Alana

This shot is a grabber, no doubt, but if I may ask,what is it for, what market? Could you see it as 'art' on your wall? Which magazine can use it? (Skateboarding?) Subliminally I see a wreck on a railroad crossing, so it could do for dark editorial drama except for that crotch grab that dominates everything, even the 3D boots.
My think about this is that it is just vulgar and an example of what to leave out of a portfolio.

I can't see anything special re this photo. In my view, the distortion was unnecessary or pointless. It looks like a standard commercial ad. The two projector lights behind the model distract one's attention. I would have eliminated them.

Nice idea, pretty well done - too much stuff to focus on the model. Boots would have been better placed exactly into the corners - a bit sloppy. But overall interesting shot and pretty well done -

Georg N. Nyman

That was my reaction too, Andrew. A kind of insect/ arthropod stance. Daddy long legs. A little unusual that even for high fashion and so maybe why it is hard to get warmed to this image or enjoy it much when we get down to it, despite the workmanship I see. My eye as I disclosed, went straight to her hand ( ah, a man thing..) so it does seem odd to have model wearing a mini and yanking it down ( a girl thing..) Sure,gets beyond photo discussion talk. (photos do or can unleash far ranging thoughts on cultural stuff..)

Waaaaah!!! That's what I felt the moment I saw this shot. Very nice composition and great use of lighting. The 16mm does a great job stretching her legs even longer. The clouds in the back as well as the long shadows of her legs present a distinct mood. All in all a winner. Keep up the good work.

Somehow remarks regarding the boots going out of frame, problematic placement of the hand, the lights and such suggests somewhat narrow range of the viewers perception. If one see this photo not as collective of articles but as one story, different aspects and merits come forth.
When I glanced on the image thumbnail I though girl have gazelle legs, this is more than normal photography is designed to do.
The arch created by wide spread and wide angle distortion gives impression of very dynamic leap, just to make it even more gazelly.
John A comments: "The problem is that we have neither here nor there with the feet. They aren't in and they aren't out and that is the problem" it is not a problem at all but a solution - it adds to the dynamic and create impression of something passing if you want. Yet, Alana is seated and not going anywhere, vertical elements (lights, stool etc) in a subtle way carries static structure of the composition, giving moment of stillness within all this dramatic dynamic sky.
Lines and shadows on the ground along with long legs pointing to the focal point (always a focal point) and "No, you can not come in" you can not even see the undies... it is a mild tease, a play, a mild scent of kink...
and her hand is just in a right place yet without being even suggestive. Bravo.
I see all mentioned problems as not a problems but a creative solutions, that is what make this image so interesting to say the least. Composition is superb, yes this is exaggerated version of a standard commercial ad which is not a problem that is the whole point, that is where commercial ad ends and art begins.
I congratulate Oleg, this is my favorite shot of 23 I've seeing on the site, it is certainly deserving more than one look and have more in it than meets the eye (!!!) which for the range of good commercial fashion/glam photography is just remarkable.

 

Is she one of those giants?

- interesting aov

Great photos draw you in and inspire you to think. Critiques are good and provide insight into what others think about your work. There are no right or wrong answers. They're just opinions. Judging by the shear number of comments (translates to opinions) this image has received, it's obviously a very thought provoking image worthy of high praise. I give it high marks for creativity, style and concept. Well done.

A work of pure photographic genius!
It provides the viewer with a mind numbing range of potential subject matter to contemplate. The warm lights on either side of the model, which contribute no illumination whatsoever on her, screams surrealism. The choice of a superwide lens placed close to the model's feet exaggerates the surrealistic nature of the image. Its obvious, those boots are a statement. And we deliciously wonder what they are saying.
Everything in the frame inexorable draws attention to the model. The rooftop that should take up way to much image real estate and be a distraction isn't because it has such interesting texture. That and the dramatic clouds frame her exceptionally well.
You'd think that near evenly splitting sky and roof and centering the model should be compositionally boring, but works in this case because of the exceptional creativity put into the image and the way it draws attention to the model.
The model isn't holding her short dress together out of modesty. The way her head is tilted and her other hand held firmly on her hip says, "Eat you heart out. I don't think you are worthy of me".
This brilliant composition provides the viewer with never ending possibilities to think about.
If there is any criticism whatsoever it is that the bright part of the sky next to her elbow is overexposed(Landscape folks tend to notice those things) and that her white dress is somewhat blown out.
But those things are minor and easily overlooked in a work with such wonderful diversity.

Great photo. I love this composition, her look and concept.

I like this photo.  The monchromatic sky/roof combination create a powerful background;  the camera position and the model's stance add to the feeling.

I don't really care for the lights and the horizontal wire.  Obviously the lights could be removed, the wire and it's associated pole are more difficult to work around.  A location change may not have been possible.  I would have removed the lights if it was my shot.

I highest compliment I can give this photo is...I wish it was my shot.  Nice job.

 

I don't like this one. I love Oleg's photographs normally but this one doesn't do it for me. I don't like the hand in the middle of the shot, and the weird positioning of her hand. It just speaks to me of too much distraction. I must admit, though, the coloration is fabulous and I really like that jacket!

The cropped boots seem intentional to me. If I had the sense it was unnoticed by the photographer or a mistake or a limit of lens or positioning, I might feel differently. The only reason I even thought of it was because it's been mentioned so much. The cropping seems completely appropriate to me, given the rest of feeling of the photo. If we ran across this in a magazine, as an ad or something, would we really notice that crop. Or is it because we are in critique mode on a photo web site that our cropping obsessions get a distorted sense of importance? There's a lot to see here and a lot of technique to address. The crop seems to go with the sensibility of the photograph and photographer and, in the scheme of things, like the crop or not, the crop is relatively insignificant.

Ok...I agree with the one viewer about there being a need for 'just a tad' of visible highlight detail in the white areas like, The Dress.

I also agree that there is too much background, mid-ground and foreground 'clutter' that detracts from the subject matter.
Addressing even just ONE of these areas of the shot (like perhaps the background sky details...) can vastly improve what is already a very very nice shot.

By softening or filtering the background sky ever-so-slightly, and in relation to the other mid-ground, main subjet and foreground elements...one can in effect simulate depth-of-focus control. Even if very slightly, the shot would make more visual sense.
Call me old school...(even though I am not, lol!) or call me anything you like, lol! I'd like to see a finished piece that is worthy of agency acceptance. You've got it...no question about that. The work deserves a bit more treatment. That's what we technicians do for a living, and that's why some photographers hire us to do their RAW file work, their film processing, their colour correction and their printing.
Oleg, keep up the fantastic work! You ROCK!
:)-
--

I do not like the kind of photography that uses distortion to depict its subjects. Painters have been using surreal imaging all along and it has been accepted that the painting artist's conception of the world can be a lot different from what our eyes record.

Photography, however, in its widely accepted form, is a, more or less, art of accurate recording of the world. Designers and makers of photographic gear use their best efforts to help photographers achieve accurate reproductions.

Software have been written to help rectify reproduction inaccuracies. What sense is there in the deliberate photographic distortion of reality? I find no sense in stretching the legs, or any part of the body, of a good looking person to monstrous dimensions!

I would not vote for this photo.

I got attracted to this discussion by the introductory lines in the monthly letter. Despite the many contributions so far, that question has not been addressed yet, whether it is justified to express more than you have to say.
I have the impression that everybody so far agrees that Oleg's image is very expressive. In order to increase the content of what the photo has to say, I propose to change the title from the meaningless "Alana" to "Black Widow Spider", as an example.
To answer the introductory question, I would say that to my taste is is not justified to express beyond content; I also do not appreciate artists who exhibit zebras in formaldehyde. What seems to me paramount is the meaning you are able to attach to the work of art. To the zebra in formaldehyde there is almost no meaning you can attach to it. To a lesser extent there is also a deficit of meaning also in the photo "Alana".

After reading Alan's comment, I re-looked at the feet and have to say that I was probably wrong about them, being truncated. They are actually placed pretty much at the limit of where I was referring to by using the edges of the frame--my apologies!

@Adrian, As I read your response, I got somewhat confused. An image, any image, can neither express beyond content nor express less than its content. Content is what the image communicates and necessarily includes what the individual viewer brings to the party, so to speak. So, it can neither be increased nor diminished but its volume must include an individual's personal dialogue with the piece. A title might attempt to direct or elucidate, but it is the piece itself that communicates its content--nothing more or less.

In your example of the zebra in formaldehyde, your comment can only be "there is almost no meaning "I" can attach to it. In such a case, your interaction doesn't change (1) what the artist meant to portray or (2) what the artist actually did portray, just (3) how we(YOU) react to the first two. Which is content. Your conclusion that Oleg's piece might be retitled is your part in the content of the piece.

John A., I thought your response to Adrian was right on and well articulated. I would only add that I often appreciate a title because it sometimes provides insight into what the photographer was trying to express. That doesn't change how I see or interpret the photograph, but it might help me better understand the photographer.

I've made comments on photographs that had no title and later learned that I was completely wrong in my assumptions about the photographer. A well-constructed title would have helped to avoid the misunderstanding. But again, that still doesn't affect my own interpretations of or feelings for a particular photograph.

Sorry, but I find these extreme setup types of images uncomfortably unnatural and annoying. My favorite phrase applies here, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should". Note, this is my own opinion and may not jive with the many people in the world who consider this art or make a living from it.

John A and Stephen, we may not be using content the same way, or I may be misunderstanding what each of you is saying, but I think good photographs express beyond content all the time. Content, for me, is but an aspect of what the image communicates (I prefer to say "expresses"). How the content is presented, the texture of the photo (composition, perspective, focus, the feel the photographer achieves) is a significant part of the communication/expression. I agree with Adrian that a photo can express beyond or short of its content and that either can be a negative or a positive in terms of result. An important part of making a photograph is balancing form and content, expression and narrative. One can certainly critique a photo by assessing how the expressiveness relates to the content, whether the techniques employed make sense given the content, whether the expressive tools used by the photographer needlessly or effectively exceed or fall short of the content of the photo. Perhaps, John or Stephen, you could explain a little more what you mean because I have a feeling there may be some misunderstanding here. Thanks.

In this photograph, I actually think the expression of the photographer has become very much a part of the content of the photograph. It is so stylized and shot with such distorted intentions and that style and distortion seem like part of the content to me. It's not like I look at this and see a normal, natural, neutral girl that's been distorted. I see distortion and effect from the git go. The distortion and effect don't seem like add-ons. They seem to be the raison d'etre of the photograph. If it's too much, it's all too much. Whether it's all too much is a matter of taste and a judgment call I'll stay clear of here.

It really may not be all that deep seated, photographically speaking. Shoot with a 16mm focal length in a people picture and you do it with First Degree Premeditated " Intent".
Me, I never have used a really wide angle or a fish eye optic in people shots, being conscious of what they do when viewed from normal distance on a screen or print. I would not condemn their use in a million years for anyone who does. Just have trouble wrapping my eyeballs around them. To the stage where I myself can't even get to evaluating the sky, the lightstands, barndoors, the pavement streaked with oil, or chrome chair or any other feature, hardly, of Alana.
Perhaps the disagreement about the hand pull down thing and its intent is inevitable. It suggests a wide range of mental "projection' on the part of the commenters to state the obvious, but what a difference of projection. Fine indeed for discussion purposes and is why I offered that thought up front.
It is stylized and distorted too. I agree with Fred. We accept that in a shot of a pear or a pepper. In a people shot it has to (well maybe has to) serve an "intent." Which is yet obscure and even Oleg may not have formulated it entirely in his head even...an experiment?

Fred, I suppose it might be semantics, but it is proper semantics to separate and identify Form and Content as separate things. To quote "Form means (1) the elements of art, (2) the principles of design and (3) the actual, physical materials that the artist has used." So, you are really focusing your comments on your interpretation of the Form of the image.

Form informs Content, but "Content" is idea-based and means (1) what the artist meant to portray, (2) what the artist actually did portray and (3) how we react, as individuals, to both the intended and actual messages.
Additionally, "content" includes ways in which a work was influenced - by religion, or politics, or society in general, or even the artist's use of hallucinogenic substances - at the time it was created. All of these factors, together, make up the "content" side of art."

I lifted this from this link: http://arthistory.about.com/cs/reference/f/what_is_art.htm. I just found this one today, but there are many other links out there as well that help with all of this.

One of the reasons I believe photographers need to study art, other than because it digs under the "rules" and such, is because it develops common ground and meaning. But I think the former reason is even a better one!

John, I agree with you on the study of art in general and other arts specifically helping a lot with making photographs. I spent years studying art and even studying photographs before trying my hand at making them. I don't think it reduces to semantics at all. Like you, I think it's conceptually significant to hash these things out and thank you for the opportunity.

Though these textbook (website) definitions of form and content are good starting points, in practice I think there's a lot more overlap than the definitions provide. Very often, I see the design principles in a scene I may be shooting as the content. I often feel as if I am shooting shapes and light more than tables and chairs. I think a photographer's work can reflect that. I think often the story (and the message, if you will) is more in the form than in the content. And yet, the content is significant, of course.

You are right, my comments did concentrate on form, not because I was intentionally ignoring the content but because the form in this photo, the technique, seems more significant than the content. Absent the technique, there's nothing compelling to me about the content.

I can't agree with the definition of content as "what the artist meant to portray" if that excludes form and technique. If I were to reduce to "a pepper" what Weston meant to portray in his photograph, I'd be severely limiting his vision and my own understanding and response. He meant to portray, among many other things, the sensuality of a pepper, the way a pepper reflects light. He portrayed texture itself. He portrayed vegetableness. One can't access those important narrative (content) matters without the overlapping ideas of form and technique to that content.

Where it may be the job of a textbook to distinguish among these aspects of a photograph or any work of visual art, it may well be the job of the artist and even the critic to blend them and to realize that the concepts in the abstract may be distinct but in practice they are dependent on each other and morph into each other. Whether one likes it or not, I think this photo is a good example of that morphing.

I'm surprised that a textbook (or website) would suggest that how a viewer reacts is only related to the content side of the equation. And I'm also less than impressed that the site would talk only about the "message" of the content and not about its expressive capacity. But, even if we stick to "message", it comes as much from form as content. I shoot lots of portraits. If we think of the face as the content and things like perspective, lighting, and focus as the form then surely the form determines the message a viewer gets as much if not more than the content. If I shoot the face in very plain and flattering lighting from eye level at a reasonably close distance, that is going to provide a very different message from my shooting it in severe backlighting or uplighting at a strange (expressionist) angle with an overt motion or lens blur. The content would remain pretty much the same and the technique and form would change. But, that's where I can no longer buy the distinction. Because the change of perspective and lighting, even though the face remains the same, changes the content for me. So I see form and content not as distinct but rather as symbiotic.

Fred, more later as I am off right now, but you are jumping back and forth a bit and mixing metaphors as it were. Form and content are not unrelated, as I said, Form informs content but we have to separate the idea of the two if we are going to effectively communicate. We manipulate the form to establish the content. We should be thinking about the form when we are shooting and how we are going to use it to effect our idea. There is no conflict with Form being content, but it is not Content--now think about that one for awhile!

"we have to separate the idea of the two if we are going to effectively communicate."

Unfortunately, Western thought is full of so-called distinctions of ideas that have gotten many great thinkers into a lot of trouble historically, the most famous being Descartes who started the old mind/body distinction that has proven to be a nightmare. Luckily, contemporary philosophers and art theorists, particularly deconstructionists, are no longer buying into a lot of the separations. I agree that it makes communication more difficult because our language lags behind some of these conceptualizations. We are getting rid of subjective/objective distinctions in much philosophy, getting rid of true/false, getting rid of mind/body, etc. That doesn't mean you and I don't still have ingrained and useful ideas of "mind" and "body" but seeing them as separate is no longer terribly useful or necessary, especially the more we learn how physical the mind actually is. What we once thought of as a ghost in a machine, the elusive magical consciousness hiding out inside the head, is now becoming physically understood along the same lines as flesh and bones, though a lot more complex. I agree that you and I will communicate better if we have some idea of what "form" is and what "content" is but I disagree that that necessitates seeing them separately or distinctly.

Anyway, this all came up because I questioned your notion that a photograph can't "express beyond content" and even if we think of form in the textbook (website) manner as being completely distinct from content, I've been shown nothing to suggest why expression can't go beyond content. Principles of design and choice of materials (among the things in your chosen definition of 'form") are expressive. They are expressive in the formal realm your definition asserts and they seem to me to go beyond content.