the disrobing

Very nice photo!

http://s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/ http://2.s05.flagcounter.com/count/ZWq/bg=FFFFFF/txt=000000/border=CCCCCC/columns=4/maxflags=12/viewers=0/labels=0/

I see nothing of beauty here (which the intro to this photo suggests), except perhaps the gown which I wish I could see more clearly. Mostly, I see a grotesque pose and unfortunate use of lighting.

Before I looked at the entire folder of photos of Magenta, I assumed this was a much older woman and that was the one aspect of this photo I appreciated, that it didn't seem to be of a typical younger woman with typically taught skin and silky hair, etc. Wrong. The model fits in somewhat interchangeably with most fashion, advertising, and PN nude models.

In the folder, there are more refined uses of backlighting, especially among the black and whites, calling a little less attention to itself and harmonizing more with less harshness, film, and aberration, such as is evident in the hair in this photo. The backlighting in other photos enhances the feeling of mystique of those photos.

Looking at the entire portfolio, my conclusion is that it's amazing how many photographic uses can be found for the object known as a woman's body.

She does not look an older woman , but it is a bad use of backlight to say the least. It took me sometime to understand what is going on in the frame. The lower circle is not corresponding to her pose and dress.The part where her hands must be is completely a dark stain.

Fred, I think that what the elves are asking in their introdaction, is what we think of this photo. Going to see the photographer's entire work , can ad or detract from the POW.

I don't like the entire use of wonan's body, and it looks that this is the only subjects his work portrasys.

No, it is not.

Not much. I think the photographer made the wrong exposure choice. I can say that honestly because I've made the same mistake, myself, and the results look as bad as this one does.

Doesn't do a thing for me. Mostly because the majority of the posing elements are obscured by the dress. And it's so obviously a pose...there's no spontaniety to it. The curve of the model could suggest movement, but it doesn't. It's a static image. She could be a mannequin in a store window. The viewer can't see her face, her eyes, or even her hands, which really makes the image just sort of lifeless for me. If I could even see just a hint of her face...the curve of a cheek or the tip of her nose or a glimpse of part of an eye, or even a partial hand, it might save the image for me...but since I can't see any of those things, I have to give this one a thumbs down.

I really like the drapery (curtains). Harmonizes with the great white light through the window. Subtle shades of white - on the drapes.

Perhaps Fred, Pnina and Jim would prefer it like this:

http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17596765-md.jpg
What I find intriguing, and if I'm honest, a little surprising, is that this particular image was selected from this particular gallery (Light Art with Magenta 2013) for review, as I had not submitted it for critique and was considering removing it this week as it had comparatively few viewings, when placed alongside others in the collection. With regards to my work with Magenta, this covers everything from Portraiture to Fashion to Figure Art (we have been working together as the driving force of Unison Photo Arts in Plymouth for some eight years), but there seems very little interest in much of this work on many sites, art nude being the exception. At least the image generated some discussion.

Howard: I just don't get the Elves stating that "This is a beautiful subject." If 'this' is intended to refer to the woman in the image, I can't agree since all I can see is her back. Of course, that goes hand in hand with your title . . . fine.

For whatever it's worth, I like your high key version much better. It highlights the muscularity off the woman's back.

Many thanks, Michael. The whole idea was an experiment, and we did get one image in this set which I particularly like, so I may add that to the gallery in future. I'm still a little shocked by all the attention for this particular image, when I've had award-winning and publicly-used work on here over the last six years that barely gets a mention. Oh well.

Speaking for myself, yes, I do like that one better. Much better, in fact. The high key gives a lot of negative space to the right, which could suggest movement from right to left. I like having some idea of what she looks like, and I like the placement of her hand and the position of her fingers. I also love her haircut. As a matter of fact, as far as I'm concerned, you could have left the drapery out entirely and shot her high key on a plain white background, and it would have been an even more successful photograph.

Lots of photographers don't like to admit that they may have made a bad shot, or they'll use that old lame rationale of "I meant for it to look like that." By your posting this alternative photograph, you not only admit that you may have made a poor choice, but you point out what people see as "mistakes" in your POTW shot...so kudos to you for that.

You also mention some of your work that hardly gets noticed on p.net. Don't feel like the Lone Ranger. Once I stopped posting nudes on a regular basis, some of my photographs are doing good to get two comments. Then again, I no longer submit for ratings, either, and don't accept anonymous comments, so lots of people won't even comment on a photograph unless they can assign a meaningless number to it or hide behind anonymity. Or they'll rate a photograph but won't comment on it...an infantile mindset, to say the least.

But again...good for you for posting a different image for comparison.

I don't like this picture. The model appears

to be without arms which are in deep

shadow. The curve of her back is nice in

the back light but that's about it. The pose

seems forced to me. I find no great beauty

in this image.

Question: Why are the Elves seeding this

forum with their opinion and, now, also

leading questions? Do you think this is

helping? Please stay neutral or you risk

setting a bias in the reviews. Do, however,

jump in, as a member, and share your

opinion and enter the discussion with the

rest of the group.

Point well taken, Louis. In my opinion, the Elves should simply present the image without offering any point of view.

Howard, thanks for entering the discussion and letting us knwo your point of view . The second version has at least more details in her FG, but IMO your high key PP and the light/shadows on her back are still does not look good , and a bit distorted ,especially on the lower part were the zipper ends.

As different from Jim ,I think that the RHS is too empty while at the POW version, the curtains at least , are a kind of a frame to
the figure.

Looking at the whole section of Magenta, all of them does not have any comment given by a woman ... ;-)) But there are a few which are better executed than the POW and the second version of this pose.

Given that Howard has written that this is not his best work, I'll just comment on the generic aspects of point-of-view.

The woman is "performing" (undressing) to the open window. Whether or not there is anybody out there, there *could* be, and her attitude seems to hope that, or fantasize that, there is.

We (the viewer) are not outside; we are inside, in the intimacy of her (bed?)room, and she seems not terribly interested in us (or not nearly as much as in whatever/whoever is outside the window). She's looking for a better offer ...

[Can't resist noting the pun of "back light" on her lit back ... ]

I read a few comments here and I would counter the idea that the light itself is bad as I think if other elements worked, it would work. Basically, I don't think any different light/exposure would have made this image work well.

The problem for me is one more of styling and/or possibly the choice of garment for this shot. It just ends up lacking a smooth sense of flow or elegance. The setting is actually pretty nice, the symmetrical window and the nicely pulled curtains create a sort of "accepting" stage for the woman.

So, my problem with the styling starts with this awkward, bulbous shape of the dress at the bottom. This is a very clunky shape for this sort of image and creates what I feel is a very odd base for the subject's form to rise out of. Maybe pulling the fabric back, to the right, would have thinned out the front of the woman and accented a smoother, more sensual shape as it rises to the left.

My second issue is the form created by the cuff. Any flow that does start to develop is just stopped by this oddly placed rectangle, which wants to be important, but isn't.

Finally, and I don't think the woman needs to be centered, but the balance of the image is pretty much off and awkward. Now, an elegant, flowing form might have been able to move us back into balance, but this shape just seems to lock us into the imbalance.

I think the idea was fine--and often done--but I would suggest that the image suffered from overall design flaws. (Honestly, this is a good example where posting less, by editing, will present more to the viewer. We live and die by what we present, not by our knowledge that one thing is better than another.)

Thanks for more comments, especially from Julie - all appreciated and interesting. To give a little more context to the image, it was taken at the end of a fashion section of the days shoot, in which we were trying to use the location and the dress in various ways, so the fashion shot looked like this:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17598050-md.jpg
The commented image was essentially an afterthought which followed this. The preferred fashion image using this dress from the day was actually taken in another widow entirely:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17598051-md.jpg
As it happened, the final 'back' image I captured with this dress proved to be much more pleasing, and has gained a fair amount good ratings and even a peer award on other sites, so I may well add this towards the end of the discussion.

This photograph is tepid. It strains for effects. The pose is rigid. It is not sexy, as the title implies. The backlighting and

dark figure does not help matters. Beautiful? Not quite.

I could not agree more. I don't find this to be a beautiful subject, and immediately I'm turned off from participating in the discussion because of the introduction by the Elves. Is the POTW a forum for the Elves to get a point across, or a forum to facilitate discussion among members?

The model was worth more than this. The awkward pose ruins an otherwise potentially beautiful photograph. Would the pose have worked without the dress? Maybe, but we will never know.

Th lighting is potentially good for a conventional nude--but not for this photo (which most definitely is not a nude). I cannot see the high-key version that others keep referring to.

I concur that we do not need someone telling us how beautiful something is that we are about to review.

The photographer is obviously very good, and the model is spectacular. Why was this particular photo chosen? I understand that the Photo of the Week is not necessarily supposed to be the best photo, but there is no need to pick one of the weaker pictures by this photographer, either.

--Lannie

If the photographer's intention is to showing us her back ,he would have succeeded though with a n average lighting conditions,any other attempt for a fashion shot of his have failed in the eyes of an ordinary man who knows what fashion's shot are .

Sorry about the problems seeing the alternative image, Lannie, which seems to have vanished, so here it is again:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/17602775-md.jpg
As I've tried to spell out above, Saad, this isn't a fashion shot, but merely experimental, playing with light and semi-nudity to see what was possible. I'll probably post the award-winning shot from this part of the session (also referred to in my prior comments) in the gallery of this work on my portfolio here in the next few days.

This is not scoliosis but the opinion here is that the spine looks awkward and not so great. I love window light normally. The shot the elves selected is not very interesting even as a secondary image. It would take too long to analyze the problems, but they are numerous. Next......(I am not going to look at the gallery, Howard, cause it is the POW and should stand by itself in any weekly analysis.) Anyway, so I think until corrected. Be well, aloha,gs

My first thought was of the movie "Boxing Helena", the ultimate expression of objectification of a woman as a defenseless torso. (The movie depicts a woman held captive by a surgeon who amputates first her legs and then her arms, keeping her dressed like a doll in a plush box or chair.) In that context, this isn't a bad photo. It's disorienting, unsettling, maybe even a bit disturbing.

But that doesn't appear to have been the photographer's intention, so I'm not sure that my impression of the photo can be considered favorable, even though I find it oddly striking and disconcerting.

Looks like one of those back ache aspirin commercials we use to see in magazine's.