***

Just brilliant.. it is all about the light... and much more, you just made a dutch painting with a camera...

-Els, Netherlands

My initial reaction was that this is a truly beautiful image. And it is. However, after reading Matt's critique I am inclined to agree and would offer that if the position of the camera were to be shifted left so as to prevent us from seeing the window frame it might preserve the illusion.

Regardless, this is something I could not have produced and think it quite well done.

The light and colors are soft and lovely. Her expression is great. The composition doesn't quite work for me. I would actually like more rather than less. I feel like she is sitting confined in a sort of tunnel. The horizontal narrowness of her space in the frame, given that we can see that it's probably a rather large room she's in, makes the photo feel uncomfortable to me. It feels too much as if the composition were dictated by wanting her to catch the window light and not being able to get an angle that would reside her more comfortably in the room. Comparisons have been made to Vermeer, which are appropriate when it comes to color and light and her facial expression but, to me, not when it comes to the bigger picture. Vermeer's contexts are much more natural, much less forced, much less squeezed into a narrow view. You get, with Vermeer, a feeling of overall space, of the subject at home in the space. This photo doesn't need to be a Vermeer, but I think it falls short (even without the Vermeer comparison) in terms of composition. The subject here seems planted in the space, not at home in it.

(In keeping with the Vermeer reference (whether it was intentional or not), I think it's appropriate that we see the window, the light source. That's a very Vermeer touch.)

I enjoy the naturalness of this image. I do feel the foreground column detracts. I like the idea compositional principle of an image in foreground to lead my eye, but the column doesn't work for me. Not sure what the condition/situation was of course; maybe that is all we had to work with which is acceptable but not ideal.

Absolutely stunning. I imagine it as a painting. I've never seen a better lit photo. A great choice for photo of the week.

Maybe at some point, we realize that a photographer has a knack for shooting people. Pleasant poses and nice lighting, and here we see that in this portrait as well as in the few other images we have of Michal's work.

I have said it every other time we get one of these period pieces and I will again say it: "Details, Details, Details"! Here, the setting is a bit too modern, but I could probably live with that, the metal window does cause me some pause but maybe the most troubling--also because it is a miss even if not a period piece--is the gap in the costume at the hair. I think the gap just makes it all the more a sense of it being a costume as well and takes much away from the image IMO. Yes, I am a bit of a perfectionist about these things, but that is what separates one from the crowd.

My own thought about the pose is that I would like to have seen it more integrated into the scene. Rather than looking like she was just kneeling for a portrait, I think it would have helped if it were more like she had some other purpose for being there as in some ways this kneeling wants to convey, but doesn't--otherwise, maybe she should be more passive. Just a thought, not really a criticism.

Having things grow out of someone's head-avoiding it, that is- is sort of "portraiture 101" but sometimes it is unavoidable. There are tools in our shed that can take care of such things. It obviously is not a minor issue as almost everyone has mentioned it--and how minor it is. It isn't awful, but the number of comments might suggest it should be minimized, if not eliminated.

Finally, just a note on Michal's portfolio. It isn't as noticeable in this image, but as I went through the rest of the photo stream, I noticed a slight haze over all of the images, like the contrast is just off a bit. It isn't a matter of soft contrast, IMO, but almost like Michal's monitor is off or these images are getting compromised on upload. Just an FYI if Michal isn't aware of it.

Anyway, I think there are nice elements here but there are also some misses that could be improved upon. Period pieces need to be more authentic or, as I believe Stephen alludes to, have a good reason for not being so. (I might note here that Stephen is a bit more optimistic about this latter, as I thought the others in the limited portfolio here didn't support the lack of it)

Beautiful image. I might add a low powered flash or light source to add catch lights to her eyes to add life to them.

Michal certainly has a knack for environmental portraiture, fashion on location and lifestyle images. If we look at the 'photograph of the week' alone, we all seem to be categorizing it as a period image. But who's to say it is.... especially in the context of the other portraiture he shows on photo.net. So, I am not the least bit bothered by any of the perceived inconsistencies noted in these posts, regarding any of the more modern elements of the environment. It adds to the richness as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I see the red fabric wrapped around her head and on the sleeves as very spontaneously applied... not at all a deliberate attempt at faithfully reproducing the dress of a period. I know it comes off that way visually, but I see it as fun between a photographer and subject. It shows in the subject's somewhat wry look.

I'm wondering if Michal could comment on this.

As a portrait shot, it is hard to fault. Lighting is superb.

My take is much like John A above, when trying to emulate a historic setting, details are important. As a medieval/renaissance scene, which it seems to be, it falls short in the details (metal large window, square column, concrete and no dirt on the floor and no animals). But, it is fair to say that the medieval reference is something we bring in ourselves as viewers; nothing in the photo told me I should look at it that way.
As a portrait, it stands as it is; as a story-telling picture, the context is a bit lacking.

It is certainly a beautifully constructed picture. The DOF comment from someone was interesting since many of the others in this portofolio are shot with a narrow DOF, but this one not. And that looks absolutely right to me.
My main comment is that perhaps paintings by old masters could provide interesting ideas on lighting to modern photographers. The effect here, of light coming in through a window or door to a dark area, is part of its magic.

First, congratulations on the selection of this beautiful photograph as the POW. I love the direct tie-back to the art of the Flemish masters too. Like Stephen Penland, the OOF column at left was at first disconcerting, but after a moment it really becomes irrelevant as the eye is drawn to the model, her costume; and in some respects the floor tiles and shadowed edge of the window stoop carry the eye past rather effortlessly. Finally, the use of the natural lighting here almost imparts a subtle chiaroscuro effect upon the model. I very much like this creative image. Well done, Michal! Cheers!

This is an amazingly beautiful image.
I feel however that the medieval "ambiance" is somewhat disturbed by showing part of the window glass and the brick wall outside.Easy to offer critique, far more complicated to shoot an image like this one!

I like the mood this photo creates, the colors work well, and are muted complementing the nice light.

I like the model look.

I don't know how to improve this.

I love this. I think you've really captured an interesting expression is she noble, wry, slightly amused? I don't know, and that's great, it gets me thinking. The rich colour, detail and depth of field also work for me, keeping my focus on her. I didn't find the background/setting distracting, personally, but I might have eliminated the pillar at the left and moved her skirt closer in to her at the ground at her front, as it's clipped slightly by the pillar. Now if that pillar were actually a door, slightly ajar, that would've worked more for me, particularly as a possible rationale for her experession.
Thanks for this.

The window light is a good available light source for the subject, but I would have adjusted the camera angle enough to remove the window and column next to the window from the photograph. The slightly out of focus wall would have been a better back ground for the picture.

There is something on the other side of the window that the model has turned away from to look at the camera. Whatever that "something" is, its absence from the image leaves me feeling that the image is incomplete - an image that has such a wonderful color palette and amazing lighting.

The very many compliments deserved by this photo have been repeated, as has my major criticism.

But I will mention it again, because for me, it was a "grabber".

I found myself immediately distracted by the light-pattern growing from the top of the head. For me it has the effect of an arrow or finger indicating "Look up here!".

I tend to prioritize things to improve in my (or any) images by looking at them with a relaxed appreciative attitude, and seeing whether anything "interferes" with the experience.

I consider this is a different approach from nit-picking in search of things less obtrusive but still improvable. I.e., elements that "shout" at me get worked on before things I have to find by searching.

Very nice photo, in any case!

It seems that the Elves have decided for a very nice but less controversial photo than in recent weeks.

Almost no dissent on this one, which is generally acclaimed.

Nitpicking is quite unnecessary, also considering the very high level of Michal's portfolio.

The intent of the photo is realized... It is a pleasing photo and references the dutch masters in composition...
Now, if we are trying to emulate the dutch masters in that this is the picture they would have taken had they a camera, it is close... Perfection requires real sweat however... SImply shifting the camera to the left slightly to get rid of the window frame and the bright strip of brick (which is a bit jarring) will have the law of unintended consequences operate by pulling the out of focus near side of the pillar/window further into the frame.. So we need to pull back and have a longer focal lens to crop the left side while retaining the angle... The long lens does two things, gets rid of the stuff on the left and further drops the far background out of focus... Ideally, the photographer needs an 8X10 with a 300mm lens...

Then we get into issues of composition... Were I a dutch master (not!) I would have her incline the top of her head slightly forward, rotate the face so the tip of the nose is closer to the edge of the far cheek and the eyes would be glancing more as opposed to the direct gaze... Then I would correct the colors slightly - and where the heck is the pearl earring?

Having said all that, I like this picture... Using it as a starting point this photographer could take a stand out final print...

denny-o

Absolutely stunning image. A beautiful Vermeer pastiche... perhaps the medium alone gives it a modern flavour - but, yes, the window frame spoils the perfection - because everything else _is_ perfect.

"Hi! I'm Les. I'm a compulsive editor."

"Hi, Les!"

Given that, I'm also fairly knowledgeable about Medieval and Renaissance clothing. There would be a problem with the small area of visible hair if this were a 'costume'. It is, however, the sort of thing that happens with real clothing in real situations. What is curious, however, is why her sleeves are down around her wrists. As drapery and color effect, it works; as an attempt at 'realistic' depiction, not so much.

Changing hats, as someone who photographs fancy dress (in the correct meaning of the term), I love this image. The light and setting are excellent. Yes, a lovely mullioned window would be more 'in context' if the intent were to create a photograph that 'could have been taken in 1490'. The modern appurtenances give the image a timeless character, which I like.

I have a problem with photos that attempt to recreate painting effects, and this one is clearly hoping for a Vermeer-style effect, and the clothing only makes the comparison more obvious. Her expression is pretty good, but not incredible. I'm sorry photographers, but your photos will lose in comparison to oil paintings every time. Compare this to a Vermeer painting and tell me it's up to par. Remember, photography is 3D flattened into 2D. Painting is human-rendered 3D.
Photography is about event, time, speed, location and often abstractions that would be impossible to reproduce any other way.
The minute a photographer says I'm going to compete with painting on its own terms, they are destined to fail. OK, Ansel Adams competes with a Turner painting. That was with a view camera decades ago, and also includes the abstraction of B&W int he hands of a total master. Painting is fantasy. Modern photography is real. We are immersed in razor-sharp real imagery on a constant basis. It is no longer unique anymore. To many laymen, it's barely even interesting. What makes older photos interesting is the abstraction of the different film and printing techniques, as well as the distance of the subjects in the past.
The ubiquity of photography in the digital age, and its steady decline in value, while the value of actual, non-mediated classic talents like drawing, painting, sculpture, public speaking and playing instruments increases means that photographers have to try a lot harder to define exactly what arenas photography still excels in. Calling photography 'art' is even harder, and people need to stop acting like just because they say something art, that it is, because it isn't. Art takes either lottery-won talent or years of hard work and deep thought about what's come before, current times, movements, and technique. Most modern photography isn't even equalling the greats of photo's past.
This picture probably would've been better as a black and white, or at least with a more classic background. Of course, an ancient background would only exaggerate the intent, which to me is flawed. The lack of feet is probably the most interesting thing about the photo. I agree totally with the comment that whatever the subject was looking at is a missing element, and not addressed.

very interresting picture. Her expression is the big think of this picture. I really loved it

Very much like a photographic Vermeer. The same tones and colors. I only wish that the dark band on the left had been more in focus and that the one fold of the dress didn't blend into that band and that it was entirely exposed. That aside, I totally agree with PhotoNet's judgment. Congratulations.

This is a very effective portrait of a beautiful woman dressed in a certain way reminiscent of a certain period. What attracts my attention is the model herself; the few faults mentioned above just make it a better photograph, in my mind like the small imperfections in a hand made suit make it a better suit. I like to think that the photographer never intended to emulate the Flemish masters, something he could have easily done in the studio, but then I wouldn't be offering my opinion. Beyond the lighting, which is superb, I like the space around her and the handling of depth of field. Any cropping would have made for a lesser photograph. The only thing that annoys me, and I think it antagonizes with the model (and the building) is the outside brick wall but then this criticism is directed at the architect rather than the photographer.