Kate with turban

Robert's point is very interesting. I think he is probably right that if many of the masterpieces of art photography were posted incognito on photo.net, they would not receive high ratings, or even much attention.

And I am not just referring to the work of contemporary photographers whose work is "challenging". I think it would apply to most of the work of celebrated photographers whose names everyone would recognize, perhaps excluding only their most well-known images, which we have all been taught to think of as "great". Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, to name just a few from a very long list. For example, take away the most familiar ten images from AA's "100 images" book: would the remaining 90 command much attention or respect here?

Many art galleries that feature photographs are on-line. If you visit them, you will find many photographs with an aesthetic completely opposite to the technically perfect, well-lit, simple, magic hour light, "high impact", "high concept" compositions which advertising has caused most of us to associate with quality in photography.

This contrast is almost certainly deliberate on the part of many of these photographers (and gallery owners). Why pay hundreds of dollars for an image to hang on your wall, if it looks like it came from National Geographic, or that you could buy on a postcard for $3.00, or as a nicely framed poster that you can buy at the mall for $50.00?If you are interested in looking, the AfterImage Gallery in Dallas has an excellent Links Page.

I am not saying that all of these "art" photographs are good, or that all of the photographs that are popular on photo.net are bad, but the contrast between the two aesthetics is really quite striking and interesting.

I think it should be similar to ski jumping,

that distance (here general impression particular photo makes) isn't only criteria for a good jump (photograph), you've got to do it in special way - correct style (technicaly proper photo) to get good scores. Some photos could be quite good for the impresssion they make but wouldn't be judge as masterpieces using technical measure of correctness. Good photo should have both atributes. Julia Liu wrote:"I know I simply like this photo, without detailed discussions about candidness, pose, composition, cropping,

lighting, camera type, film speed, exposure or even scanner which are getting tedious here for me.", but here personal feeling aren't enough I guess. Technical correctness is a must. Nonetheless this is outstanding photo.

 

PS:By the way Photo of the Week (POW) should be change to Photo of the week critique (POWC).

 

 

 

 

 

Love Black and Whites!...

I agree with Robert, Mary and Brian that technical stuff is just "means" and not an "end" (I hope I translated with the correct words). The "end" is to achieve a photo "which works". OTOH Pawel's comparison with ski jumping is very good. A similar concept was expressed by a computer guru that once wrote in a book "Style distinguishes excellence from accomplishment" (he meant a slightly different concept but I think that his sentence perfectly applies here). In general a masterpiece photo MUST work and SHOULD be tecnhically correct.

 

But POW is not a gallery of masterpieces, as I understand it: it's a gallery of photos "which work" (of course some times they could be ALSO masterpieces). Many people thinks the opposite way - from here suggestions come about selecting the POW by ratings or similar ideas. The problem is probably the crawling idea of a continuos competition between photo.net members, so that the POW owner is perceived as a "winner" of a weekly competition (BTW this idea of competition pushed to the edge is also responsible of crazy things such as the rating war occurred last summer). Maybe Pawel's idea of turning POW in POWC or something similar could solve some misunderstandings.

 

The elves select photos not on the basis of objective and demonstrable criteria, but because they like the overall picture and they think it "would be inspirational and educational to other photo.net users". To provoke discussion. If the discussion stays on the proper trail, I think they are succesful in it. For me the meaning of the discussion is not to argue if the elves were right or wrong, but just to compare my opinion with others. The very "end" of the discussion is not to judge if the POW just works or it's a masterpiece, but to learn different ways to see it other than those coming from my very personal attitude.

There are many aspects of this almost-silhouette that I like: the classic, strong, profiles of the model's face and breast, the way the breast is framed by her arm, the vertical lines curving down the frame. All of these, with the turban and the diffused lighting combine to create a soft, "romantic" image. I also like the cigarette, which contributes to the feeling that this is a candid, relaxed moment, and also adds what some have referred to here as a "European" air of sophistication. Strange how hard these advertising-engendered associations die, and stranger still that these days a cigarette is more risque than a breast!

 

The thing that significantly weakens the image for me is the framing. The bottom edge is in completely the wrong place and interrupts all the vertical lines of the image. The knees sticking up and the cigarette arm coming across are also not very pleasing and create a confusing jumble at the bottom of the frame, very much in contrast to the elegant lines of the rest of the image.

 

We are told by the photographer that the cropping was done like this to remove an unaesthetic pair of jeans, but I think it might be better with the jeans than framed like this. As much as I like the feeling contributed by the cigarette hand, I think the composition might be stronger without the knees and the cigarette arm and hand.

 

I'm not an advocate of this type of manipulation, but for illustrative purposes I've attached an edit of the image. I think this edit is not as good a photo as the original -- the cigarette was an important element -- but I like the composition better.

 

I like the softness and graininess of the image. I like the air of a woman who is casually comfortable with her body. The greyness...well, I'm not nuts about it, but I can handle it. The crop? Horrible. The beautiful violin-shape of her torso is abruptly guillotined in half ("European" indeed ;) . The bottom half of the image is busy and crowded, leaving the image unbalanced with the space all around her upper half. I agree with Brian - however uninspiring her jeans, I think it would be better to include them than rather than interrupt what I can just imagine would be a gorgeous image.

 

Her pose, which could easily be natural, is lovely, a classic female profile, arm framing breast. Lots of compositional triangles. Good job there. I've attached an alternate crop, which I think does it better justice, but of course, cropping is the artist's perogative.

The only problem I have with this lovely photo isn't the photo, it's describing it as a candid portrait. It didn't seem to meet my definition of "candid" before I read the photographer's comments, even less so thereafter. But that's certainly not a criticism of the photograph. I find it an interesting counterpoint to last week's POW, both photos are very "flat" in their composition and show very strong, graphical lines.

I would like to see Photo*s* of the week occasionally, a set of three perhaps. Three examples of a similar type or category of photograph. I don't care for the alternate crops, the original crop is fine, with the cigarette just touching the edge of the photograph and the hand on the knee . . .

Since my original opinions and interpretations were such a success and received so well and I didn't get a single new rating in response to my show boating I decided to try again :-p

 

I'm not saying Jonathan is wrong in his interpretation but personally I like to see something different.

 

To me, the posted image looks more like what the film saw and not what the viewer saw. The human eye is capable of capturing much more detail than film can. Also it's apparant that those that think that the grainy and faded appearance of this photo is reminicent of something from the fifties don't know a whole lot about black and white film and processing. I wasn't around in the 50's let alone taking photographs but I have seen my fair share of old black and white prints and they hold their own against prints I'm making today. What does make this look older is the softness of the image especially that caused by the backlighting. Those types of features are more characteristic of the beautiful abberations of older lenses, mainly flare from uncoated lenses and spherical abberation.

 

Since the eye can see better than film most people try and print to compensate to make it look like what we would expect to see if we were there. While I can't argue that this is what Jonathan saw because I wasn't there I would have expected to see a much larger tonal scale on the skin. At least that's the way I like skin to look on prints. It's my personal preference and I'm sticking with it :-p

 

Elaine has expressed the reasons for the crop much better than I could and I agree with her 100%.

 

Here's another quick interpretation with less grain indicating how I would like to see this image.

 

I always thought this image was very powerful but I obviously don't see it the same way other people here do. This is a matter of personal opinion and experience and I'm sure we'll each see this slightly different. It's the beauty of photography, while the motivation for taking a photo is important to the photographer the interpretation of an image becomes personal to the viewer. Read Edie Cloissone's comment on last week's POW to see what I'm talking about.

 

When I see this image (before the crop) I see something far from a warm recolection of a time with one's lover. The camera angle and position to the subject gives me the impression I'm laying in bed looking at her. The body language isn't consistant with intimacy while the nudity implies something more happening. Her posture is stiff and reserved. Not as relaxed as I would expect to see. Her back is towards me and her hollowed eye gaze extends past the current environment and there isn't even a hint of a smile or any type of content in her face. This is not what I want to see in a woman sitting on my bed. My favorite part is that streak of light on her cheek that drips from her eye implying a tear she's holding back. It reminds me of the black lines clowns and mime may paint on their faces to simulate sadness. Though her beautiful body may be here with me her mind is definately somewhere else. Also the fact that the side facing me is dark and muddy but the part away from me is in light doesn't send a friendly message either.

 

Now with the crop. The crop makes the picture very different. You can't tell she's sitting down and the background is just a collection of shades that don't indicate that she's in a room. To me this looks more like she's leaning up against the side of a balcony looking out. It's also less "European" since it looks like she's smoking outside. :) Now it looks like she's missing something but it's no longer me looking at her as a participant in the scene but more of a silent observer. I think this could have also been achieved by going wider and showing her alone in the room.

 

This version I'm posting matches more closely how I would like to see this image printed.

I enjoy the feeling this photograph envokes, it is certainly not technically perfect, but the key issue here is do the technical shortcomings get in the way of the emotion of the photograph? I think resoundingly no. My original issue with the shot was the proximity of the cigarette to the left border and the observation that it's unlit. The line on the right side really didn't bother me but it's obvious from Tom's last crop that it has to go. I actually think Tom's last rework frames the shot the best for me though I like the original exposure much better. In this last one the detail that is brought out in the turban and skin tones does not outweigh the loss of the curl of her eyelashes and the shape of her lips and nose, which were real important to me when I first saw this photo. Her breast just looks grotesque in the last rework as well. Keep the original exposure, go with Tom's crop.

While the image can be considered lacking in technical merit (too flat, not sharp, too much grain), these are the very qualities that give it the 'atmosphere' and evoke nostalgic thoughts in some viewers. I don't think Tom's attempts to improve it are anywhere near as pleasing as the original. I often find myself admiring images which have some technical flaw but which evoked a more emotional response than those that are super-sharp, fine grained and demonstrate all the tones of the Zone System. Both approaches are valid, but I think the non-technical 'look' probably suits this image better. I think one's opinion of this image depends on whether one can enjoy the technical deficiencies.

 

Does it matter if it was truly "candid" or not? I don't think so. To my eye she appears to be looking out of the window, and it is not obviously posed. That's enough analysis for me.

 

I would be interested to see the uncropped version of this shot, to see what was originally in the frame, particularly to see if the presence of jeans added to or detracted from the composition and atmosphere.

When I looked at this picture among the others in its portfolio, it stood out to me, but not in a positive way. Your other pictures are mostly very well composed with body parts cropped carefully and effectively. This one seemed forced. The delicate grain and beautiful profile beg to be presented somehow, but to me there just doesn't seem to be enough there. The crop is very uncomfortable and stands out as less effective than others in your folders. The pose, as others have said seems stiff. The greatest parts of this image; the classically beautiful model and the grain, to me don't raise this image enough to be able to consider the perceived or real technical defecits as additive to its overall aesthetic appeal. This woman and this grain in a nicer crop and with just a bit more actual candidness (and resultant tenderness) would be terrific, in my opinion.

 

I don't think the various manipulations by others add much, but do go to show that this shot really wants to work in many people's minds.

 

The texture implies tenderness and fading memories while the model conjures thoughts of complex post-adolescent relationships, but the posture and composition just don't quite bring it all the way home for me.

 

A very personal image; voyeuristic but not lurid, it just feels appreciative of a beautiful person in a beautiful moment, probably just as you felt when you saw her there, and it almost creates the complete vicarious moment, but not quite. I think it is that personal feeling that makes this seem more a portrait than a study of light as last week's POW seemed to me. Most of your other nudes lean more to the abstract or experimenting with form and light kind of images, this is more satisfying in that regard as it seems that many people are able to connect with this person and apply it to a moment in their lives, you can't do that with most images of nudes I've seen. It isn't better or worse, just a different feel that you caught.

 

Congratulations. Your portfolio is very creative with great variety and you seem greatly willing to experiment which is just great.

I first thought with this POW we would have got a neutral image for the mass on this site at last. But, an average rating of 7/6.61, and so extensive critiques covering almost every fields? Hmmmm, the deal with POW really makes fun.

Dave if you want to leave comments about me on photo pages because you don't want my emails that's fine but at least do it on my photo pages so that it doesn't clutter other people's pages. For you or anyone else that cares to badmouth me I think this would be an appropriate image. And if for some reason I'm delayed in responding I'm sure the image will sum up my feelings until I can respond.

These are the last two paragraphs from the last email you sent me.

"Okay? Leave it there - I used some strong language earlier and am not ashamed to say to you "apologies" - I wish I hadn't but I was both angry and in a hurry.

Go well with the photography. So far as I am concerned, this debate has ended - feel free to speak to me ofphotography, the rest - let us leave it behind us."

I don't know what provoked you but this is definately not the place for this discussion.

Oh... and Grow one.

Dave this is going to be my last response to you on here or anywhere else it doesn't belong. I guess you didn't like the page I asked you to leave comments on. Maybe you'll like this one better. I uploaded the photo again and copied all the comments that I managed to save from the original. I told you I'm not hiding anything in regards to that and now it's out there again for everyone to see. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=513963 You threatened to "expose" me for something I always admitted was a farce. I just didn't give the details otherwise it would have ruined it. If you want to leave a comment leave it there otherwise I won't even read it here and it just goes to show you're still as ... Sorry Jonathan... as you've seen I can easily get riled up.

The quality of a print is difficult to judge without having it in your hand. For some reason the way the photo is cropped makes me feel as if I am missing out on something. When I look at it I want to see what was cut out. If I had the original I might agree with the way it was cropped.

 

I like the picture. Posed or not dosen't make a difference to me, I like nudes when a woman appears natural and comfortable with herself

 

Thanks for letting me see it. It made me think about it, maybe those are the best.

I know it's often tempting when judging a photo to suggest a tighter crop and sometimes this does improve the composition, especially when there is nothing much in the cropped off areas. You have got to remember though that if you only see the picture AFTER it's been cropped, you don't know what was cropped off and you often wonder if there was something interesting just outside the frame that you would like to have seen - eg several people have commented that they wanted to see her jeans included (to me that would have spoiled the timeless, slightly stylised image I was trying to create). So it's sometimes best to include a little "dead space" around the subject just to reassure the viewers that they're not missing anything, unless you positively want them to imagine a continuing busy scene in which case you can deliberately crop cutting through objects so they are forced to realize that the frame is just a sample of what was going on.

 

In this photo I included very little real dead space, the parts which have been cropped off in the suggested versions contain (to me) important elements:

 

THE LINE on the right identifies the background as being the view through a window. Seeing the cropped version after the original you already know it's a window, but if you hadn't seen the line first it wouldn't be at all clear. Does it matter where she is? ... Well yes: to me, looking out through a window carries a certain symbolism - it's a thing you do when you when you're pondering your life or your future, and this was the intended mood - not sad but pensive.

 

THE KNEE: again, when you know her elbow is resting on her knee the pose looks natural and quite relaxed - this was her normal posture (quite recognisable, which is why I called it a portrait), not forced or self conscious. If the knee is cropped off the arm seems to be hanging "with no visible means of support" and the overall position looks very uncomfortable as it would naturally hang straight down. So (to me) the knee is necessary to make sense of the arm: the cropped versions only work because you already know the knee is there.

 

THE CIGARETTE (BTW it was alight) is included because it was part of the real scene and is also somewhat symbolic - people, however perfect or self confidant they appear, usually have aspects to their lives which are not totally under their control and have to live with that and the need for a cigarette to relax is a hint at this. I kept it near the edge of the frame because I didn't want it to dominate the picture like in a cigarette ad, just to be an apparently random detail to get you thinking - even perhaps subconsciously.

 

I think it is these small elements along with the deliberate lack of detail and the (added) grain that are important in trying to make the picture something you can "go into" rather than just look at.

 

It seems from the comments that there is a clear division of approach between two groups:

 

- those who are focussed on the technical "photographic" aspects like visibility of fine detail, sculptural tone gradients, conventional framing and compositional rules and graphic impact;

 

- those who are seeing the image as an illustration of an idea, where the technical factors are sometimes important but are secondary to the overall effect (and following the rules may detract from it).

 

It is very interesting to me, to pick up a point made earlier by LaDawna, that there is a predominance - not absolute - of women photographers who see my (especially nude) photographs as I intended them and I'm very encouraged by this: that they can in a way identify with the subject as well as the picture.

Jonathan, even though I basically like this photograph, I don't agree with the dichotomy that you have advanced in your last post between the people who are "focused" on the photograph's elements and those who have responded to the overall "effect". This basically dismisses those who have criticized various aspects of the photo as being hung up on details.

I suppose you need to dismiss some of the criticisms, because almost every aspect of this photo has been criticized by someone, and if all the criticisms were true, then the photo should be thrown in the trash -- which is not the case. But I do think some of the criticisms are valid, and you are dismissing them too easily -- that you are being perhaps a little too easy on yourself.

The overall "effect" of a photo is the result of a combination of the various elements, including, if it is not abstract, the pictorial content. It isn't some phenomenon on top of all the elements -- something mystical which cannot be analyzed, to which one can only respond. People here are analyzing the photo's elements in order to understand and to communicate why it is that the photo does not have a positive effect for them, or perhaps (like me) to understand how it could have a stronger effect. They are not ignoring the "effect" at the expense of the details.

While the elements may combine non-additively so that the overall effect is greater than the sum of the elements, the manner of this combination can also be analysed.

If all this were not so, there would hardly be any point in submitting photos for critique. We would all just rate the photos according to whether we respond to them or not (a fancy way of saying we "like" them). The comments could be eliminated or replaced by cheers and boos of various volumes. And producing a photo to which people respond would be entirely a matter of luck or god-given unanalyzable "talent", since an understanding of how the photographic elements combine could never be taught or learned.

Ultimately it comes down to what Jonathan thinks the image should look like because it's his photograph. Anyone else who looks at it will see something different based on their opinion, preferences and experiences. Someone may learn something in here but ultimately it's just a place for a bunch of people who otherwise couldn't meet on a regular basis to get to gether and talk about something they enjoy.

Brian, I'm sorry if I seemed to be dismissing the criticisms; what I was trying to do, in the first part of the comment, was to explain why I cropped the photo the way I did. The second part about the dichotomy of view was just an observation on the comments, many of them taking very predominantly one approach or the other.

 

I wasn't saying that the technical side is unimportant, just that it's the means to an end. I use different techniques on each photo to try and get a particular effect. I'm sure it doesn't always work and that's why I find the comments so interesting. IMHO a crit along the lines "The use of xxx (technique) does not for me help create the effect intended because ..." is totally valid whereas "This is too [soft / harsh / busy / simple / etc.]" implies that there is an absolute ideal, irrespective of the context, which you are just accidentally failing to achieve.

 

I don't believe in the mystery theory and when I see a picture that appeals to me I think hard about how it succeeded and what I can learn from that. I don't write lists or anything I just bury it somewhere in the back of my mind to use as a kind of vocabulary some time later.

I don't think Jonathon was dismissing criticisms -he was just defending the descisions he made as the artist, even as various of us were defending ours as meddlers ;)

 

I agree with you, Jonathan, about the space around the model giving it context and a somewhat lighter air - for me, though, it seemed unbalanced somehow: what appeared to be a tight crop on the bottom was competing with a looser one in the space around her head. Looking at it again, I think what I found most distracting was the tiny triangle of white/light grey formed at the very bottom by the intersection of her arms and leg. It pulled my eyes downward to expect to see more of her, only to run into the edge. That's what I meant by busyness.

 

The various sharpenings people have attempted are cruel and unusual, to my eye...I have a feeling that this makes a much better print than a jpeg.

Do you have a copy of the original image (before it was cropped) that you could post? I know others have expressed interest in it, too. I'd like to see the image that you started with.

I agree with a lot of the comments here suggesting that it is a nice image -- as well as those who have already pointed out some of the problems with it from their perspectives. I think it is certainly above average, but POW? Not. And I agree, we shouldn't have nudes on the front page of photo.net because of the problems that it causes for those of use who might be accessing the site from our offices.

Hmm. This week's discussion has ranged from interesting critique to honest discussion to petty, petulant, and personal posts. Sometimes with the same people! Ah, well.

 

My opinion on the picture: It works because of the light on the eye and cheek, which keep it from being a total silhouette, though the silhouetted shape is the main attraction of the image. I like that Jonathan let the background almost blow out completely, maintaining both contrast with the subject and depth to the image.

 

I must confess that the effect of overexposure on the image reduces my enjoyment of it on one dimension. Although such a feeling doesn't necessarily ruin a photograph, I would here prefer some suggestion of definition in the model's back.

 

With no deliberate bottom to the frame, it also seems natural to wonder about what is below the frame, as some have done above. I accept Jonathan's explanation for the framing, but it does have that effect on me.

 

One thing has stayed in my mind, though, after reading Jonathan's original post: the "created" grain. I'm struggling with whether or not, to me, that added grain pushes this into the realm of "digital art." I have nothing against images that have been altered. Restoration of photographic or printing possibilities seems fair game, as long as it is disclosed where the alteration reaches into creating or eliminating elements. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how to feel about it. The feeling of the grain in this image succeeds, and I guess I can accept it; after all, I've seen beatiful nature images printed with film grain selectively blurred out to enable large prints from 35mm slides, so the converse should be fair game. From an analytical perspective, I still wonder how the original grain compares.

 

[i'm resisting a temptation to delve into thoughts on digital alteration in editorial, nature, commercial, and fine art photography, but felt that the topic deserved mention because it colors my perception of the photograph.]

 

Bottom line: an evocative image that would work better for me with improved tonal range and definition, especially in the model's back.

 

I don't think the re-edits improve upon the original, which says something positive for the decisions made in presenting the original.

 

Enjoy.

 

 

My dear friends!

Kate is great and nice. But if we could see rainy day as background it would be better. It is only my modest comment. Of course, the back of the woman has to be darker. Then, it is easy to imagine that the person who made the picture, has been unnoticed.