From behind the veil

Just because we can doesn't mean that we should.

Knowing where to draw the line regarding the degree of processing is terribly difficult, especially if a photographer is posting a photo for public viewing and feedback. We seem to have the notion that if a little bit is good, then more will be even that much better.

McCurry captured his photo of the Afghan Girl. Al Obaidly's photo is a combination of capture and creation; finding the balance between the two is key in an age of digital processing when so much is so easy.

When I saw this and then went through Bader's photos here, I couldn't help but consider that the postings were some sort of market testing. I say this because although there is a relationship between the processing of each but I don't see these as consistent at all. Each has its own color balance and varying manipulations of the eye(s)--enlarged/brightened. The only consistency, other than the heavy post work, is the fact that 5 of 8 use the same wrap as this image while 3 of those are done identically to this one.

What I do admire is a willingness to push the palette down and take some chances with letting facial features disappear into blackness--something I think is a bit easier to do with digital, where you can check your results immediately, but still admirable. I do wish there was a bit more willingness to take a risk in the way the portraits are posed and otherwise lit (especially some of the others) and then an allowance to let things be real. Substituting backgrounds as in this one: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=11503350, where it is totally obvious also seems a bit over the top for such controlled set-ups.

One can't help but get a hit of our famous Afghan woman from these and the attempt to somehow capture that magic in this series of photos. The problem for me is the artificial feeling that each imparts whereas the magic in that photo was in its organic nature. One can also feel an exploration of certain popular commercial treatments in these images as well.

All in all, I think one has to conclude that there is just some experimentation here and maybe some smorgasbord with respect to trying to get "that look". It is probably time to move on and explore some personal vision.

Fine photo without the overdone PS post-processing- elegance does not always come with a pretty face…

I'm guessing this photo and for that matter all the photos in his PN portfolio is a result of the "anti-blemish" software or photoshop plug ins that's is heavily marketed nowadays. Apparently it's no longer acceptable to have pores.

Ooops! I spilled some coffee on my picture, but it doesn't matter 'cause the kid was wrapped in a brown blanket anyway.

This is an outstanding portrait. The treatment of color is abolutely gorgeous. Very well done and a well deserved POW.

A well-deserved POW is one that is not necessarily outstanding. It needs something to critique (technique, lighting, subject, composition, etc.) that will lead to comments, suggestions, and opinions other than just gushing praise (although given the diversity of opinions, that's probably not going to be a problem). Really, we need to change the name from Photo of the Week to Critique of the Week (or something similar).

Though it certainly has value in itself, I would have like to have seen it without all the PP. The concept is stunning, but I have to admit I'm somewhat put off by the manipulation of the face.

Still, I can see why many would like it, even though I found myself disappointed between thumbnail and full sized.

Again, would definitely like to see this with the face unmanipulated.

Another attempt to copy famous "Afghan woman" portrait so famous from National Geographic?? Technically very well done, originality - no comments.

Reminds me of the poster to the movie "Hannibal" but without the blemishes.

I think this is an interesting and very stylized shot. There's more here than to present reality but rather a feeling. I think it would be better though if the head was centered and not so much unbalanced to the left. Also, the eye in the center of the composition is a little too off-putting for my taste but maybe that was the photographer's intent.

wonderful work, congratulations

My point precisely, Matt and Gordo. I am not ready to dismiss the photo a priori--in this case, prior to the experience of seeing the original, prior to the overdone smoothing or whatever it was clubbed with. If the photographer refuses to produce that, then I have no further interest in discussing it. If he does, then we can see whether it is worth further discussion.

--Lannie

The eye and expression make this work for me, would be interesting to know how the photo was taken and processed.

The lines of wrapped fabric are perfect. Model is not stressed and responding. IMO it is the good studio work.

This is the second day for this image being the POW but on my system I still do not see the cap after Bader name, is this something to do with my Mac not updating or some other reason being there ?

What I like: Separation of subject and background. And that's about it.

The only part of this photograph with any real detail are the girl's fingernails, and a tiny part of her lower lip.

The rest of it is just sort of generically derivitave, and leaves me emotionally ambivalent and visually bored. It's titled From Behind the Veil, but there isn't even a veil in the photograph.

Thumbs down on this one.

Regarding this photo, I have nothing to contribute that hasn't already been said about it being way overdone.
With respect to the intent of this forum, this comes from the ABOUT THE PHOTO OF THE WEEK FORUM: "We are here to share and learn from each other!" I joined Photo.net to learn by example and the majority of posts that I view - like this one - offer nothing about the image's making - the equipment used and the PP technique(s). I hunger for more.

Game, set, match, Gordon. . . .

---Lannie

I agree that this image is over processed to the point that I do not find it interesting, and the only thing that comes up in this discussion is just that, over processed or not. To me the girl looks plastic, especially when you look at the fingers below her mouth. I would have at least left more detail in those fingers to try to strike a bit of balance in the post work. The fact that some posters want to know how to process like this is a little disturbing. The Afghan girl in NG was way better in terms of keeping the soul of the girl in the shot. This one is lifeless. Sorry Bader, but I agree that it wreaks velvet painting in style.

The last thing I forgot to mention was that by stripping the details from the face this image becomes another model shot with a wrap around their head. I also would like to see the original to really see what many of us are missing.

It's been generally agreed that the photo is over-processed, but I'd like to try to move on to other aspects of the photo. I think I can clearly see the photographer's intent in having one of the girl's eyes hidden in shadow while the other is (very) clearly visible. The eyes are the central feature of the face, and obscuring one eye makes the face even more covered by the cloak, further removing her as an individual from the gaze of society and perhaps from society as well. I think that's the general concern of western society for this tradition in some non-western societies regarding the role/status of women. As such, covering one eye further emphasizes that notion. The emphasis given to the eye does remind me of McCurry's image that acquired world-wide fame, and I think Al Obaidly was simply wanting to emulate that example. The shawl is nicely done, a folded wrap with many shadows and texture showing, but not too prominently, among the folds; that aspect of lighting is well-done, IMO. The dark background is fairly common in portrait photography (at least in my experience of viewing), and it puts full attention of the person being photographed, which again I think is very appropriate. Having the fingers near the mouth seems to convey (to me, at least) some degree of fear or wish to withdraw even further than the head covering provides, and that comes from deeper within the psyche of the girl than the external shawl provides. All in all, I think this is an effective portrait of a young girl in this society and the effects of that society's view of the public role of women.

Hello everyone I am glad to have just joined this thoughtful site. To me the photographer is a brilliant technician so I'm assuming that none of the technical aspects that have been talked about is by accident. I'm more interested in the story in this wonderful image. It's a picture of startling contrasts. The photographer is portraying the emergence of women in Afghanistan from invisibility and silence. The hand over the mouth suggests a voice denied, but the hand is starting to slip. The right eye is deeply veiled in an almost menacing shadow, the left eye like a jewel coming into the light. Beautiful, intelligent, lovely women were hidden away, is the perfection of the image saying that they were too perfect for men to allow them to be seen? In his choice of a young girl, who would have been veiled all her life, is the photographer inviting us to gasp with wonder at seeing such beauty and perfection for the first time?

Stephen, I don't know that one can easily come to the conclusions you are drawing here with this photo. I can't see this photo as depicting anything real, but more a contrived, theatrical rendition of the photographer's choosing. As I pointed out earlier, this same wrap is used in 5 of the photos here and is obviously the primary "prop" in this photographers studio, not any cultural signal. The image in every way is a contrived one.

Compare this sort of portrait to Penn's work "World's in a Small Room" where although he put the subject in a contrived setting, they came with their own daily garb to be photographed. Even Penn's other non-model shots show the subject in a more authentic light than one can attribute to this image or the others in Bader's portfolio here.

This isn't a criticism of Bader's work, it is just that we have to view the work in the vein it was created and not artificially overlay the work with some other significance. I don't find Bader's portrait here all that relevant and one can't ignore the over processing that is so integral to this image. Personally, even if it wasn't over processed, I would still feel that the image lacks relevance outside of some context, commercial?, that would be a reason for its creation. But the processing is just over the top, a fact we can't ignore in any context.

Certainly, playing with the creation of a dramatic photograph has its place in one's development of technique and style, the trick is then employ that skill and the things learned to create a compelling and relevant image, even if the relevance is for some contrived purpose.

John, I'm putting aside the aspect of processing (that's been discussed, it is important, and I've stated my own views on that subject), and I'm wanting to look at this photo on its own -- not part of the portfolio and not in relation to anything else (i.e., I don't care if the same wrap was used in other photos -- I'm going to ignore that fact, as if I didn't look at the portfolio). I just want to look at the photo on its own and in terms of aspects other than the processing. What I see in the photo and how I might interpret what I see is what I discussed in my comment. I can understand if you're not able to set aside the aspect of processing, because it is an important part of the photo, but I'm simply trying to do that, just for the sake of a larger discussion. What you see and what you may interpret are likely to be different, but then that's the point of the POW. I think I'm trying to get at the photographer's intention, contrived or not, and how I might interpret or react to the photographer's supposed intention in the photograph he produced (similar to what Philip Underwood just posted).