Lucia

To Marc G. yes they all match as you say, the overall effect to me is still dull. Adding overall contrast in printing should not change the overall relationships unless, the print can't take it, meaning there are areas over or under exposed. And...I'm not one who catagorically needs contrasty photos to appreciate subtlely of tone, but in this photo, I think more of an extended tonal scale would be stronger. To be fair, when I get home tonight I'll pull it into PS and see how that looks. I have a feeling the weak point will be her face. But in the final analysis, its the photog's choice, I can only give an opinion for discussion. Another thing, I shoot mostly documentary and street, and use a little different critera and standard for those types of photography, not that printing standards don't apply, they still do completely, but in this kind of shot here, its all very controlled, and the photographer should be able to control every aspect, I'm a lot more nitpicky on these photos whether its mine or someone elses. Now I'm not saying he did not do that here, in fact that's one of the things the elves seem so excited about. I just don't like the choices made as far as tonality. Flattening the contrast is one way to make it all work together. It would be interesting to see this printed a couple of different ways.

Dave, perhaps I'm missing something, but I see no mention stating the picture was taken in June in the technical details...? This being said, please note the "Etc Etc" in my post. This reminded me immediately of overcast days in eastern European countries, but well, you may well get the same in US in what ever month... Cheers.

Marc, it's under the "Details" tab, there are entries for "Location" and "Exposure date".

 

By the way, I like this photo; I just would be inclined to tweak curves to brighten it up just a bit. Although I must admit, that now that I'm home and looking at it on my monitor here which is brighter than the one in my office, it looks better.

After viewing this artist's portfolio I see he seems to love the understated- this fits right in with his style. He also loves soft light/ low contrast and that too comes through loud and clear. This has a very nice soft light coming in from the left. The background is a stunning find to pose this lady in front of. It's a very 'artistic' fashion image and tough for those with a pre-conceived idea of what constitutes a good image for that genre.

 

For his style it's perfect, but personally I'd give it a dash more punch in contrast, but not much more. I might also crop one side or the other to get her off center but this works as is. (He is not afraid to crop either as you will notice from his other work as well, so I'd be hesitant to suggest it, whereas many here never seem to get their subject out of the center of the frame.)

 

Overall it's, IMHO, one of the better weekly choices... I love drinking in all of the elements, so rich. But then again one mans meat is another mans poison.

I disagree with the critics here. This is a great shot. Not the same old same old. Centered in a square within a square. A rule breaker that works. Tasteful color works well with the background and a nice model to boot.

Mystical in simplicity. Wall vines setting the drama. The use of square format, framing the image well.

I like it !!

Marc G. : you certainly made me see the photo from a different point of view.. everything done to stick with the season.. I admit I had'nt thought of that. But, this rises an other issue for me : assuming that what many including me believed to be flaws was in fact calculated and the real purpose of mr. Blaszczyk, does that make it a quality instead of a flaw ? I mean, is it because it was the authors purpose that it is good ?

 

Besides, natural light can be beautiful in winter.. I think the flat lighting does'nt serve the concept you explained.

I like this - it's very unusual as a fashion shot. In a magazine, I believe it would catch your eye and you would stop to give it a second look, like all of us are doing here on PN. You may not love it, but you would look, I think. I like the vines and the way the model blends with the background, leaving the dress to be the focal point. While I don't think this is a 7/7 image, it still rates above average to me.

All I know is I clicked on it because I didn't understand what I was seeing. Then I looked at it for several minutes trying to decide why the image caught my attention. Then I decided to comment.

 

To me that's the spirit of art...opinion without consequence. So I'd say, leaving aside analysis of photographic parameters, that the image, and the creator seem to be originals in spirit, not just presentation.

 

Not just another picture...

Here we have an obviously talented photographer(artistically and technically) going out

and trying something far off the norm...and very successfully, imo. Yes, the lighting is

flat. Yes, the model looks kind of plastic-like. And yes, the colors are kind of muted,

muddy, and lacking contrast. Why photos(fashion, in this case) always have to fit some

people's pre-conceived ideas, is something I will never understand. Its painfully obvious

that this was the look he was going for here.

I

think we, as viewers, have the responsibility to ourselves to be a little more open-minded.

cheers

No matter how open-minded one is, Kelly, the fact remains that the face and hair are barely distinguishable from the wall--especially the hair. If there is some artistic merit in that, I have yet to find it. Unlike you, I actually like the photo, in spite of this defect, but I do think that it is a defect.

What isn't artistic about skin and hair melting into a wall? Just reading that sentence

makes me want to try it.

 

btw, maybe our monitors are alot different, but I see alot of difference between her face

and the wall. not so much with the hair, though.

 

Also, in line with what Marc said earlier somewhere, this chick kind of looks like Courtney

Love...in a very non-Courtney Love-ish setting. That is unnerving.

I was also struck how the model herself is a reflection of the wall or an embodiment of it. The hair is an analogue of the vines and the skin tone is an analogue of the stone-- or stucco or whatever it is. She becomes similar and at the same time remains a contrast becasue of her life and humanity. It's really an interesting shot.

 

As for the comment about her being too small-- I don't know. I guess i don't think that a person always has to be a subject. Sometimes a person can act as much as an object as any stone, wall, chair, or building if the intention is to use him/her that way. I kind of see this model as making up part of the scene-- it's a picture of a scene not of a person.

 

Either way, I like it and ain't nothing nobody gonna say gonna change my mind nohow! ;-)

No feet, hands barely visibile, a head that looks undersized compared to the dress, and a background that matches her face to the point where it is clear that the idea is to make her disappear leaving the dress just hanging there by itself at first glance.

 

That was the purpose, wasn't it?

I assume it was the purpose-- but then we're getting into authroial intent and into that area of never-ending debate and argument. I'm gathering from all of the posts that it was the effect it had on its audience-- so, yes, if it was Chris's desired effect hurrah for him! :-) Oh, and I got your winter comments too-- when this was shot is immeterial to the viewer's interpretaion of winter symbology.

Thanks for all the comments. I must admit that I am surprised that I got the P.O.W. with this photo. I love the print, but I can understand that some people may have objections to dull color and low quality of the image. The JPG file was saved with around 60% in order to get it below 100kb. Regards and thanks again!

Carl, the ghost rising from the dead vines is indeed a great effect. (I'm reminded of Winona Ryder floating up into the air at the end of "Beetlejuice." Of course, that was a brunette.) Maybe when the link to the blowup of the file is working, we can see that the Hassey's resolution will allow us to distinguish the model from the wall without blowing the entire ghostly effect.

Aha! So it is up now. This works wonders, doesn't it?

 

Great shot, Chris. No one ever said that PN was ever going to do justice to a MF file.

One may like it or not. It is an unusual shot.

 

My first reaction is "Where did the photographer find such a vined wall?" Messy? Not at all. But maybe its pattern can be a little more stronger.

 

The problem is not with the photo. The problem is that we are used to sharp photos: sharp in contrast, sharp in color, sharp in expression ...

Would have been nice to see her naked and behind the vines covering key points on her body.

My first thought was "manequin" rather than model. Maybe its the hair that was dishelved to match the background and clothes looking like a badly done wig. I think this is reinforced by not having anything visible that the model is standing on - the vines cover where the feet would be to my perception, giving it an impression of floating or not having a bottom 1/2 a torso. Pretty unnatural.

She is a lifeless model. It might fit the mood of this photo.

I think that the unnatural look is part of the inherent contradictions of the piece. The Vines on the (manmade) wall, the feral-looking hair and the elegance of the gown.

I thought it was a mannequin too - can we be assured it is not? I don't suppose it matters greatly in this kind of static pose, but I can't help feeling a more lifelike model/lighting would look less like a coatstand.

Congratulations, Chris! For the POW but for the photo itself, too. In fact, it's a very carefully made design. A rare case of an original fashion shot. Everything works together here. The main subject is the dress and nothing else. It's not a portrait of a young lady, it's a commercial photo to promote some new fashion idea. That's why the lady looks like a doll, she was "arranged" and instructed to look like this, because she's not of prime importance for shooting outcome. The BG says something about the season. The diffused light is "responsible" for the colors of the dress. Exactly that colors was required by the dress designer, I think.That's the colors of the red grapes. (I don't like the color of what around her neck, however.) So, imo, it's a scene designed to support an outfit. Maybe, there were some problems with a final result (too flashy?) and the photographer was asked to make the image more subtle. I don't know. Once I had to shoot the paintings of an artist preparing himself for an exhibition. I thought, the photos came out perfect, but the artist didn't like them. Everything was settled after I ruined them (with Auto Levels). Good critique of Marc G. above. Regards. Blago