***

It is quite amusing how the desire of many viewers has been to see this simple, direct and well balanced portrait and setting as some hommage to, or applicatiion of, Vermer style or, as most recently mentioned by Steve, to the main female character in the science fiction of Atwood's dystopian novel.

On the other hand, what has been said here is a good warning of how we can come to an image with a not fully open mind, ready to attribute to it qualities or default of qualities that would be entirely irrelevant without knowledge of the Flemish master or "The Handmaid's Tale." I think a lot can be said for those critiques that evaluate an image on its own merits and leave comparisions at the entrance. On more than one occasion I have cringed when hearing the remark of a visitor viewing my black and white scenes that such and such image reminds him of the work of Ansel Adams. Not because I have insufficient respect for Adams, but because I sense that the viewer is not viewing the image with an entirely open mind and simply seeking some convenient reference points from his repertoire of image viewings, rather than trying a bit harder to appreciate what the photographer has done or what the photograph says.

"that's a clear indication that the work is incomplete in itself, an admission of failure."

I know this is often said but it does ignore the basic fact of a great deal of art, that it is the context and what is outside the frame that makes it what it is. That isn't to say that this photo can stand on what might be outside the frame, we just don't have any basis to give it legs from anything else in Michal's portfolio.

I don't care if it was the most casually made photo ever made, it still misses in many ways and we don't aspire to make casual photographs--or do we (you!). Even if we don't see it is as a period piece, there are still things that are troublesome--at the same time, there are things that we can admire within it as well. But bottom line, it is the flaws within an image that define it--unless it is a one time historical event where the photo itself is of something so important that nothing else matters.

Here, I don't have any issue with anyone liking the image for its good parts, but understand that it suffers from the lack of attention to details (my own problem, said above, the problem with the hair line) just takes it down a notch and notch is all it takes to render an image substandard. It is fine for sharing, I guess, but it isn't something to aspire to and the difference has to be acknowledged or mediocrity will become your goal. (sorry, I am tired from a week of hiking and shooting and then my favorite team losing tonight!)

Anyway, discrimination between an excellent image and one that has some very nice parts to it is an important distinction to make if you want to actually move forward.

Charles, yours is an interesting comment. I do want to clarify one thing, however, because you attributed something to me that I did not say (and would not say because I don't believe it). You said that I contend "that a work needs some introduction or explanation by the artist to guide the critic." No, I don't. A work can and should stand on its own, and we are free to express our own reactions to the photo without a word from the photographer. In fact, some folks believe that even a title given to a photograph is too much "interference" from their free interpretation of a photograph, and I think they have a point. What has gone astray in some of the previous comments on this photo, I believe, is that some commenters have made assumptions about what Michal intended to portray in this photograph (as opposed to what the commenter saw in the photograph itself). It's when we think we can read the mind of the photographer and know his/her intentions that we've gone too far. We can proceed down that path of commenting on the degree to which a photographer met a certain goal only when we know the goal, and I don't think we can know the goal unless the photographer tells us. Anything less is an assumption, and there is much room to be wrong. Nevertheless, I think often that's a relatively small part of a critique. It's more interesting and more important to me to describe my aesthetic and technical reactions to a photo, and I like to read the same from others. This requires nothing at all from the photographer except a photograph.

I do agree with Stephen regarding the input of the image photographer, there is no real need for the photographer to add any thing concerning how he have taken his image, I would look at the image technical wise and appearance wise my self and accordingly I will build my personnel opinion about it.
The title is also to me not a photographic element but a person thought of what his image demonstrate, thats again will not change my idea about the technicality of that image at all.
It is also to be stated that the image we have to comment on is self independent and should not be related to any other image or painting and should not also be related to one of the world master photographers.
We have here some people who been with some of those masters but we can not relate the quality of their photography with those masters as the quality of their photography do not rise to that quality at all and their work remain so basic and do not exceed what called snap shooting.
Best wishes to all.

Stephen,

That's where you and I disagree. The understanding of intention is important in order to help photographers to take better pictures, but in criticism or evaluation of a particular image it is irrelevant. The beauty of found objects such as scholar's rocks is one example, a Dadaist finds another in a urinal, and it's quite commonplace for artists to incorporate accidentals in their works. Your suggestion for revamping the POW system is perfectly sound as a teaching tool for the photographers, but for viewers learning to evaluate pictures, it's a crutch, and a broken one at that.
When you and Fred go on and on about Michal's intention, you are both chasing ghosts until Michal steps up and informs you that he simply took the picture with no strongly held intention, but is willing to accept responsibility for the criticisms leveled at his work. Even then it's possible to go on about such things as subliminal intentions that Michal himself doesn't understand. The important thing is to understand that these ghosts you are conjuring are summoned up from inherent properties of the work before you. If Fred wants to have Vermeer fantasies and you a dream of understanding Michal, neither of these should distract either of you from your regard.
John A,
I have no quarrel with your observations about the photo, or your interest in historical matters which makes you a more educated and sophisticated viewer, and able to bring more to your visual experience. Likewise the point of this site is all about figuring out how the other guy does it, which is also "outside the frame." But there is something about the immediacy of viewing the Lady of Elche, which we believe to be a funerary urn from a culture essentially unknown. It's all "inside the frame," but despite our ignorance we recognize the Lady as timeless and sublime. It's not about what you grasp, but about a letting go.

I'll reference you back to the first critique by Peter.

Very painterly. Very Dutch masters. Outstanding.

Alex Shishin writes:

"I believe the photograph is competent. It follows all the rules of traditional academic art that would win prizes for the traditional 19th century Euopean painter. Like academic art and pictorialist photography I find this photograph artificial, trite and dead."

Oh Please....

I just looked at his portfolio. Nothing there that my five year old couldn't shoot.  Keep up the good work Michal.

Those who can, do.

Those who can't, teach.

Those who can't teach, critique. 

Just to correct a geographical dust bunny in the discussion that will seem insignificant to most, except if you happen to be Dutch or Flemish (like me) - Vermeer was Dutch, not Flemish. Even though at the time the Netherlands had only barely become independent from the Spanish empire, Vermeer's choices of subject matter and highly photograph-like rendition of perspective, light, colors and textures stood out as a personal style much more befitting with the ascending cultural values of the protestant north, and quite different from the boisterous baroque of Flemish near-contemporaries (like Rubens) based in the southern part of the lowland regions, which remained catholic & part of the slowly disintegrating Spanish empire.

A very striking and evocative image; beautiful

Perfection, is a fools errand at best, so is not my goal. My goal is to do the best that its possible for me on any given day. What was perfect for me in the 30's, is far from what is perfect for me today. Next week, month, year, decade will be different then, but, what I did today is still perfect for that moment in time.... Likewise, have never looked for perfection in the work of others.
Psychologists say, "denigrating the work of others is done only to make us feel better about our own abilities." Pointing out things which could be better, in my opinion is only justified if we _teach_ others at the same time HOW to make those changes.
Otherwise we waste their time or ours and that of others.... Experience in 74 years of photography, has shown me that lifting others up to our levels, is a very self satisfying act.
My only comment, is that I enjoyed the first example more than the second one.

Wonderful composition and use of available light. There are so many positives here I hesitate to add a few points but I will in the spirit of useful critique.

I would like to change the crop - I'm not sure I would keep the out of focus window frame on the left hand side of the image. I would also consider reducing the amount of foreground/floor.

I also very much like the idea of a supplemental light source (small flash/reflector) to add a highlight to the eyes.

But - as I said - a wonderful shot. 

Ernie 

www.2heartsphoto.com

Wow, what a discussion! I read it with great interest. It was really helpfull for me (I don't know about Michal :) ). Thank you for choosing this picture. Thank you Michal. My best regards.