The nun

This is simply great! Simple composition, strong atmosphere and bewitching look. I like it very much. But maybe there is a little imbalance...I lack for any line or anything in the left part of image. I know that it would annoy, but it's totally empty and I think it's little bit unnatural. Just my opinion.

This is an outstanding highkey work, my standing ovation!!

Very well done. I particularly like the way that the left side of the photo is completely white with no texture.

the one thing that is bothering me though is the fe strands of hair at the top of her forehead. It seems to take away from the 'cleanliness' of the overall composition.

Great Job!

I really like this photograph. For me, it is especially interesting because of (NOT in spite of) the so-called "flaws" mentioned above (i.e., hair on the forehead, fingers below the chin, wrinkles in the headscarf, left-right imbalance in lighting). It contains a whole raft of potential meanings, and they are mixed in a way that holds one's attention. Whether Micu Angelina did this intentionally, or by fortunate accident, doesn't really matter: she experimented, and it turned out well.

At first glance, the overall whiteness of the image and the headscarf suggest religious allegory, or a traditional, idealized image of "sexual purity".

http://freechristimages.org/images_BirthOfChrist/The_Annunciation_Dante_Gabriel_Rossetti.jpg

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://rlv.zcache.com/the_purity_mousepad-p144530317953806813td22_210.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zazzle.com/virgin%2Bmary%2Bmousepads&usg=__ICPsbe1FHCAYGZxWphrd8UM8hE4=&h=210&w=210&sz=15&hl=en&start=25&tbnid=v5JPo6R9Y7s29M:&tbnh=106&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvirgin%2Bmary%2Bpurity%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D18

But when the viewer looks closely, any saccharine or simple interpretation is contradicted by the detail in those facial features that are not washed out--by her lips, nose and, especially, eyes. Her eyes do NOT appear lost in "virtuous" adoration of a deity, or in passive prayer, or in grateful contemplation of an anticipated life of celibacy. Instead, this woman is gazing directly at the viewer: no reticence, no shyness, no submission, no fear. Her expression plausibly could be characterized as unassuming, or honest, or challenging, or predatory--depending entirely on the psychological makeup and reactions of a particular viewer.

The strands of visible hair and curled fingers heighten the "frisson" between idealization and reality in the image. These details ever-so-subtly reinforce the perception that this is a REAL person "captured" in an idealized context (as perhaps, many women have felt themselves to be, and not only photographically).

Continuing this line of thought: the slight shadow over half of the image also increases its impact, consistent with the same visual message. Not only does the darker right side allow the viewer to see some slight (otherwise invisible) detail in the model's skin; it makes visible, on the same side, wrinkles in the headscarf. Put simply: because of the lighting imbalance, one half of this image is "fully-idealized"; the other half is "incompletely-idealized". This slight disparity within the single image has an excellent, and far-reaching, effect: it calls into question, subtly but definitely, the whole nature of "idealization" (as a psychological process).

In considering this photo, the viewer feels both the "compelling-ness" of this idealized, archetypal image of a beautiful woman; and its inherent artificiality. It's like seeing a beautifully prepared stage-set from a three-quarter side angle. One can fully appreciate the beauty of the facade, while being reminded that it is a facade.

In the same way, this photo creates strong reactions in the viewer, while inviting him or her to examine and consider those reactions, and the personal assumptions underlying them.

If this image is in fact a "flawed" idealization, then what constitutes a "proper" idealization? And--just as important--why? (I think that, when considered logically, some of the comments in this thread are a hoot. Just before the Virgin Mary was given the big news about her future, did angels with steam-irons descend to "iron out the wrinkles" in her headscarf? Does having visible hair make a woman a "profane", instead of a "sacred" person? And so on.)

Anyway, I think this is a beautiful and interesting photo, one to be proud of. I wouldn't change a thing.

Brilliant portrait Angelina.I like the over-exposure either it comes from the original capture or it's post-production.This of course, eliminates the details turning the photo almost to a draw or a pencil sketch but it's a tecnique acceptable among the photographers.The whole set seems to be a part of a theatrical act, as i see, you look quite different in reality.But sometimes we all need a change and here you became a lovely, mysterious lady, an elf or whatever you had in mind.Regards

Brilliant portrait Angelina.I like the over-exposure either it comes from the original capture or it's post-production.This of course, eliminates the details turning the photo almost to a draw or a pencil sketch but it's a tecnique acceptable among the photographers.The whole set seems to be a part of a theatrical act, as i see, you look quite different in reality.But sometimes we all need a change and here you became a lovely, mysterious lady, an elf or whatever you had in mind.Regards

I really like this photo. I initially saw it on the opening page of photo.net and it's one of the first ones I've had to go check out further. It is the photo as a whole that draws the eye and further interest. That is what sells photos.
I thought it was a photo of a nun at first. This struck me as both interesting and possibly offensive since it has a sensual feel about it. As I looked at it more closely I saw that it was a simple white sheet and not a habit. I think the wrinkles since it defines what it is. The viewer is really drawn to the eyes. Excellent.

Without the direct gaze the image is a hueless flash. White naturally connotes death more than black does to a mind more broadly cultured. I enjoy the shape your face has with the cape and the idea of you directing the art here with all the welcome feedback and guidance. Great love!

A very striking and arresting image. The only minor distraction (for me) is the visibility of those few strands of har at the forehead.

 

Can you share the technique you used?

Well as to the white business,- adding my final say on this one , have it your way as you like. Makes for discussion and healthy disagreement more often than not. Or less is more approach to portraits... We can take flight of fancy far. White is sexual purity? Maybe, maybe not. Not for all of course as someone above mentioned to suggest it isn't that straight or we would all be devotional to the same imagery...In F.Scott Fitzgerald , color white, some think, implied sexual ambiguity, re his heroine Daisy in "Great Gatsby" Some interpreters of the work (in another medium of course). Reading into the spiritual and emotional aspect of a self (underlined self) portrait makes for profound, it does not . Not necessarily, Yoda would say. Nice,not brilliant... I do wish you well Micu. You are on center stage. Not easy. I would myself even decline the gold gift.:-) Maybe.

Gerry Siegel (Honolulu) , Jan 14, 2010; 11:59 p.m.wrote:
"Well as to the white business. . .We can take flight of fancy far. White is sexual purity? Maybe, maybe not. Not for all of course as someone above mentioned to suggest it isn't that straight or we would all be devotional to the same imagery...In F.Scott Fitzgerald , color white, some think, implied sexual ambiguity, re his heroine Daisy in "Great Gatsby" Some interpreters of the work (in another medium of course)."

Right, Gerry. As is well-known, brides traditionally dress in white (and in many western nations, have done so for centuries) because they, their churches, and their relatives want to symbolize and emphasize the young women's "sexual ambiguity."

After a 30-second google search, here's a handful of quotes lifted from popular-reference websites. (A completely nonscientific sampling of popular culture, of course, but they reflect prevailing perceptions and the conventional wisdom of the Western world--which, in this case, is the point.)

"Judaism : The ceremonial Kittel , worn on religious holidays, is white to symbolize purity. The tallit katan is likewise white in color, as, on high holidays, is the gartel (belt, girdle, or sash)."

"White is purity, cleanliness, and innocence."

"White is the color of purity. Brides wear white in many countries, because white symbolizes a virgin."

"Brides wear white to symbolize innocence and purity; it is considered as good luck to be married in white clothes"

"human culture has many references to white , often related to purity and cleanness."

"Cross-cultural diversity is found in the symbolism of white , which historically has signified purity, virginity or death...."

And on and on and on. Of course, a literary suggestion (by F. Scott Fitzgerald or William Burroughs or Guenther Grass or John Milton or Lucretius or Lewis Carroll or any of 1,xxx,xxx, xxx others) can be found to support or rebut virtually any argument on any subject whatsoever; but my gut instinct is that, in your dismissiveness of this particular photo, you are overreaching. ("Maybe, maybe not.") Your central message seems (to me) to be the not-very-subtle, and rather jaded, hint that because a new photographer hasn't "paid her dues"...her photo, ipso facto, can't hold much meaning. (What a strange parallel: http://photo.net/off-topic-forum/00VUCS )

I think you're mistaken. Even if this POW image had been produced as a complete accident (which I do NOT think is the case), it would continue to be an outstanding image, of which the photographer can be rightly and unconditionally proud.

It will indeed be interesting to observe--if you're ever awarded the "gold gift"--whether you decline it.

Micu, this is a beautiful and powerful image. In today's photography world we probably have to take it for granted that a lot of manipulation of image is possible. (I still use film) Very few of those who used film up to this point of transition have done much of that. I know a commercial photographer whose final product often contains material from 14 "exposures" So, I also take it for granted that I really do not know what I am looking at anymore. Who could critique his work, except the final image?
What does all of that mean here? It means that most of any commentary that could be made on the techniqies which you may or may not have used is almost without any merit. Where the light came from is obvious. How it fell on one eye differently than the other and how one side is washed out are of no interest to any observer or viewer of your work except...those "technologist" who are busy with specks, hairs, creases, fingers ect..
The image...and you. That is what is on the "paper". The apparel which you are wearing could be the garb of a nun. Intead of her calm, kind and gentle face (nuns rarely engage those who are looking at them) we have a young woman whose gaze registers both a touch of subservience and..a strong, almost piercing beligerance and/or challange. The purity of every part of this image is at direct odds with your eyes. It is this dichotomy which slaps a sensitive viewer against the wall. Those eyes are beyond measure, I don't know what intent they reflect, what power they reflect in you. And that "washed out" left hand side??? It is really a beautiful suggestion, as if this whole image is a phantasm...drifting into eternity, not anchored in this world.
I hope that in a few weeks, after you have read all of this critique, that you will be able to benefit sfro what is valid and straight and then push it all aside. Then, continue to make image and statements following your own heart and spirits. Photographers, I found are generally competitive. The only one that I ever had a fruitful conversation with was Paul Strand outside of Paris when I was younger. That was enough. I wish you a lifetime of enjoyment with your craft. If you never make a penny with your camera, you will still have joy with it. As it is, you seem to have a solid foundation from which to go in many direction. I am not concerned with how long it took you to put this together. The power of this image of yourself will, for you, last for a lifetime. For my first time on this site, I am happy that this was the first image that I saw.

How quick we are to read and take something out of context. I meant, or tried to imply, that I would "decline" the honor if it means sitting on a little levered chair above a water tank at the ball throwing event at the fair and get dunked b strangers.. ( It is unlikely that anything I got would ever get picked, Just fine with me personally.)

White can also be the color of nothing. That is what I saw in this picture. Others disagree. Great. Why did iIchoose to comment on it if I did not get enthused?. Can't say. It was all the gushing praise, I think.

(Ernest, you are way off target in your personal reading of my agenda, but that is part of the game of communication that we all live with. Always I think.. I flat out said what I wanted to say about this POW.. I have liked a few and said it without I think, just innuendo. )

quite simply awesome Micu.

great compo and edition! regards!!!

good

A beautiful high key portrait. Well done.