Untitled

7/7

Don't see a lot of classical portraits pulled off as well as these anymore.

this is the best portrayt I seen a long time (other than the "Monalisa")

what kind of lenses did you use? and at what aperture?

me facina

 

A beautiful portrait. The expression is very subtle.

It's a good portrait with fine detail. Your model I find quite attractive. However, there is nothing special about the photo - it is worthy of the subject, more I cannot say.

Nice photograph, but why does it remind me of Johannes Vermeer and his painting "Girl With A Pearl Earring" hmm perphaps the posing? Je ne sais pas!

I'll take a crack at why I think this is "undeniably wondrous".

 

First, the lighting is extraordinary. The lighting on her face is serene and peaceful, yet brings out every detail. And there is wonderful detail in subtle places, like the knot of the scarf and her hair. The lighting is the composition here, with the use of the focused light to set off her face from the scarf and the scarf from the background.

 

Second, the smile and the eyes. That is a lovely, subtle smile and the eyes directly engage us.

 

I do not think the arrangement is particularly original, nor does it try to be, but it is extremely well executed.

I may have an answer to the question you pose. It is the eyes. The right eye is looking at you. If you focus on her right eye she is looking strait at you. The left eye is looking over your sholder. When you focus on her left eye she looks away. Giving the illusion of an interaction with the girl. It is like that fist glace across the coffee shop at the attractive girl that just sat down.

Wonderful model, with beautiful skin tones. Lighting is superb. That smile is inscrutable, just like Mona Lisa. The scarf is perfectly placed and encircles the beautiful subject. This one is so perfect in so many ways. Bravo to the elves. Great image... one that stays with you and that you remember. Timeless. The crowning touch... those large eyes that look into your soul.

 

Many have asked the artist about the lighting. I would like to know how this was accomplished. Please share.

I am just glad that a fine portrait such as this has finally stepped on to the scene instead of those questionable B&W abstractions. Way to go, photo.net!

It's a very nice portrait, very well done. I think the execution by the photographer is key here in the choice of pose, clothing used, film, lens, and probably most of all, proper lighting (and in the end a good scan). I'm assuming the photographer was responsible for all that. Flawless execution.

But with that said while I find it very pleasant to look at it's fairly bland. Technically wonderful. Great tones, and I like the veil over her head. I suppose it served it's purpose and may have served it perfectly. But as for creativity and originality it's not very special.

Lastly, maybe it's me, but the eyes appear to be looking just slightly over my left shoulder, not right at me.

Some photos just have "that certain something" extra precisely because they don't try to be anything more than what they are. Actually, that's likely to be true of the photographer's effort to produce and present the photograph. She didn't overreach. And perhaps that's what's very original about this. Aesthetics? Impeccable lighting, a Mona Lisa smile, perfect framing, just the right amount of negative space, softly feathered and subdued backlighting, graceful and balanced composition.

And people say you can't use slide film for portraits! Ha Ha.

looking at your pictures, it reminds me of Leonardo Da Vince portrait paintings. I love your pictures

First of all, congrats twice to the Elves: 1) for this wonderful selection, and 2) for the intro paragraph. To be absolutely honest, when I saw this picture's thumbnail on the frontpage, I thought this picture was just too good for an interesting discussion, and anticipated a boring week. After reading the elf's intro and the 1st few comments, I'm amazed to see that it has already become VERY interesting.

I think Sam M.M described very well what works. I also believe that Nick made a little mistake in the way he phrased his comment: which eye, Nick, did you mean was looking at us - I'm very interested to hear that... HER right eye or the eye on the right of the picture ? That's the ambiguity I see in your interesting post. Personally, I think none of the 2 eyes is looking in the camera or at the viewer. For me the model's right eye (here on the left) seems to be looking to the left of the photographer. Her other eye (here on the right) seems to be ALMOST looking at the photographer, but still not quite... still a bit to the photographer's left.

Finally, a few words about Jeff's comment... "That smile is inscrutable, just like Mona Lisa." I think that's very accurate. The fact that the 2 eyes look at 2 points, and not one, is part of the secret imo. That's what makes the expression inscrutable - I think. What contributes to that effect is the fact that the eyes have 2 very dim highlights. 2 catchlights in a single eye are a no-no for many portrait artists, but in fact, art history has already established that 2 catchlights have one merit: no matter where you will view the picture from in the room, the model will seem to look at you, and yet not look at you. The ambiguity of her eyes' direction is here echoed by the light (double catchlights) in a truly amazing manner.

Jeff adds: "those large eyes that look into your soul."

That's even more interesting if you consider, based on the above, that the model is by no means looking truly to the photographer, and that she even has 2 eyes pointed towards slightly different points.

As for the light, if I had to take a chance to guess, I'd say a highly diffused softbox on the right of the model (the photo's left), and a reflector on the other side, which would be silver imo. Interestingly, I am not excluding window light instead of the softbox, with a mirror on the other side.

If these assumption about the light are correct or roughly correct, I'm even more fascinated by the result, because it is the simplest set-up that exists in a studio. It would show that a perfectly accurate placement of the 2 lights (or one light + opposed reflector) can be sufficient to in fact light ALL sides of the model while still keeping a good sense of 3-dimentionality - i.e a good rendition of volumes. May sound easy, but it certainly isn't in practice, especially with a fairly dark scarf.

Last thing I'd like to say is that the skin tones here are the ideal skin tones for a woman in the 18th and beginning 19th century. And also, it seems obvious to me that this photographic style, which some folks would certainly find quite "lifeless", is directly related to Russian iconic art - even more so perhaps than to Vermeer or earlier Renaissance paintings.

"Some photos just have "that certain something" extra precisely because they don't try to be anything more than what they are. Actually, that's likely to be true of the photographer's effort to produce and present the photograph. She didn't overreach. And perhaps that's what's very original about this."

Absolutely correct ! I think "originality" should in some occasions really be understood as "cleverness". Being clever is sometimes not to throw the ball too far, and to let the subject speak for itself. If you come to think about it, each human being is greatly original. It is therefore very appropriate (and original) to base an image strictly on the subject's own, individual and unique personality (i.e the model's originality). Similarly. I'd say that an original landscape is a beautiful landscape maybe shot fron a clever viewpoint, and under the best possible light, and it doesn't need no be shot from under the sea with a red-green polarizer rotated at 163 degrees. :-)

Extraordinary.

 

It is extremely 'painterly', and I mean that in the most positive way. Not renaissance, which

was too much involved with coded meaning in everything - man's place in relation to God

and Eternity, and all that - but Dutch golden age, the first Humanist society. Not Vermeer,

though - he always placed his subject in their context, and Girl is a good example. No,

this is like a Rembrandt - just the face and upper figure, looking calmly back at you. There

are paintings by him that evoke the same sense in me as this portrait.

 

And to pull the discussion back to the mundane - taken on ordinary slide film with an EOS

300.... A classic example of the 'it's not the equipment, it's knowing what to do with it that

makes great images' argument.

One click on the top-rated-photos page right now, will quickly illustrate how one might view the subtlety of this picture as being extremely original, at least in the present day.

For me this portrait is more reminiscent of a Leonardo due to the angle of the face, porcelain skin and Mona Lisa smile, though Leona's [or "Elena's"] other uploaded photo is very similar to a Rembrandt style portrait.

Regarding the light, I initially wondered if light painting was used on the other uploaded picture, but having studied a few of Leona's website photos, I have instead assumed a very accurately placed reflector as Marc suggests. Silver on this one and gold on the other. Incidentally there are some very beautiful nudes on Leona's website too.

Of course we are curious about the technical issues, but if I had to choose just one ultimate characteristic that makes this picture special and memorable to me, it must be the oh so subtle approach that allows the natural beauty of the girl's inner self to shine ...

I don't know a lot about portrait photography, but anyone who's used a camera would have to agree this is virtually perfect from a technical perspective.

 

Otherwise, I don't get much from it. The model looks like she's leaning forward stiffly, as if concentrating on maintaining an exact position. And her expression is not like Mona Lisa at all; it's a tolerant, cooperative smile that says, "I'm having my picture taken". Special portraits make you feel like something deeply personal is being revealed or something very mysterious is being concealed. I don't get either. Again, though, it's a great looking photograph; I wouldn't have anything critical to say without the setup we're given.

Almost "perfect," but viewed in large mode, I still do not see any highlights in the model's eyes. I am guessing that the lighting was done with a fresnel spot, not a flash? Anyway, I really think the image needs the highlights in the eyes.

 

And yes, if you've seen Vermeer's paintings in-person, and I agree that this photo is an excellent example of this style, there are always clearly visible white highlights in the eyes. Even more, some Vermeer portraits show reflections in the eye highlights.

 

Without the eye highlights, this otherwise outstanding portrait loses some of it's dynamism.

In my opinion the Art of Portraits is about the relationship between the photographer and the subject. The energy the subject picks up from the photographer is also important.

 

This picture works - not because of lighting or costume or the camera equipment ( which are all important and need be good ), but because of the models essence portrayed through the gaze of her eyes.

I get no emotional tie to the subject what so ever. She looks totally disassociated from the process. On my monitor the neck looks absolutely yellow like it has been over dodged. I would expect a shadow there, but there is none. In fact there is an absolute lack of shadows overall that leave this image just way too flat IMO. A good portrait? Yes. Undeniably wondrous? Not IMO.

 

Dave

I have to agree with Dave Nitsche. This is photograph of a scarf with a person in it. Technically well done, but not wonderful.

It is a classic image but without the "spark of life" the Mona Lisa has.

I was sure to have left a comment on this one while ago... may be on another site then...

It has all the characteristics of the XVIIc Flamish painting school (also obvious in the other posted picture here by Elena/Leona(?)). A nice and simple Madonna with an ordinary scarf ... which has gorgeous and extra-ordinary lay out and folds.

But as a repro-like... it misses the spark of life, certainly the trace of the said Calvinist rigor.

PS: again as suggested several in the past it would an useful option (as it is the case for all the other pictures in Pnet) to have the picture visible while writing the comment...:-((

I was writing my comment while you posted yours... funny we both used exactly the same term 'spark of life' and we both missed it...