white on white

Would have prefered 'white on grey' for contrast to accentuate the subject. Nice pose!

The darker right eye and lose fabric are bothersome, as are the eyebrows which needed to be painted with greater care.

 

Good idea though...as it stands, it is more a study for what the final protrait will look like.

This isn't an image with all the gray tonalities displayed from deep Black to pure White! This is a technique which either lends itself to the overall enhancing effect of the image or it does not. I concurr with many of the others in the belief that this is a masterful rendition of a beautiful original image, which is totally enhanced by the high-key technique, which then in turn bumps it up into the totally transformed realm! Who cares if the shirt loses detail on the edge, that's the nature of the technique, to suggest, not render to exact detail with the exact tonality value you started with. Stark, ethereal, mysterious, penetrating, these are just a few of the adjectives and adverbs used to help define and understand this image better. This transcends mere portraiture, many of the visual elements presented help to convey a much greater "sense" of the image than if you looked at it from merely a technical viewpoint. We're talking about how it impacts your senses first, how does it make you feel? Then you can talk about technicalities. Come on folks that's art!

Check out photographer Howard Dion's work to see a prolific photographer who's pioneered his own style using the high-key technique extensively. My that is a large len's you're holding Howard!

"Who cares if the shirt loses detail on the edge" -- Philip Turner

 

I care, but I'm a futz.

 

It's Howard Dion's work that I referenced earlier. Maybe I sound like a broken record, but my point is that it's not high-key, it's high-contrast, and I agree, he's made it a signature style, and he does it very well, but there there is a difference. Or at least, there should be. You can't have high-key if you don't have tone, In my conceited opinion.

This one of those images that make me think about the distinctions between photoshop created images and photoshop corrected images. I mean its a very cool image, but for me its become something more than a photograph because the processing in photoshop is apparent. I'm sure many will say, "who cares" and I would say, as a consideration as a art portrait, I don't. But as a consideration of a photograph, its no longer that for me. I'm not putting a value judgement on it one way or another, I just am referring to a distinction.

Howard Dion?s work is all computer airbrushed. Nothing wrong with that, but he simply takes a normal picture from a guy on the street and air brushes the whole background white. High-key photography, in my opinion is a deliberate intention in which you prepare the lighting in such a way that it will soften and/or eliminate most shadows.

In conventional photography (hey should we start calling it classic yet?) one would opt for a low contrast film that will allow the scene to washout without loosing detail in the blacks. In computer or digital photography one can ?come close? to the real thing, but never close enough.

 

Sure anyone who can do good computer touch up can create high-key work from any photograph 24/7 and be good at it like Mr. Dion appears to be. But I always thought of high-key as being slight shadows where the deepest black is actually a dark-gray then the rest is medium gray fading into pure white with the background all white. To me a pure white background does not a high-key image make. Granted it can be considered as such, but not in the true meaning of the word. Howard not putting down your work, I think your images are great, but I can tell they are manufactured (not that you claim the opposite of anything) but they are a perfect example of what digital cannot do when compared with film methods and intentional well executed ?Classic? results.

I think the brigthness of the eyes are ok and without that little fabric on the side the photo would look litte lifeless!

Thanks Doug, I think you clarified a bit more for us on the technical distinction between high-key and high contrast. I will acknowledge that technically this is a high-contrast image. The image contains little if any gray tonalities. My bottom line question is Doug, "Do you like the image?"

Yes, I do like it, and I expect Fili to continue creating terrific images. If I've been wrong about everything else, I hope I'm not wrong about this: From all I can tell, Aleksandra is young and has a whole life of photography ahead of her. I'm sure she will do well.

I believe that this image strength is in the message and not in technical issues concerning as high-key, high-contrast, or PS enhanced image. Many may disagree arguing that detail makes the difference. That is (in my opinion) not truth in this particular image. In fact I believe that all variations of the original posted hear are, at the end of the day, very much the same because they all hold on to an idea that not rely on pixels but in art.

I don't consider the eyebrows to be distracting, the whole image is artificial (in a sense that you wouldn't be able to see it on the street that way) so, why not?

Neither do I consider the eyelashes too dark, but what does distract is the dark eye which originates most probably a shadow from the hood she wears. Since you have absolutely no reference to the lighting at all, it becomes distracting - you don't expect any shadow at all in this soft lit enviroment.

I don't think you can photochop actual lighting, so I don't know a cure apart from having the hood do less shadow by pulling it further back.

 

This is what I would have done, but still, I really think this is an original picture and a really great one at that. What I'd love to see would be the unaltered original picture to see what has been done using PS. Don't get me wrong, I don't resent Photoshop at all, I'm just curious.

Overall effect is beautiful although it's not my favourite in Fili's inspired portfolio. Agree with comments about the subject's right eye being a little too dark, and (to a lesser extent) the 'prominence' of the eyebrows.

"Many may disagree arguing that detail makes the difference. That is (in my opinion) not truth in this particular image."--Pablo

 

Pablo, I think you are in the right but backwards nonetheless.

You are right in that >>> "At the end of the day what matters is the message and how the art medium communicates this message to the viewer." (paraphrased)<<<

 

But the reason I disagree with you is that a >technically good< photograph is supposed to NOT SHOW the technical side of it. A bad photograph shows immediate deficiency in technical perfection. Therefore when one looks at a good photograph one is NOT supposed to notice the technical aspects of it. One is supposed to simply love the perfection of the image.

 

So in a nut shell, good technique is smooth, quiet, and gracious--and tends to be invisible in the frame. Whereas bad technique is loud, rude and obnoxious--and jumps at you in stumbling aberration. And in a photograph such as this, bad technique destroys the very >graceful< moment it intended to communicate.

 

Not that I'm saying this image's message is destroyed (I still like it the same 6/6) but that good technique should NEVER be divorced from a photograph because good technique equals a good photograph.

Isidro, You wrote >>A bad photograph shows immediate deficiency in technical perfection.<< Yours appreciations are right and could be valid if this photograph were poorly executed, but it is not the case (even you rate it 6/6) so I assume that at least it technically well executed.

P.S. You also wrote >>good technique equals a good photograph<< ergo this is a good photograph.

So far, every attempt to re-invent this photograph has failed. The photograph stands as-is without further alteration. The pale whites with just a hint of detail around her face is what gives the image a most angelic quality.

To further demonstrate my point:

 

Notice how horribly the eyes were handled in every one of the re-scrints. Either jet black with loss of detail, or deathly pale.

The alter-interpretations all change the balance of the model's mouth with the rest of the picture. This balance aeems to me the 'key' element, given the interesting shape and fullness of her lips, and how these relate to her eyes for example.

Isidro, thank you for your thoughful post. Please make a macro and post it weekly.

It's important for those of you who take exception to improvements by Doug and everyone else to remember that they are all working with the posted jpeg and I'm sure would much rather start from scratch, being right there next to you to show you how we would create both our interpretation of a scene, as well as our understanding of your idea. Photoshopping scrints is a poor second choice, but is so often welcomed elsewhere in the gallery that many of us will continue to offer our ideas using that technique.

Moderator note: I removed the discussion about people being allowed to post alternative versions of an image. In a nut shell: yes, you are. Particularly if intended to illustrate a positive critique of the image, these images are welcome. Please do not abuse this ability to ridicule the image or the photographer.

Pablo, yes I like the image.

 

I like the idea of it more then its execution. But as someone said earlier I could look at it and move on. Also, for all it's ANGELIC intention it lacks RAPTURE and IMMORTALITY. And while I'm at it, VIRTUE and DIVINITY.

 

Even as it is, I would not be remotely ashamed of being its creator. And with statement I guess I myself join the bandwagon of "must apologizer's" that can't seem to find it in ourselves to say something bad about the photo and leave it at that. But that doesn't surprise me because female photographers do command more praises and respect. So Fili, congratulations! Oh yeah that reminds me, Doug, you can probably stop apologizing now. I think it's save to assume that Fili understands your sincerity. You look all worn out man. Take a break!

"a >technically good< photograph is supposed to NOT SHOW the technical side of it. A bad photograph shows immediate deficiency in technical perfection. Therefore when one looks at a good photograph one is NOT supposed to notice the technical aspects of it. One is supposed to simply love the perfection of the image. So in a nut shell, good technique is smooth, quiet, and gracious--and tends to be invisible in the frame. Whereas bad technique is loud, rude and obnoxious--and jumps at you in stumbling aberration. And in a photograph such as this, bad technique destroys the very >graceful< moment it intended to communicate."

 

Agreed 100 %. Those who do not have the technical knowledge required will of course never complain, that an image is technically poor. Does that mean that all others are simply nuts...?

The lens used is too wide. The face is distorted with the lower chin and the nose too prominent.

 

I like the loose fabric and the assymetry of the eyes. I am a little bit disturbed by the pimple on the right cheek.

I felt this is an excellent high-key image, conveying a sense of icy-coolness.

Interesting. I thought the lens was good, and helped convey a kind of "soaring" feeling, almost a feeling of forward motion.

As for the comment that the eyes are somehow "not right"; I notice that her eyes are directed slightly off of where her face is directed. This has definite effect. I think that if her eyes were focused in the same exact direction as the rest of her face she would look more intense and more "iconographic" if that's the right word. That would make this more of a "fashion photograph" and less of of a portrait, I think. As it is, her eyes being directed more up and to her left suggests both a more thoughtful pose and makes the photo more individual and personal. This, to me, is what makes this a personal portrait. I would be interesting to see the same photo with eyes forward.