Kate with turban

The shadowed grey is just right, still leaving details, many loose this in dark grey or even black, well done

I think that you should show all figure of a model ,without croping the Bottom of her body.

This picture was intended mainly as a portrait and was not posed but taken when she was relaxing after we had been working on some other more arranged photos (e.g. "Silver Fish" in this portfolio). Including the whole figure would have changed it to more of an abstract nude - in any case it would not have worked in this photo as she was wearing a rather uninspiring pair of jeans!

Wonderful photo Jonathan, very nice.

Very nice, I like the delicate grain.

Delicate and decadent. Looks like it should come out of a 50's french film.

A wonderful image. I agree with Jasmine...it seems to be an image from the past.

congratulations Jonathan -- I saw this picture earlier and liked it for its non-aggressive approach. Actually, my first impression was: gosh, that's post-coital cigarette. Whatever you've done to her, it worked. She looks very realxed and natural and the grain (plus her cigarette) toned down the usual message -- I am not implying that your model is sexless, I am simply saying she's much more here. Funny, to say but perhaps you should try to shoot all your nudes with their hair covered?

Very elegant and classy picture. I agree it reminds me of 50's/60's glamour. It makes me want to be Audrey Hepburn!

May I be the first to say Congratulations on Photo of the Week!

Well deserved. Very nice work

 

Peter Christoph

Love the whole portfolio Jonathan, a great range of shots that all look well thought out.

I agree with the above commenter. All your photos are well done. You have taken some of the best, no, rather, you have taken THE BEST nudes on photo.net.

 

Peter Christoph

This is the best shot in all your portfolios. It's natural, unposed, real. I don't get that feeling from your other photos. Post the version with the jeans.

Love it.

It's the kind of picture that's not neurotic, but the very simplistic presentation captures the beauty of the subject's chiselled outline from her face to her bust line.

The lady in the picture also shows sophistication. Classic example of a picture worth a thousand words.

 

Well done.

I really don't like this. Partly because I think this has a lot of potential but it wasn't pulled off effectively. As much as most people on here hate watching photos get ripped apart I hate seeing what I consider mediocer black and white photos being selected as POW.

 

In general the whole image looks muddy. Especially the body. It's too dark without enough contrast. Overall there is a lack of sharpness. It doesn't appear to be in focus. Also the strong backlighting is causing a lot of flare that reduces contrast a lot in some areas wich makes it look softer. Not even a good soft. My guess would be that this was drastically underexposed.

 

The lighting on the face looks nice and for the most part I like the pose except I can't stop thinking that she might be holding a wad of toilet paper in her left hand based on another comment someone made. I would have liked to see more of her butt and maybe what she was sitting on but in the way it is now I would crop up from the bottom a bit. There's just enough there right now to make me think there should be more. Cutting off a bit of the bottom eliminates that desire for me.

 

I think with a pretty heavy unsharp mask, increased contrast, some burning on the turbin and around the face and maybe the shoulder to eliminate some of the effects of the flare and cropping and I think it could be nice. Well at least to my liking.

 

I wouldn't agree that this is the best shot in your otherwise fine portfolio. In fact I think this one stands out as one that doesn't belong.

 

I made some changes digitally (complete with mat and frame) to illustrate what I would have done traditionally. The changes increase the graininess which I think looks nice. I'd be interested to know what you or anyone else thinks.

Tom

 

Is your comment and remake of the photo a send up? You've succeeded in making a delicate and nostalgic pleasure into something horribly gross. The beauty of the photo is in it's evcation of a differnent time and place. The low contrast grainess of an old print, the cigarette, turban, the facial porfile, the nonchalance all trasnsport me to a differnt era (as was mentioned a Paris hotel room in the 1950's perhaps). Delightful.

I would tend to agree with Tom's observation that one's first impression might well be that this was an underexposed negative worked up to be presented fullblown. As it is I don't have a problem with that artistically, though the final product doesn't move me particularly, either.

To typify this image as a "good photograph" in terms of the overall technique employed only seems to have validity with regard to the picture's compositional concerns. The pose suggests an offhand nature (though we don't know how extemporaneous the true nature of this shot is) which might appeal. The picture is terribly weak, however, when it comes to contrast, edge definition and shadow detail, most especially when one considers the emulsion at work, and again, this condition most likely is due to underexposure of the subject by what appears to be in the range of 2 full stops--due to the relatively strong backlighting by all indications.

I've no problem with the photographer going with this image. In fact I have two rolls of similarly-lit portraitures of my daughter which I've considered "working up," and might still.

This photograph holds my interest in several ways and should ably serve as grist for the discussion mill throughout this coming week, but I think labeling it as a "great photo" or even an especially competently-rendered image is a stretch.

And now let us all count together the number of 8-8, 9-9 and 10-10 scores it accumulates along the way.

Note: I offer the following rationale for the grade I've decided to give this picture in hope of making better sense of it for anyone with interest. There is little hope of that shy a comment of explanation due to the poor nature of the process.

In short, I assign a grade of 3 for originality or cleverness for the reason I feel the photographer on balance missed his shot on this occasion. The composition isn't bad, even good in its own way, but the lack of contrast and shadow detail leave the picture lacking any semblance of excellence, actually beg a credible explanation for this image's selection in the first place. For aesthetics I assign a score of 5, this because I feel the image succeeds compostionally in spite of its technical drawbacks, or should you prefer, doesn't offend greatly with regard to its aforementioned shortcomings. Try to consider this 5 in light of my regret that not more happened to be achieved from this photographic opportunity.

Just as it is...the softness (and therefore, lack of sharpness...don't really care for the revised version above) really works with the subject. It is a soft, relaxed, easy moment. As others have mentioned, it does initially appear to be straight from a classic film (a much "softer" Joan Crawford comes to mind). I am drawn to what is outside the window...what is she watching? Looks like rain? I like that we can just barely see images outside the window. It adds that much more.

 

Just for fun though...I, too, would like to see the jeans in the shot, maybe even with the jeans being the only portion in color?? It would definitely change the mood of the photo...but might be interesting.

 

Congratulations on POW...your entire body of work is exquisite. You do inspire...

Now, besides usual POW a@@ kissing, tell me one thing: why photos like this one are being selected for POW? I'd say the execution is rather poor and subject has beaten to dead meat.

Another issue; a nude image on the front page of frequently visited site? I'll tell you this - thanks to this photo I can't browse Photo.net from my office computer.

When this is a candid portrait I'm a whale on dope...Sorry. I also think either the scan or the print it is possibly scanned from (I don't know what this Nikon scanner is, I don't care too much for hardware...) is very bad. I use almost only HP 5 film, and I never get this greyness in my pictures, never. There's very little contrast, and I'm afraid most of the grey is produced in Photoshop. Well, sorry, I will take a look at your portfolio now, should have done that first.

And what is so european about this picture???? Shit, I hate that expression. Poor aussies, yanks, africans and south-americans, shoot whatever you want, you'll never get european! Hah! Well, I guess this pic is gonna reach the 300 comment limit. Let's see what happens. Gotta go now. Bye y'all. Rienki

So much for that "no frontal nudity" thing.

Anyway if people are interested in knowing why I think this is a poor photo have a look at Tandy Howard's work. Most on HP5 even the POW that was selected from Tandy's folder shows the capabilites of this film. Not that we are judging film but this is just horribly underexposed and makes the body lose it's shape in the murkiness.

Here are a couple of other figure shots I found on here to illustrate my point. (And that point is that this film is capable of much better tonal reproductions even though the flare from the back light would still cause softness. It doesn't have to be perfectly sharp or grain free. These shots are meant to illustrate the capabilities of this film on similiar subjects not to compare content to the POW. If the image was still soft and flared but the skin at least had more tones closer to these I think it would be a lot better.) One is even a backlit nude.

Rienk, it's European because she's smoking! Wait maybe that's a typo. Maybe she is on the toilet like someone else suggested. Maybe She's a peein?

The model is obviously holding recently utilised ice cubes in her left hand. The alternative is too disgusting to mention on This Server.

 

I doubt whether the photographer, Jonathan Charles, used a spot meter and the Zone System to calculate his exposure a la Ansel Adams and so had to deal with an in-camera meter confused into delivering an underexposed model, (no reverse-pun intended), heavily backlit (notice though, Space Cadets, the print has not shirked the backlighting: there is quite a good deal of supportive highlight detail there).

 

Given the circumstances of the ambient light, the model's features would have been quite grainy due to this underexposure. What to do? What to do? A decent print in these circumstances is always difficult.

 

Jonathan has resisted the temptation to soup up the tonality of the model's figure in order to render it within a "normal" range of tones. To do otherwise would have accentuated the grain (born of flare) far too much. He has left the figure darkish, a a little more mysterious in his print... and is to be congratulated for that discretion. I do not concur with Tom Menegatos's rendition of the image because of this: Tom has made her too grainy and "genre" looking. An honest effort, but not as involving as the original.

 

(Although I am not "against" CCD cameras in any way shape or form, I wonder what the result would have been with silicon grain? Just digital noise?... or can the new and inescapable medium deliver the quasi-Pointillist texture that film can and has delivered so effectively here?)

 

The cigarette is something I like. I think it DOES make the whole atmosphere of the photograph somewhat "European" in appeal. In fact I'll go further: the turban works for me too. It evokes a memory of lazy days spent doing the bleedin' obvious (and the luscious clean up afterwards) without a care in the world. Later that night? A financially struggling, but fashionable restaurant (perhaps we know the chef?) for a late dinner and some mellow red wine, a walk through the Botanic Gardens under pendant lamplights and then home to bed and a good night's sleep in the arms of someone you (think) you love... and who (you hope) loves you.

 

I realise she was a model, but we can dream, can't we? This is a romantic image, whether or not romance was involved in the actual picture-making. Well done, Jonathan.

 

(I knew I'd come across your pictures before, Jon. This was one I really liked too).

Just for the record the graininess of my manipulation is due mostly (emphasized for Tony) to the jpeg compression of the file I was working with. If you look closely at the patterns you should be able to see that. With a better copy or the negative and more than the 10 minutes in photoshop could have been better but it's really not worth more time.

I still can't see past what I see although I really like the other nudes in the "Early Nudes" folder and the outdoor nudes.

Tony the one you pointed out is nice. I was just looking at that a while back. The tones in the model are about the same but that one has the benefit of a properly exposed background and the model isn't the main subject.What's the deal with POW's and head things?

C'mon, now. Just what makes this pic deserve solid 10;s and so much praise?!? It looks rather candid, it's got a nice atmosphere and the low-contrast and grainy finish works okay. But that's it. The face looks dreamy and almost works, but it's not enough. There's nothing special about the geometry or composition, no details to keep your eyes busy. If you'd aim for a european look you'd have to use another background and setup.

 

It does succeed to capture a certain feeling, and it's probably a fair choice for POW, but I get the feeling people are praising it to the skies just because it differs from the usual nudes and they think they "ought to see" more in it than there is. Having said that, I'd like to congratulate Jonathan for generally taking interesting and well executed nudes - you're doing a good job. And I'd gladly listen to anyone explaining why this pic is so great...

It's not great, Dan, but it's made my grey hairs revert a little. Currently it's averaging 7s... that's not quite "solid 10s", is it?

 

Tom, surely some of the graininess is a result of your hyping up the (admittedly underexposed) greys in the model's figure to render them in a more contrasty tonal range? It's not really an important point, just a matter of "techno" detail.

 

Aslan (below), it IS possible to take candid shots so well they look posed, you know.