le printemps

did Stephane do the styling and makeup? i think thats a huge part of this photo. i'm

not crazy about the out of focus flowers, i find them a bit distracting.

 

there's no way this image avoids cliche. it succeeds at it.

I think the first critique offered (by Joe) was quite reasonable and thoughtful. The only alteration I might make would be to the comment it's a lot easier to get great results from a beautiful subject than a plain one. I might change the word results to reviews. At least that appears to be the case around here (find any image with a pair of exposed breasts and praise is sure to follow, no matter how poorly executed).

 

Of course that does NOT apply here. This is a very well executed image and is interesting on many levels.

 

As for the background lighting? Well I find it to be perfect for the theme (including the shadow (lack of highlight) on her cheek).

 

Regards,

Mike - I think you've missed my point, which is not that this is easy, but that a great deal of the credit must go to the beauty of the model (and others, as you noted). Clearly my nine year old couldn't have done this photo, nor could I, but I do think any competent photographer could produce good photos of this woman. She's attractive enough that just putting her face on film gets you half way there. In the hands of this photographer the results are obviously well beyond most of us.

 

Mark - Call it a highlight or a shadow - neither exists without the other. Either way, I think it would be interesting to see the photo without this to see if it helps or hurts. I find it distracting, but you could easily be right.

 

Before the tone of the discussion takes a turn south, I want to restate that I think this photo is an astounding success. However, that doesn't mean it's perfect in every way. The point of the discussion isn't to fawn over the photo, but to determine why it works and whether it could be better.

This picture is NOT the quality that I have come to expect. If I posted this image, I am sure I would be told about how overexposed it is on one side.

The composition is quite ordinary. I am just not getting that WOW feeling I get from the POTW most of the time.

And no, Elves, this does not succeed in avoiding cliche.

this photo succeeds in the very fact that it is hardly a cliche. worse, it could've turned into something kitschy if handled by a less competent photographer. lighting control is just slick and wonderful, to state the obvious. though sophisticated and natural-looking, i wouldn't certainly say it looks completely natural. the shadow running across the face really aids in its best way to keep it looking natural. i anticipate a lot of people to harp on this shadow over the week. while it's certainly true that this shadow is what is making the lighting and the entire shot very interesting, and keeping it from a run of the mill lit shot, the question still remains is the shadow really aesthetic and pleasing? it took me a long time to get used to the shadow, which at first glance appeared spoiling the shot.

 

it would benefit the non-french speakers to know that the title means "Spring" in fully appreciating the shot. (i just looked it up :-)). i think it will be a bit of a disservice to not know the theme/concept behind the shot. so, perhaps, if the moderator can put the translation in paranthesis up at the top, it would help really.

 

Stephane is a fine photographer displaying wonderful talent and creativity. congrats on a well deserved POW!!!

Although I find the image beautiful, it looks too much like a Loreal advertisement for spring shades of eyeshadow. I also adjusted my monitor in a few different ways, and the types of foliage are looking blown out and invisible in spots.

Is that a wisp of hair wound around the vine on the left? It's hard to tell but if so, clever touch.

Of course the model's looks contribute to the success of this picture -- hats off to God for that one -- but give due credit to the photographer for making such a radiant and stylish image out of her. It's not as easy as he makes it look.

At first I wondered about the near vacuum on the left side of the photo, but it seems that it works to give this photo such a wonderful light airiness. I love it.

I tend to agree with that remark. It's a pretty image with nice poise. However, you have front lighting, and back high-key, and some specular lighting in the front on both sides, etc.

 

Are we trying to look natural here or what? The image says 'done in a studio, but trying hard to look like out-side'. I hate that.

I don't think anyone can take exception to many if not almost all of the positive comments that have been made. It's a near perfect image. And yet, as I look at it, it seems that something is absent, and I guess I would best decribe that as "soul". The model's expression is near a total lack of emotion, and she simply becomes a part of the pefection of the studio effort. Maybe that's all part of the advertising character or purpose, and if so, fine. But my preference is for images that clearly communicate a human impact in some way rather than striving for an immaculate and artificial reality achieved through perfection in the studio. Is it possible to achieve that within this genre?

That's because she's a model, aka 'fake person'. Wave a C-note above her head and she'll liven up.

you stated : The image is very cliche!

but didn't expand on why, so i'm curious why you think so. just exactly what aspect here do you think is cliched? perhaps the subject is. but certainly not the way it's handled, which is what i think keeps this shot far, far from the precipice of getting cliched. a cliched subject when handled well, giving it a fresh breath of originality puts is safely out of the reach of drear and cliche, no?

very striking image. Makes me wish I was back home so I could work with a couple of models -- gives me several ideas along simular lines.

 

Few photos catch my eye, esp as this one did.

 

Great job.

The "blown" highlight is called a "rim light". It's absolutely nothing unusual and nothing that any studio photographer would even think of calling "blown". It's a highlight, and it's about time that people start to realize that shadows - yeah, even very black ones at times - and highlights are not ALWAYS considered a flaw in photography !

"It is also cliche to me because it looks like an advertising shot."

I, for one, am very pleased to see an advertising shot that ESCAPES the Cliche, whereas it was very close. I think the intro comment says it very well, and you are right to say that the advertising world is a world of cliches. That's exactly why I believe one must learn to identify precisely what is and what is not a cliche "element" in such an image. It takes years for a photographer to be able to find ways to renew old cliches, it's not easy, and it's a fine thing. If one just has one glance at the shot, it may indeed look like a cliche, but look at the flower arrangement, the composition, the way the light hits the model to the side and seems to project her out of the frame: to me these small things set this shot apart from many others that "look like it"...

Besides that, Peter, do you seriously mean that it is a bad thing for an advertising shot to look like an advertising shot ? How much sense can this make ? An Ad shot IS an ad shot. You may prefer fine arts, and perhaps even Stephane Bourson does, but you can't really blame a farmer for farming, can you...? Once again, I'd like to say that each GENRE of photography is to be appreciated for what it is. No, I do not expect an advertising product shot to touch my heart as much as one of Cartier Bresson's best street captures, but can we perhaps compare what's coparable... Would be nice. I'd be much more interested if Laura could for example upload this Loreal shot for us to be able to havea constructive discussion about a genre rather than having a discussion about which genre is the best...

Within the borders of what was probably asked from Steühane and what he wants to shoot this is a pretty good pic, EXCEPT for the blown out left background. But if we talk commercial ad here, this might be perfect to place some text there.

 

As to natural vs artificial and models:

 

I agree, that's what it looks like: A posed studio shot with a model trying to look natural.

 

I disagree: That's what we all who buy magazines want to see in ads. This is not Time Life or National Geographics, this Vanity Fair.

There are numerous improvements I feel could be made to this

image.

 

That's not to say that there should not be lots of applause for

what's already good about it, for I certainly couldn't achieve even

that. But from the easy chair of critique, so much could be better.

 

The great problem is that these are not just little niggles that I

am eeking out. The whole of the image to the left of the model is

confusing, and this leaps out at me in my early impressions of

the pic. It raises so many questions, and I don't think images

should be so confusing.

 

I'm really distracted from the subject, wondering what is going on

on the left. Those out of focus flowers aren't serving to

differentiate from the model, they're just there, on the left, in front

of some bright white space. (I appreciate the need for other

elements if this is an advertising image, but if the left side is

intended to accommodate words, leaving them out ruins the

photographer's work.)

 

The branch of leaves is confusing, it clashes with her head.

Would slightly lower have worked better? I don't know, but such a

question should not arise in a really great image; the branch

would just be perfectly placed.

 

Finally, her right shoulder is too bleached out. If it had completely

disappeared, would it have been better? As it is, there's just this

suggestion of her shoulder that you're searching for, craving for

the definition of a little less highlight there.

 

I started out thinking there were so many great achievements

and a lot of beauty in this pic and now I am annoyed at the many

questions it asks, feeling all rather confused.

Funny enough to be mentionned, "cliché" is a french word which has actually 2 meanings. First is "picture" or "photography" and second one is "stereotype".... funny isn't it!?

 

So definitely, Stephane's picture is a Cliché at least for one reason.

 

And it is also a cliché for the second reason, just because the photographer himself, choosing the title, has chosen to represent the stereotype of Spring. What is spring? youth, beauty, nature awakening of flower, green, shoots, fragility ... we can find everything here.

 

And by essence a cliché is just boring... unless you succeed to make it appears ridiculous or funny (a quite popular sport in France that sometimes it can become another cliché!!). Then a more interesting question would be: is our photographer wanted to be satirical and set a 'caricature' (sorry to many french word!) of a cliché ?

 

I am not so sure about it. The only element that disturb me is precisely the overdose of make-up. That does not sound like spring cliché: nature, youth and beauty does need make up... Fall does.

 

Is that satirical, is that a mistake, ... to me it is more an advertising automatism, a fashion pattern than everything else.... and that a more seriously killing cliché IMO.

 

Then we naturally come out to think about product; definitely too sophisticated to represent toilet spray as I could read in some comment before, but probably to sell young women sanitary protection. ;o)!!

 

I will not comment on light and shadow, everything have been said about it, and by studio professionnals.

 

Definitely not my favorite of this photographer (may that why I want to dicuss about it).

Among my favorites works of Stephane are:

"hands and lips" http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1541783

"sexy woman" http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=415238

Congratulations Stephane. Having looked through your folder I see so many shots which could have been chosen for picture of the week. It's difficult to rate this shot because it really needs to be on another scale. I look at many of your other pieces and can only rate them 7/7.

I wonder why some of the typical defects pointed out in photo.nets critics are forgiven to this photograph, so much as to became photo of the week!.

 

Is it the name of the photographer what counts?.

 

Stephane Bourson is a very professional photographer, that is for sure. Just look at his portfolio.

 

But, what about the blurry, the green leaves (perfectly in focus) coming out of the head of the girl, the absolutely distracting white area on the left!.

 

 

As a mental exercise take out the face of the girls an place a butterfly, with nice shadows. Would it still have the impact!. Im afraid NOT. The girls counts, even it looks a bit plastic type.

 

If I bear in mind it is intended for an ad, yes it will catch people attention .

 

Definitely, from my point of view, not one of the best photos from Stephane.

Really eye-catching and different, professional quality result. I like it very much.

Peter I am not spending time here to be diplomat, although sometime I socialize. This site, as some other, is suffering enough from that disease where everybody congratulates everybody, or, on the other side of the Ansell scale, just be arrogant. I just express my feelings, and that is the merit of PhotoNet to allow that (in some extent). And I feel ok doing so because I happen to like very much some pictures of Stephane.

 

... and I (at least try to!) keep on humour side. Sorry for toilet story I just wanted to make the cliche more obvious!!

Important point to realize that the POW is not supposed to be the best image on PN - nor is it supposed to be the photographer's best work. It is chosen by vote by a number of elves as an image worthy of discussion. It also - In my opinion - should include the various types of photography. There is no one area of photography that is more "valid" than another as a point of discussion. Some photography is more respected because it is true art.. but Commercial work, portraits, street, macro, floral, landscape, digital and yes -- even wedding work can have a turn here. So, lets critique this as "studio/commercial" work. We all know Stephanie has "better" work in his portfolio...but lets critique this image.

For me this image is beautifully etherial and whimsical and yes, an excellent commercial shot that I could see used for an ad for perfume or makeup. It works in that it portraits romance - at least as a woman that is what I feel. I would prefer softer shadows on the left cheek. I'm not in love with the pattern the light creates. Softer shadow or a little lightening of the shadow below the cheekbone would work better - in my opinion. More appealing - from a woman's point of view. I also find the out of focus green in the lower left distracting and not necessary. I'd clean it up and leave some in the side of the frame - with some clean white space between the greens and the face.

Does this image succeed in avoiding cliché?

 

no.

 

Is cliché necessarily pejorative?

 

no again.

 

Good discussion and week to all.

The lighting is a bit obvious and harsh for my taste.