, which makes things look way better. It would be interesting to see how well it holds up to actual print enlargement. That's when you see problems with eye focus, depth of field issues (important in landscapes), contrast, saturation, Dmax, etc. Getting to the fine print is the other half of the work.

This lady reminds me of my paternal grandmother a bit. Nice, it looks like an old style photo a bit too.

Very nice photo, BUT the scarf looks precariously perched on the model's head, as if it would slide off at the slightest movement. I find this unsettling and contrary to the tranquil mood of the photo, so I can't concur with all the heaped praise above.

Leona, I'd like to have this beautiful portrait on the wall of my living room - please contact me!

nice 3-D feeling. Great work!

It ceased me like an elecrical shock.really nice and astonishing.(Beauty of the girl is effective )

 

Great Work

such a painting

All thanks for responses!

Serene and charming photo.

Serene and charming photo.