***

swietne foto plus za stylizacje ;)

Thank You for all sugestions, all kind words and all criticism. Your opinion are very heplful. Thank You so much :)

I thought this might have been better in black & white. It's just that type of photo.

the image is beautiful. What is distracting however is the modern window which is in-congruent with the subject.  I think that cropping out the window would solve that problem and additionally would remove the subject form the center of the frame.

This is a very nice picture, especially the lighting is great and colors are very nice too. The small bank of light and the strip of brick wall is bit of a distraction, I would have composed the shot without it and positioned her a little to the right away from the center.

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...... The minute a photographer says I'm going to compete with painting on its own terms, they are destined to fail.....Of course, an ancient background would only exaggerate the intent, which to me is flawed.
Mark, I sympathize with anyone who has a problem, but the minute you think you can see into the mind and motivations of any photographer, you're walking on very thin ice. Whether Michal is "clearly hoping for a Vermeer-style effect" may or may not be true, but it's completely outside our knowledge until Michal tells us what he was wanting to do. It's also up to Michal to tell us whether he set out to compete with painting on its own terms; we have no way of knowing -- we can only make guesses, and often our guesses are guided by our own prejudices. Maybe Michal simply wanted to photograph his sister in one of her favorite period outfits. Maybe Michal just wanted to photograph the neighbor who is going to be in a play next week about Dutch life in the 1600s. Maybe the owner of this dress has always wanted to be photographed in it, and Michal obliged. We don't know. To make any statements, especially criticisms, that are based on this type of knowledge is unfair and premature.

I just had a second thought about the portrait and its context (The pose itself, not the reference to one famous Delft painter), which I had wrestled with as a viewer but didn't express then as I was not fully sure of how it really affected me. What I believe might have helped the nature of the pose would be to have seen something in the lady's hands, a book or other small item, that she might want to read or look at by a window. Yes, an image doesn't have to be literal, but that context would have given me more connection with the intrigued look of the subject, who might be considered to have been distracted from what she was doing, and not just conveniently placed there. A case may be made however that a book might overly complicate the portrait. It's possible, too.

That said, I do admire the photographer's use of tones of colours and of light levels, which really make the image, whether it is a throwback to Vermeer style (or partial Vermeer style, as Wouter has appropriately mentioned) or whether the clothing might have been similar in form but more obviously modern. Either would be equally well rendered.

Reminds me a bit of a Rembrandt painting...  The location and subject look is very much painterly... What throws me off is the fact that the legs are 'completely' hidden and that the hands are no where in sight... Is this what photographers do when they don't know what to do with limbs...? I really find window light to be utterly pleasing... especially for portraiture... Overall I do like this image...

"it's completely outside our knowledge until Michal tells us what he was wanting to do."

Stephen, I'd like to present an alternative to what you've just said.

Photographs generally are not about knowledge, or at least not primarily about knowledge. They're about seeing. Most of us see Vermeer in this photograph. Seeing the likeness to Vermeer is enough for me. I don't need to know what's in the photographer's mind. It's enough for me to see what's in his photograph. There's a likeness to Vermeer in this photograph, whether the photographer knows it or not.

It looks like a period piece based on Vermeer. So that's what it is. Because a photograph is what it looks like to the viewer. The photographer has let it go. Whatever he intended has already gone into it but the viewer is not bound to that intention. The viewer is only bound to what he sees.

For example, if the photographer were to come by and say he'd never heard of Vermeer, I wouldn't then say the photograph has no relationship to Vermeer. I'd say, that's uncanny. You've called forth Vermeer and never even heard of him. How fascinating!

When I go to a museum or gallery, I'm not usually able to ask questions of the artist. I go by what I see and by what I may read on the gallery cards or notes, which often is not that helpful.

What I see here is a photo that approximates a particular style of painting. Were the photographer to disavow himself of any such intention, I'd still see that. If the photographer went further and said he'd prefer for the viewer not to be associating this with Vermeer, I'd make suggestions about how he might move it away from that direction. Putting the woman in more modern dress would be one way to divest it of Vermeer-ness. There are lots of photos that have a Vermeer-like light but don't recall the period so specfically. This one does. And there's bound to be viewer associations and reactions because of that.

If this were my photo and it was my sister dressed in a costume for a play and I didn't want it to seem like I was actually trying to approximate a Vermeer-period painting, I'd make sure to get that across visually. As Arthur said, perhaps handing her a prop that suggested this was a theatrical costume rather than a photographic recreation might help. Better to do things visually then worry about directing viewers by after-the-fact verbal commands about how to view my photograph.

Superb! Would not change a thing. The lighting, the composition, the expression. Perfection! I was most impressed by the excellent rendering of the tiles on the floor.

What caught my eye about this was the soft subdued, yet rich, colors and the way the model was looking at the camera. I also wanted to figure out what she was wearing because it was obviously in a modern setting but of a different period. It totally caught me off-guard and made me think. For those reasons, I really liked the image. Authenticity didn't seem to be the point, but rather a timeless mood, which it achieved very well. Great job, Michal. -Stuart

Good photo!

Fred, that's fine, as long as it stays between you and the photograph. But when someone starts bringing the photographer into that interpretation by stating, specifically, that Michal was "clearly hoping for a Vermeer-style effect...," then the person providing this critique has gone too far. He has gone into the mind and intent of the photographer, a place where he has no knowledge and therefore no basis for those kinds of statements. If the photograph reminds him of photos that attempt to recreate painting effects, then that person doing the critique can get sidetracked on a rant against photographers who do this if he wishes, but he can't (yet) aim that critique at this photo and this photographer. We don't know if Michal was attempting to recreate painting effects. When the person doing the critique suggests that an ancient background would only exaggerate the intent, which to him is flawed, the person doing the critique is supposing he knows the intent of the photographer, and that is simply false. He doesn't know, at least not yet. He may ultimately be right, that Michal was wanting to recreate a Vermeer-style atmosphere in his photograph, but at this point in time we don't yet know. So stay away from statements about the intent of the photographer, stay on point with the photograph, and I don't see a problem.

Similarly, if we want to see Vermeer throughout this photograph, that's fine. But if our critique then points out how it falls short of emulating a Vermeer painting (e.g., modern glass window), then we've gone too far because we don't know if that's what Michal had intended in his photograph. Our critique involving the photographer has to be based on what the photographer saw, not what we want the photographer to have seen. Our critique involving the photographer has to be based on the photographer's interpretation, not on our own. Certainly we can offer our own interpretations and impressions of the photograph itself (e.g., I'd prefer a period piece like this to not be in front of a modern glass window), but we can't criticize the photographer for not sharing or for not living up to those interpretations. It might not be a period piece -- it might be his sister in her favorite old-fashioned dress. We don't yet know. If and when we do know that it was intended to be a period piece in the style of Vermeer, then I'll shut up and stand back so I don't get cut by flying modern glass.

This is yet another example of why I think the workings of the POW would be enhanced if the elves were to first alert the photographer that his/her photograph was going to be a POW and that the photographer could provide us viewers with some background about the photo, about the taking of the photo, about the processing of the photo, and whatever else he/she felt might be relevant, interesting, or just simply what he/she wanted us to know. That would give us a broader perspective for each POW, a better understanding of where it came from and where it was heading. I think that's not much different than the approach that John A. and others take when they investigate the POW photographer's other work in order to put the particular POW in that larger context. It gives us a broader perspective and understanding, and that will surely enhance the quality and usefulness of our critiques.

Like I said, Stephen, I think the photo should show what the photographer wants. If we come away from this not knowing whether the photographer wanted a re-creation of a period scene in the style of Vermeer or whether it was a pic of his sister in dress up for a play, then the photographer has missed, as far as I'm concerned. I don't mind a photo that asks questions and is even somewhat ambiguous, but not knowing the difference between those two things, to me, shows either a lack of skill, a lack of commitment, or a lack of craft in carrying out the photo.

By the way, Stephen, consider that you are in the minority here. Most of us seem confident of what the photographer was doing.

A lovely photo beautifully captured. I like the shadows which add to the period feel of this. Is it really 21 st century :) 

I agree with Barry G re the window. I would definitely get rid of the verticals on the left. I find them to be a distraction when looking at the image. My eye is drawn to this and I feel somehow blocked by it.

Looks to me taken with 45degree natural lighting. Good depth of field. Could be cropped to cut out the glass door/window or move in for a upper arm, head shot.So many different angles   for this shot. But ya have to move fast to catch it. Bet the light quality did not last long. Great pic.

I am no good at this kind of photography, but one thing looks to me as a very little bit odd ... There seems to be more light falling on the model from the front, than there is through the window, and yet the pillar or wall on the left, is in the dark? Maybe that being a bit more over-exposed so some detail is present in the wall surface, rather than taking on the effect of looking blurred might help.
It's a stunning image, and the model, deserves to be congratulated as she's really applied a lot of effort to feel 'Part of the scene/era'.

Hi, Michal,
I think the picture is absolutely great (may be not perfect) from technical point of view - coloours, composition, etc. But I agree with Stephen , that to discuss it we have to know why you took this picture. Photography is an art, but it is very specific and I enjoy the most the truth of it, the ability to capture the reality, the beauty of which some other eye dosn't see, the moment I was lucky to witness, the ugliness or horror I don't want to happen again... I respect though experimenting, looking for new possibilities. Thank you for your picture. Regards, Tamara

T
I

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.

Fred, whether I'm in the minority or not doesn't bother me in the least. I also think Mark Onat is probably going to be largely correct about Michal's intentions. The point is I'm not sure if he's going to be correct, because these are, at this point, all assumptions about the photographer's motivations and intentions. Some people are willing to critique based on assumptions about the internal motivations of another person; I'm not. It's an easy trap to fall into, because it's a natural tendency to believe that other people think like we do. I'm guilty of it myself, on this forum, in making assumptions about what a person was thinking or why they made a photograph or why they made a particular statement in a critique. When you find out you were wrong in those kinds of situations, it can be very embarrassing and painful. Anyone who believes this photograph was done with Vermeer in mind is, at this point, making an assumption, and any critique that states why/how Michal failed to achieve the look or style of Vermeer is based on that assumption. I wish the POW system were structured differently to remove the tendency and sometimes necessity for us to make these assumptions, because that would put all of us on more solid footings when we provide comments and especially opinions. Finally, many photographs, especially those involving people, can be interpreted in several ways, so I just have to disagree that a photographer can make it unmistakably evident to a viewer why the photograph was taken solely on the basis of the photograph itself, and that if the photographer doesn't do this, then that represents a failure on the part of him/her. The fact that goals or motivations aren't always unmistakably evident in a photograph is simply a reflection of the great diversity within people; we are really complex creatures.

This photo was taken in Museum of Architecture in Wrocław (Poland) one year ago. Magda, girls from a picture, is a member of medival brotherhood. She was clad in typical, silesian dress from XV century. We planned doing simple portrait - nothing special :). We didn't have additional light - just only a window. Modern elements on photo are my fault. That's all :) Thank You for all Your opinion
Regards
Michał

Fred you should know better than to hide behind a majority rule, when it comes to appreciating art - here photography.

I have no opinion on what the photography intended and his portfolio does not give a clue as far as I can see.

I can only look at the photo and appreciate it for what it communicates well or less well. I agree that if I look at the scene and the shot as a pastiche of a Vermeer painting, it falls short, and we can all enumerate the elements illustrating that. But, I can surely appreciate the light of the face and the cloth.
However, I think it is right that one of the reasons why the photo catches attention is because of the glance of the model. Her expression and eyes are maybe the best element in the shot.

I viewed this shot in the context of the other beautiful portraits by Michael, and unfortunately I'm put off by the windows. They don't belong in this shot and that problem, however minor, doesn't show in his other protraits. The upside to this minor criticism is that, on the whole, the shot is flattering and beautiful and I envy him his model. She's perfect for this picture.