Untitled

I'm a big fan of Dmitry's work. His photos show great care and planning, and his choice of classic vehicles enhances the photos (I finally noticed the inclusion of the Alfa Romeo in the "Romeo and Juliet" series - I'm a little slow on the uptake). Each of his photos tells a story, except for this one, as John A points out. While this portrait is expertly lit, showing an unbelievably soft complexion, it doesn't grab my interest like his other work does. So for me, this week's POW just offers a good excuse for me to visit Dmitry's portfolio again.

Very pleasing luminosity range and DOF. The uneven light in the eyes is a little distracting to me, but I really see nothing wrong with this photo overall. It is no the most stiking portrait but it is unique.

I like to see a portrait work with the special qualities of a model. This young lady has some very fetching qualities to me. Does this particular image do her qualities justice? I decided for my eyes, just half way. (The hat and veil are wonderful IMHO.). I hasten to add, half way is not half bad in the photo world. Actually, quite darn good, when you think of it. It is not unique, but not in any way ho hum is what I am thinking.

I love the tone range. The crop is just right. It manages to have a classical look and yet is contemporary at the same time. I just love good portrait work.

I guess I am not a big fan of decorative clothing or this type of glamour image (excepting the Marlene Dietrich photo mentioned above and some others of well known actrices, singers or public persons - because we connect with the well known aspects of their personalities and the decoration). I really think that the well portrayed expression of the beautiful girl would be much more powerfully rendered in simple clothing (say, a simple pale colour blouse), a dark background, and little else. For me it is a bit lost and out of place with all the decorative elements, whatever the intention of a glamour image.

My personal biases for photographs of women (or men) is no doubt evident in these remarks. I prefer simplicity when attempting to convey an expression. I nonetheless applaud Dmitry for his control of lighting, tonality and pose.

 

Beautiful photograph. I especiallly love the warm tones. The multitude of different textures throughout really adds a lot to the overall composition. Great job.

I like very much the blacks in the dress, and it's texture.

I think her face is the most important element though, and therefore the space above her hat is a distraction, I think cropping closer to the fingers on the left helps focus attention on her face.

I could agree in general with Rebecca, Marc G. and Amir about the eyes, and facial expression, one could walk away thinking it's a blank stare. But, putting more attention on the face might change that.

Great portrait and beautiful tones.

You know,this photo grows on me with each viewing. It has a kind of charm I did not appreciate at first. And the touch of a warm tone effect stands out now. I like the hat and veil. It contrasts nicely, for me,with the model's narrow cheekbone and facial structure. It has some life. She has some life...Or maybe I am 'up to here' with likes of New York Times fashion ads w/ plunging necklines, bangs, and this b and w shot is so different.

 

Good capture...The most important thing is about her looking...She has a starer looking and affraid a little...Fear is touchable in her eyes...Very good b&w work and I like it.

Regards(Bobby).

What a beautiful example of B&W portraiture. The range of tones is superb and the sharpness perfect.
Lately I have found myself turning down the contrast on my images, where before I was adding contrast and I'm trying to find a sharpening technique to consistently get this kind of quality.
The composition, model and hat add to the impact of the image.
Excellent work

wonderful

It is pleasure to be here.. thanks for your comments. This is not my favourite image due to some bad memories. The initial plan was to shoot a story about two gangsters and lady from high-society in 1950-s car for a publication in car magazine, but unfortunately we end up with shooting all models in different locations in a different time, which broke the story:
http://www.drivebackintime.com/galleries/plymouth/1.html
Or maybe I should not say that... :) Anyway, thanks.
Dmitry

Dmitry... First of all congratulations for POW selection. Secondly, as I view this image I have no issues with the model, her expression, clothing or your choice of toning. All are subjective and are very well done and make this shot, if not unique, at least very well presented.

My comment has to do with the hand position. Cut off elbows don't bother me, not in this case anyway; however, the hands are placed in front of the focal plane of the face and while in focus they appear out of scale. I've waited 2 days to see if anyone else shares this perception but no one has mentioned it. It's something that, once seen, I can't get past and distracts from that gorgeous face.

Anyway, it's a well selected POW for discussion and your work is most deserving... Mike

I agree, Michael, with your size of hands comment. Upon reflection now, you have got something there. They do look out of scale for the rest of her torso and seem off somehow. If the occasion permitted-and it rarely does in the field, I guess a longer lens and a longer distance to model would have remedied that...twenty twenty hindsight, of course, but what is not, even on by one's self critique.

I like the clean feeling of this portrait and lights that enhance concept. Candid expression is also well captured for a studied photo. Congratulations!

I do agree with Michael on the placement and scale of the hands. At first I though maybe the model just had very large hands, or that it was my imagination, so I was hesitant to mention it, as I have very little (read none) portrait experience. the cut off elbows didn't initially bother me, but having come back with fresh eyes for the second time today, i fell that the cut off elbows might contribute to the scale problems with the hands, as there is no arm in the frame to lead your eyes towards the hands and allow your brain to adjust for the placement of the hands in front of the models face. other than that, and the reflection in the models left eye which I would have perhaps toned down slightly, it is a beautiful image with a lovely subject and very good tone and composition.

If this is an advertisement for a hat, then it works pretty well. For most other uses her arm and hands seem too bright--to the point that they take on a life of their own. Toning them down a little would draw more attention to her face, but less to the activity of adjusting the hat. It depends on what the photo was or is intended to be used for.

With regards to the hands, are you sure this isn't just a woman with large hands, like in the Seinfeld episode!?! Just kidding.

Actually, I think there is nothing wrong with the hands myself. This wasn't shot wide angle and the hands are not that far in front of the face. My guess is that a moderate telephoto lens was used here and we are seeing what she offers, not an exaggeration. I think she is just a long woman and has a smallish head--I mean look at the length of the neck!

Also, as I read comments about not worrying about matching the time period in the styling and such, I think those comments kind of miss the point. Although we are instructed here to look at the photo offered, that doesn't mean we don't look to find ways to better understand the work, any work, that is presented to us. The intent of the creator of an image is as important as the image--even more so in an image like this. Context in which an image is made is one of the basic tenants of a good critique. So when one takes time to look at the other photos created by a photographer and to read what they say about their work, you MUST take that into consideration for any analysis beyond just tonal range and pure compositional strength (academic properties). In this case, Dmitry states clearly on his website that it is his intent to replicate, among other things, the hair and makeup of the times he portrays. The work itself generally supports this statement. You may not agree that what we see here isn't of the period, but if you do, then it does matter and by definition diminishes the effectiveness of the image as to its intent. Certainly one can still like an image, but if it isn't consistent with the statement or the other work, then you have to acknowledge that it has not measured up to the rest of the work in this regard. If the work all had modern hair and make up and was incredible, we could assume the artist doesn't see what he is doing (not necessarily uncommon) and the body of work could well justify the modern meets the past dichotomy and the miss here would be irrelevant.

Great portrait the background is a bit empty but that is just being nit picking lovely work

Michael, it's interesting that what you like and others have criticized is "subjective." Yet what you yourself criticize seems to fall into a different category for you . . . at least it falls into a different paragraph from what is subjective.

If we chalk honest criticism up to "subjectivity," we don't learn or improve.

The disembodied hand on the right is kind of creepy. Otherwise a nice portrait, nice tonal print.

Fred Goldsmith.... “I have no issues” is not a rubber stamp of approval or in any measure an indicator of my likes or dislikes; I’m just stating the basis for an opinion to follow. “Subjective” simply means that the OP may or may not have produced an image exactly the way he wanted it. The fact that I have no issues with it, other than the hands, had nothing to do with your postings, or anyone else’s. In fact, my comments were specifically addressed to Dmitry and as far as I can tell are within the guidelines to offer “a critique of the photo -- address its strengths, its weaknesses”. I simply chose to do so with a modicum of diplomacy.

I love the background, I love the fur and hat. I wish there were no hands at all in the pic and that her face was half shadowed or slightly softer. I find the sharpness on the face too modern and hard for its antique tones... But I love the idea behind it. Very nice.

Michael, I appreciate your clarification. I didn't understand your meaning of "subjective" to be referring to the intent of the photographer. I took it be about some of the critiques. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I think your post was perfectly within the guidelines of a critique for the POW and never questioned that. Thanks again for your response.