white on white

I can't help myself but in my oppinion her right eye is too dark, she looks as if she was a bit cross-eyed!

I can't believe this...

 

Two POWs in a row where the high key effect has been achieved by blasting the highlights to smithereens.

 

Congratulations anyway, Fili. I can tell from the rest of your portfolio, and from the lighting and posing on this picture, that you are a talented photographer, but this image is not a fair representative of your skill, in my opinion.

From one who works hard on the High-Key technique, this is a masterpiece. From my perspective, it just doesn't get any better. All the elements of the composition work. The accent on the eyes create magic. The softness of the fabric compliment but do not take away from the model. I would print 11x14 or full frame 11x17 on matte paper. White matt with black trim inside and a thin black frame. Congratulations to the photographer.

I'm posting this rescrint and then ducking.

 

Working with the the jpg posted by fili was fun, and I think the results speak for themselves. I can't help but to wonder what it would be like to work with the original scan, or to scan the neg myself and work from that. From the amount of detail I was able to pull out of the fili's jpg, it looks to me like the subject was well lit, and negative was properly exposed, but the decision to blast the highlights, well, I'm against it. I think it ruins a beautiful opportunity.

 

Still, I'm sure some will rave over the brightness of fili's picture, and be dismayed over the apparent grayness of my rendition. Side by side, the rescrint will look horribly gray, but on its own, if there were nothing to compare it to, I think most people would accept it without reservation.

I don't remember last seeing such a beautifully done hi-key image. Very deserving of POW

I like the image, is it a portrait though or a fashion photography? or both? One thing bothers me, I don't know if it would improve the picture but its the direction of the stare, there's something not quite right.

to Doug..

i dont really get the point of what you did except offensing my work. if you wanna see the original file simply ask me - i can send it to you via email. what i did with the picture in ps7 postprocessing is what any photographer would do in a darkroom, from a properly exposed negative - making the perfect print, relfecting the authors idea.

i'd like to emphasise - this isnt how the image looked like originally, it was done in color!

thanks Doug for your "constructive criticism"..

thanks to all for your honest opinions, i really appreciate them.

This is going to be a fun week.

 

I'm truly sorry you feel that way, Aleksandra, and I apoologize for being rude, but if you found what I did to be offensive, I suggest you shut your computer down for the week.

 

I am not "any photographer" and would not make this in a darkroom. I would throw this out, and then try again with a lower grade of paper. But, that is my idea and, as you say, you had your own idea of how this negative should be presented. I am not arguing with that. I'm sure you will find many here who love this, as it is, but I will not be one of those people.

 

I see from your other work that you have great talent and I would really like to see this picture prepared with a careful attention to detail, rather than just moving the highlight slider to the left.

I just don't like any white outs, this one doesn't change that but just my opinion.

I would very much like to see the original color capture. May we have a look? I ask because I'm curious about her skin tone. She looks to be fairly dark skinned to me, making the transformation to high key rather tricky. I'm also curious about the extent to which her eyes 'pop' on the original. The black makeup seems just a tad over the top and emphasizes the earlier observation made about the differences between the two eyes in their gaze (cross-eyed?) and, to my eye, tonality.

I like. Judging by Doug's admirable rescue I think I like it as it is. And as for presentation - surely a big fat white matt and a white frame ?!

Doug..

ok, i'm sorry maybe i was too harsh on you, i just dont like my works to be manipulated in any way by anyone. you have a right to have your opinion and i appreciate that you shared yours in your second comment. i really like photographs with detail and texture, i always tend to enhance them on my photos, especially on landscapes or cityscapes - but this time i had a different idea and intentions.

i'm not gonna shut down my pc for sure :)

greets and thanks for your comments.

fi

Firstly, congratulations Fili, it's a beautiful photo, there's an ethereal quality to it that just makes you want to keep staring. The elfin features of the model are perfect for this kind of shot.

 

I'd also like to speak on Doug's behalf- all he was trying to do was demonstrate a techinical point. I realise that it might be a little rude to manipulate someone's work like that, but the whole point of posting something on photo.net is to have it critiqued, and I think that Doug's sort of critique is much more effective than words could ever be. Personally I find that sort of remanipulation incredibly useful- thanks Doug!

 

I have to say though that I mainly prefer Fili's original version. Her model shines with a surreal, inner light that I think it lost through Doug's more technically realistic version. My only issues with Fili's version are:

 

-the distracting fringe of shawl (maybe doesn't need to be eliminated entirely, but simply placed less prominently in center)

 

-the differently shaded eyes. While I like the mild contrast on her skin, I think it would have been nicer if the eyes had been equally luminous, or at least contrasted less.

 

-The fact that the model has a tendency to blur into the background. Perhaps if the background was slightly less white, just slightly. Perhaps Doug's version of the background with the original model would be perfect- the model would stand out and glow even more, though in a subtle way that maintains the overall whiteness.

The model's skin tone is unusual, very waxy, which reminds me of waxwork models. I find her to be somewhat lifeless because of it, but then I guess she is supposed to be frozen by ice judging by her eyebrows. Was it a red channel conversion to B&W Fili?

I agree with the elf on the posture of the model and indirect gaze making this an appealing portrait, but I also agree with others that the light and spark is more dead in the left eye than right. The main problem for me though is that the eyebrows just keep drawing my eye, and I just find them too distracting.

Regarding the rendition offered by Doug B, I enjoy his version much more than the original. The added tone makes the face more sculpted, and for me I think the portrait would work well like this, combined with the absence of frost on her eyebrows!

I admire your attempt to try a new approach Fili. The result is out of the ordinary, and hats off for making your own rules and pleasing yourself!

ps Fili, at the end of the POW week the discussion is only viewable on the the POW discussion page, so be brave when you see the page filling up with remarks you may not agree with ;)

So interesting how the comments changed after this photo was chosen as POW. I remember someone remarking that they'd better put on their Kevlar suit after their photo became POW. I would be interested in seeing some discussion about the relative merits of high key portraiture, rather than the details of loose fabric and lighting of the eyes. I guess I wonder why it's so desirable to create the illusion of a person's face floating in a sea of white.

It seems to me that Doug's complaint about blown highlight is partially countered by his own version which shows that even in this very high-key image, there is quite a bit of detail to work with. Certainly there are some areas at 0xFF but the balance that was struck to achieve the extreme "white-on-white" look is very good in my book. I submit that with the limitations of 8-bits per channel, this is about as well one can do to achieve fili's idea here. The less extreme version simply represents a different set of visual ideals.

So, I had already commented on what I liked about this photo before it became POW. But I

had a thought afterwards along the lines of "This is what photography is about." I think the

image is successful partly because it is a photograph, and combines a realism with a vision

pushing the edge of "straight" photography. Just a feeling an impression. A painting done

to be photo-realistic in the style of this image might appear contrived - while to me a

photograph such as this shows something fundamental about the art. But I can't figure out

how to express my feeling.

My impression is that Fili was trying to give her an "angelic" feel, and that the hot highlights are part of what gives her the glow in the original. I think Doug's probably reflects more of the original, a sensitive portrait of the individual, while Fili seems to be looking to reflect more of an abstracted ideal.

 

While the facial highlights seem to add to the mood the photographer is looking for in this one, I do have a quibble, as I find the highlights in the background distracting. There, the white is overwhelming and draws me away from her face. In the darker version, the background is less distracting; my suspicion is that it is even less so in the original.

 

I, too, would be interested in the process on the conversion, and in seeing the original.

I think it overdone. The viewer is catapulted towards the darkness of her right eye and it is required viewing that right should be compared with left. The two don't balance up like I'd expect them to. They seem out of sequence and detached from one another. From the eyes one travels south. The mouth has similar peculiarities in that the seal of the lips seems jet black to (her) right side, graduating to gray to her left. The result is a somewhat brutal and serated opening through an otherwise soft, full mouth. This I fear damages the aura of purity one is encouraged to experience on an initial viewing, most evident in (her) lower left jaw bone, the bridge of her nose, chalked in eyebrows and the trail of material behind her.

 

I am happy to believe in her unsurpassed beauty but I find I must imagine it. I must overlook the imperfections born of the photograph and resist the pull of the darkened eye. The source of flavour is deceptive then. It's like that mint with the hole.

1st impression. Great a high key portrait!

2nd. The outlines are too dark.

3rd. The snow-white eyelashes clash awfully with the two tarantulas on her eyelids.

4th. Bottom lip looks too fat and mouth too big as if taken with a wide angle lens.

 

The model is really beautiful.

I Like the lighting, pose, the white hood and how it's blowing in the wind, or suspended in the air, as it were blowing in the wind. The light is rather reversed in that one side of the picture (my right) is darker than the other yet her face is the opposite, which leads me to believe that it is illuminated with studio flash from both, top and bottom. That would explain the large pupils as well (since her eyes were dilated at the time the flash went off).

Whatever manipulation was done to it in order to 'reverse' the shadows into highlights before merging the layers was not done with the utmost care and the whole picture ended up with a sort of halo outline on all the edges. This in turn gives her a milk mustache, severe dandruff on her eyebrows, dry morning slobber on her lips and on the right side of her mouth, and those little white wax plugs insider her nostrils that newborn babies are born with. Very damaging to the whole. Even if anyone suggests that this is merely jpeg compression I knew that is not the case because those Christmas-tree eyebrows tell the whole story. An excellent picture that needs a little more TLC before giving it to a client. Makes me wonder if the hood and the background were originally black and the photographer did an inverted layer job and then erased the negative from the model.

Come to think of it the angle is not that pleasing anymore.

It's an excellent portrait by any standard but the finish product suffers from a lack of "touchup."

 

Not to put down the photographer in any way. I do like the photo quite a bit except for the minor quibbles I'm mentioning above. I'm judging this photo only without even seeing the rest of her work. I sound harsher then I am being. I still give it 6/6.

If I were judging the pose and the high-key effect (not counting the quibbles) I'd give it 7/7. Not that the originality gets better because I would give originality a 1 or a 0 in since I've seen this type so many times before. But because originality in a portrait for me means the pose, angle, mood, expression or effectiveness of these.

 

Doug, once again I disagree with you on the levels. Sorry but this is better as presented. Your rendition, even though it shows more detail, makes her look more depressed.

Looks like an election poster for a plaster factory union. It should have a caption like, Plaster Workers Unite!

 

This is not exactly what I think of when someone says high key (as in high key lighting) but without seeing the original who can say for sure.

 

I would like to thank Doug for performing a thankless public service. That is what we are all here for right? If the photograph is displayed the way the photographer wants it to be displayed then what more is there to talk about? Our own personal preferences? Mine is portrait framing for a portrait. I do not care for the framing here or the encrusted eyebrows or the model or the lighting or the concept in general. This is not really even a portrait in the sense that it is too manipulated to tell us anything factual about the subject.

 

Details like glassy eyes and pale skin do bother me in much the same way as seeing a dead carp washed up on the shore while I am walking barefoot on the sand contemplating the wonder of my existance. There is no context here to define what the photographers intention was. There is an incomplete communication between the photographer and the viewer and that is not what I would call a success.

Thanks Fili, I like it when you are harsh on me. Besides, I was very hasty in fault finding with your picture, and I'm sorry to have bashed it so hard. The monitor on my home computer shows it better, anyway, without so much pasty whites as I see it on my work computer. I think good high key photographs are hard to do, which is why you will not find many in my own work. You're doing a great job and you shouldn't listen to old badgers like myself.

 

Just like last week, I'm not claiming my rendition should replace Fili's, but am showing something very much like what Fili posted, only with more attention to detail and tonal scale. I just spent a few minutes on Fili's web site and saw other exposures from this session, and I didn't see so much to object to regarding the highlight values.

 

Fili, you are still young. When you are old and cranky, like me, perhaps you will join me over here on the dark side.

As I have said before: Who you are as a photographer is right there in your porfolio. Who you are as a person is there in your words. Doug, you are a gentleman and a sensitive photographer as well. I do not agree with all you say, but that's part of the game.

Fili: I've been a fan of your porfolio since I set foot on photo.net. Congratulations for the POW, you deserve it not only for this pic, for the exquisite porfolio who have shared with us. You will read a lot of cling and clatter about your photo...mostly from people who are tech freaks..."photoscientists" as I say. Don't pay attention. Trust your eye and your heart. You will be fine.

Now that Aleksandra and I are friends, I hope she doesn't mind if I use her picture one more time to try the technique mentioned in Isidro's post, which intriqued me.

 

Turns out, it's boosted the contrast without sacrificing the middle tones, so I endorse it, but not as a way of criticizing Aleksandra's work, but using her picture to show what can be done. That's called polish.

 

Thanks Isidro, and don't hate me please Aleksandra. I have a lot of sins to pay for already.

fili... congratulation on successively being featured portfolio for weeks and POW!

to answer the elves' question... and IMHO, the portrait looks at the same time fragile and subtle by the white clothe & backgroung but thick and rough by the face's details: mouth is large, nose is big, eye are over and inequally make-up (beside shade effect, eye's rimmel on left is darker) and eyes seems squinting too.

as a result, rough impression is dominating instead of subtle... is that what was intented? not sure..