mg 0 Posted February 14, 2003 La lumiere est tout simplement fabuleuse ! J'aime beaucoup l'expression du visage aussi, ainsi que le cadrage... Peut-etre aurais-je prefere des fleurs differentes, un peu moins discretes, en bas a droite... Mais bon, si ceci n'est pas excellent, alors qu'est-ce qui l'est...? Bravo ! Link to comment
rob_rokwell 0 Posted February 14, 2003 Refreshing and beautiful. Well composed. I like the washed out whites on the left side. Adds a heavenly feel to the image. Link to comment
meloentje_x 0 Posted February 14, 2003 It is a really nice picture, well composed Doing a good job. Keep it going Link to comment
jmonzani 0 Posted February 15, 2003 Cette dernière photo d'Ydna est vraiment très bonne ! Bravo ! This latest picture of Ydna is really good! Congrats! Link to comment
noela_losada1 0 Posted February 16, 2003 Beautiful!! Almost fairy!!! Perfect ligthning!! Link to comment
Guest Guest Posted February 17, 2003 Beautiful photo. I'd like it more if the lighting were more natural and the model had less make-up. Link to comment
w_j_b 0 Posted February 22, 2003 For me one of the best I have seen so far in the Photonet !!! Bravo ! 6,9-6,9 (7-7) Link to comment
steve_bingham 0 Posted March 2, 2003 Awesome picture. This is about as good as it gets, Stefane. Even in Paris! Link to comment
intransit 0 Posted April 30, 2003 I say 'Eve' actually as a play on words for evolution... for your work... well done, there is clearly good and effective work here! Link to comment
mg 0 Posted June 9, 2003 Vieux motard que j'aimais ! Ou est-ce : mieux vaut tard que jamais...? :-))Je suis bien content de voir cette photo-ci recompensee parmi tant d'autres qui le meritent dans tes pages. J'aime la lumiere de cette photo, sa fraicheur... Etait-ce un travail pour "Le Printemps" a Paris...? Ou rien a voir...? En tout cas, bravo ! Link to comment
joe_garrick 0 Posted June 9, 2003 The photo is more than deserving of the photo of the week honors, however, I'm afraid I do hold this photographer to a higher standard than most, since I know what he's capable of producing. So before everyone starts lavishing the praise on this clearly admirable image, I'll nitpick a bit. Remember that this is a studio photo. Everything about it is under complete control, and there are no accidents - or at least there shouldn't be. I think it's worth saying plainly that the model is absolutely stunning, and it's a lot easier to get great results from a beautiful subject than a plain one. I could probably hand my nine year old son a camera, put this woman in front of him, and stand a fair chance of getting a nice looking photo. It's not fair, but most of the time photographers get a lot of credit for the work of the subject's parents. The lighting, while generally flattering, leaves a rather odd looking tangle of shadows on the right (her right) side of her face. This appears to be due to the sprig of foliage that seems to be growing out of the side of her head. Perhaps this serves some purpose in the context for which this photo was produced, but it seems poorly coordinated with the rest of the flowers and such in the photo. In praise of this work, I can say that except for that shadow that bothers me, the lighting is exceptional. The blown out highlights on the foliage work with the pastels in the makeup, the model's exquisite face, and tranquil pose to all support the dreamy quality of the photo. Link to comment
mike dixon 1 Posted June 9, 2003 No offense, Joe, but your claims that simply pointing a camera in the direction of a beautiful woman is enough to get a nice-looking photo (much less a stunning photo like Stephane's) is a sure indication that you've never actually tried to produce this kind of work. True, there are other people--make-up artists, stylists, assistants, and the model herself--who deserve their share of the credit, but coordinating their efforts in order to get ones vision onto film is not a trivial task. There are a few minor, technical nitpicks I can come up with (though I think the shadows on her right cheek are a strong point of the image--they beautifully define the shape of her face), but I think the overall effect is very pleasing. Link to comment
mg 0 Posted June 9, 2003 All I see is a highlight. What you call a "shadow" is no darker than the rest of the face, so it isn't exactly a shadow, but you may call it a non-highlight...:-)To me, this highlight and the "non-highlight" area it creates add to the natural feel the Elves mentionned rightly about, and it looks fresh and alive. Take it away and you'll see the image becoming awfully flat. Link to comment
James G. Dainis 302 Posted June 9, 2003 "Does this image succeed in avoiding cliche? Well, it does succeed in demonstrating blocked/blown out highlights. But this has to be deliberate on Stephane's part so I would say it works, gives it that ethereal concept. Nice dreamlike quality that wouldn't be there otherwise. I like it. Link to comment
jim_larson1 1 Posted June 9, 2003 Call me the Homer Simpson of photography, but while I admire the composition and highlights of the subject and flowers, I personally do not like the total white background. Your milage may vary. Link to comment
Recommended Comments
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now