Watch

... superlative portrait... Hi

Excellent capture and processing Chuck. This really has a vintage feel while still keeping good detail. Well done!

There is a slight grittiness to this photograph that I like, a grittiness that gives it a certain amount of realism. It seems processed but not overprocessed. It's just a bit too gray overall for me, though. And I wonder about the little bit of an "aura" to the right side (our left) of her hair.

I like the detail, but I don't think it would have harmed the photograph to show more detail in the background. I'm usually in favor of a shallow depth of field for portraits, but in this case, I want the opposite. I do like the way the line of her left arm runs exactly into the corner of the frame.

I like the idea, the hand is perfect, and it's basically a standard portrait pose or setup. But it feels somehow incomplete to me. This is one of those 60/40 like/dislike photographs for me.

I may think of other things to say about it later, but for now, I'll just say it's an okay photograph and let it go at that.

Just fine. In this case I am not sure the sepia/high clarity/boosted shadow detail or whatever it is adds much to the image - I think I would have preferred a more traditional treatment in this case, but it works in its way. Nice direct gaze - I just wish it was black and white and not sepia and light sepia, but that was the photographer's choice, so I go with it.

I like this picture. The model is exceptional in her unique, exotic beauty. The pose and natural light is very nice and I like the direct connection to the viewer. The hand pose is lovely.

Digital processing is always a matter of taste and personal preference. This is a bit too contrasty for my taste but in context of the run-down surround it doesn't feel out of place. I have made a few notes that may or may not improve it:
Tighter crop to bring more focus on the model
Reduce some hot areas
Reduce the brown/green color somewhat
Touch up the wall spot, fly away hair and whatever that thing is on her mouth.
A bit of edge burn to bring the eye inward.

Here are the changes

I like the portrait very much, the new cropping, I all ready thought about it, is perfect now, the overall color tone and contrast is good too, but the slight posterization is a little bothersome for me. I like the image better, if I close my eyes a little to get the image slightly unsharpened and the "pasteurization" disappear. Over-all, a very good lighting and a good portrait, regardless the classic set-up. I like the door frame as a strong anchor point to the right as an image start to develop to the left The composition is really not very classic except the model posing. The image has a good dynamic presentation.
Louis did an excellent job for cropping the image and clearing up blemishes.

Thank you for sharing this image with us.

I too like the grittiness of the photograph, as Jim mentioned. It definitely adds realism to it, even going as far as displaying the various blemishes on the subject's face and lips and also the various "imperfections" in her environment. I get the feeling that Chuck was not out to create the typical "pretty" portrait. It's a portrait all right, but its aim perhaps is to showcase the seamier side of life. For that purpose, I agree that black and white would have been more appropriate.

There are many good things about this portrait, which others have addressed. I'll be the contrarian about the post processing, though. While I don't think it's over-processed or processed in the bad some recent previous POTWs have been, I do think the processing idea went a bit awry here. First, we do have a more or less classic approach to portraiture here. While the resulting look is, as some have said, not pretty, the model is shot and lit and posed in such a way as the classic beautiful portrait would be. So, for me, the processing works against the whole tone of the photo and seems out of place. That being said, it's a personal choice, and I can accept that while thinking this kind of processing could be improved. The tones are muddy and her face has a dirty rather than gritty look to me. There's a subtle but important difference between the two. A gritty look might even have wanted to go a little further to insure grittiness. As it stands, it just has an overall unattractive look to me. Not that all portraits need to be attractive. But the degree to which a portrait veers from attractiveness will be key to its success. Her face looks more blotchy than gritty and her hair, where it's not catching highlights, is forlorn and mud-like. I agree that the halo at her ride side of her hair, should be burned in and was most likely caused by the processing to begin with.

The dark patch under her right eye, which I imagine is a consequence of post processing, makes her eyeball appear to protrude from its socket.

Fred, perhaps her face really was dirty and blotchy, but only for the purposes of this photograph. Gritty and dirty...not much difference when you get right down to it. You can have both dirt and grit in the pores of your skin. Ditto for her hair looking forlorn and mud-like...it could be that way just for this photo. As you say, "the model is shot and lit and posed in such as way as the classic beautiful portrait would be", but all portraiture, classic or otherwise, isn't required to be "pretty" or "beautiful". Everything in a portrait doesn't have to be just so, unless the photographer is just striving for some sort of (usually unattainable) perfection. But you know that, don't you?

Of course I know that. I think there is, as I said, a difference between gritty and dirty. The dirtiness seems not to be a function of the woman herself but rather a function of the post processing. What I'm saying is that even trying for a gritty kind of post processing here is an odd choice since she's posed and lit in a more classic way. For me, the best post processing usually goes with the other elements like pose and setup. Were she in the same environment but not so "beautifully" posed, this direction of post processing could work. In this instance, it seems to be a choice of post processing based on wanting a certain look but not a look that is organic either to the subject matter or the rest of the way the photo is arranged and shot. The blotchiness on her face I'm seeing isn't a matter of skin. It's as Bela pointed out, an artifact from post processing, IMO. I'm not asking for the portrait to be perfectly arranged or to attain some kind of perfection. I'm asking for it all to work together to add up to an engaging portrait. This one, though it has many good features, also seems to work against itself and even contradict itself, though not in a way that engages me thoughtfully. The processing, as I said, feels awry, not intentionally curious or intentionally transgressive. It doesn't seem to come from either the subject or by the way the subject has been seen in the shooting. The post process, for me, is not working with all the other qualities of the photo.

As I read the responses here and looked at the image I think there are a lot of indications that this image was probably recovered from a somewhat underexposed image..maybe more than somewhat. What I see in the face that is being referred to, I believe, as the difference between gritty and dirty are essentially post processing artifacts, what you get when you try to recover tone that isn't there but keep contrast--similar to the posterized look that was mentioned.

Technically, I do think there are a lot of issues that have been mentioned and I do feel the image is a bit cramped in the framing as it is--what is the rounded protrusion on the bottom of "her" right side? Anyway, lots of room at the top but seems truncated at the bottom.

Not suggesting the image is terrible in the overall attempt, just needed to be better exposed and processing issues would probably be remedied.

I like the offbeat composition and directness of expression. It has the feel of an almost-but-not-quite spontaneous candid portrait, a photo of a friend across the table at lunch. If there's any posing or coaching at all it feels like something along the lines of "Do that thing with your hand you just did a moment ago while you were reminiscing about your vacation plans. That's it." [click].

But I'm wondering what it would look like in a less obviously processed way. The very fact that I'm wondering about processing seems to indicate something may be a bit awry. I took a couple of days to ponder it.

The overcranked clarity filter type local contrast enhancement doesn't bother me. I use that a lot myself. It lends a gritty edge that seems appropriate for some photos.

And I don't mind the high fashion hyper-cleaned up appearance to the eyes.

But the combination of the two effects seems... odd. It's like I'm looking at two entirely different photos at the same time. One is gritty, uncompromising, defying conventional expectations of beauty: we can see obvious pores or gooseflesh on her arm; her face isn't excessively retouched so it looks real - not too coarse, yet not entirely natural. The other photo has the heavily retouched doll eyes so common to high fashion, modeling portfolios and those ghastly children's beauty pageant photos.

It's not a bad or wrong editing choice. Just odd.

I dont like them when the pics are been messed with. sorry alice.

So only straight out of the camera is all that's OK? My condolences on your dogmatism.

I'm not sure someone asserting their own tastes ("I don't like them when . . .") is a case of dogmatism. Dogmatism is an arrogant assertion of opinions as truths. I don't interpret Alice as having done that. Many of the best artists, from Warhol to Hitchcock to Stieglitz, had strong opinions on matters of art and approaches to it. This generally shows a strong conviction in what one is doing and a focused vision and really doesn't have to be taken as dogmatic if it is instead looked at within the context of art and taste and one's strong reactions against certain ways of doing things. Artists have thrived over the centuries by revolutionizing the very concept of art, often dismissing and tossing out what's been accepted by others . . . sometimes quite harshly. Dada! Expressionism. Post-modernism.

Alfred Stieglitz nearly a century ago: "It is high time that the stupidity and sham in pictorial photography be struck a solarplexus blow…Claims of art won't do. Let the photographer make a perfect photograph. And if he happens to be a lover of perfection and a seer, the resulting photograph will be straight and beautiful - a true photograph."

I don't happen to agree with Stieglitz from my vantage point today and I like and am fascinated by Pictorialism. But within the historical context, I completely understand why he needed to be so assertive about where photography could go and what was "wrong" with how it had been so far utilized and treated as a medium. And I'm glad he said it at the time because it really helped move photography forward.

A strong opinion rarely hurt anyone who has a thick enough skin to understand where it's coming from, which is often a place of passion, and what positive aspects it might also have.

Alice's opinion seems rather simply stated, honest, and not as strong as many others I've heard.

Fred - you feel obliged answer everyone's posts. Do you know what Alice thinks? As a statement is was pretty dogmatic. She may not be like that but that is the way it reads.

Robin, I don't feel obliged. I like interacting and being proactive and involved in multiple conversations about photography. So, yes, when someone says something that provokes me or inspires me or interests me enough to respond, even if it wasn't directed at me personally, because it's in a public forum in which I'm participating, I will take the opportunity to engage them, as I did with you. I have no idea what Alice thinks. Like you, I can only go by what she said and I was suggesting an alternative interpretation of her words while also widening the discussion to include historical examples of strongly and dogmatically-worded opinions that I don't think do any injustice to photography or art.