Kate with turban

Don't make me laugh! I like the photo though...

Wow !! Somebody told me a few days back " go see the comments on POW, and you'll see ! "...

Done. Was my first time. Last week's picture by Peter Cristoph was a picture I had rated 10 / 10 or very close to that before it came to this stage, and it was really something special...

What about this week ? well, I do believe it is far less special than last week's picture, but I understand that some people might like it too...

What surprised me is the average ratings this picture got - far from a solid 10 ! Then here's an innocent question I want to ask: how is POW selected ? Why not pick systematically from the top 10 ratings of that week or such ? Whoever was in charge of the selection, I would feel safer to avoid a war like the one above, by simply applying a system, a rule... Another way would be to have " The pictureS of the Week " with an S, or such...

Final word:

As far as I know, nobody in Photo.net or elsewhere can say for sure that he's right... so I would find appropriate not to get aggressive, no matter what one's opinion might be...

After seing this, I can say for sure, that I wouldn't want to be the photographer who took this image...

A beautiful profile, very reminiscent of Jane Seymour. Although it would be nice to see more skin tone, with backlighting you just can't have it all & I too would choose not to have a totally bleached background & opt for underexposure. It doesn't looked posed to me, even if the subject was aware she was being snapped & stopped still for a moment longer, it still looks like she just happened to be there when the photographer took out his weapon (ooer missus not intended - ok well maybe). I found ilford HP5 does lack a little in contrast & tone even when using an external light meter, so I always blamed the processing lab, or my camera not coping with the dynamic range. Perhaps it is the film. The soft focus & grain may be a compromise on another subject, but because this is naked lady by a window, it adds to the atmosphere, as does the cigarette.

 

ps Tony - digital noise is very similar but not as soft or blended in. It looks much harsher on the edges of the speckles.

 

Tom - your contrast boost makes it look like something torn out of an old newspaper! I think it can't be worked with this level of grain for any size res (just read Tony's remark below about your pointing the jpeg out).

I must admit that personally I usually don't like images that have this level of grain. However this image uses that grain to it's advantage by giving it that old 1950-60's feel. It could almost be a still from an old home movie, shot while on holiday in the hotel room. So looking at the photo in that perspective one can say that this image does it's job very well and therefore can be considered a good photo. Well done in receiving POW.

The line down the right side of the frame is distracting.

Marc, there's no war going on here. It's a discussion among people who have like-minded interests.

 

As to the POW selection process, I get the feeling that POW is selected by either "theme" (implicitly admitted in the caption to last week's POW - they were looking for a portrait) or personal preference of the Dominant Elf for the week (it amounts to the same thing): one single choice that can't possibly satisfy X-hundred-thousand interested kibbitzers all in the same 7-day period! Variety is the spice of life. The POW is not selected as the result of a popularity contest, nor should it be.., otherwise me might have stills from Ally McBeal every week. It is selected (I think) to provoke discussion and to highlight otherwise neglected genres of photography which otherwise might not receive due attention (for "photography" in the last sentence read "imaging"... under protest).

 

Tom's rendition is quite grainy due to the original he had to work with: a JPEG. Hardly hi-res material! So, it appears more soupy than the original (being a derivative of it).

 

Having said that, I still think a higher-key version would unduly accentuate the grain. Not as much a Tom's quick sketch, but perhaps too much nevertheless. Sorry Tom, I didn't read your post in enough detail. You DID qualify your posted version by referring to the original already being a (lossy) JPEG.

WHAT'S WITH YOU GUYS?

When people post up multiple long negative crits, especially on POW where they know lots of people will see them, I think it has more to do with their egos than the photo being discussed.

 

Anyway, like I said before, it's a lovely pic. Congratulations.

I insist; otherwise I would say, "I was passing through and on my way I saw this pretty lady, naked and only with a turban on her head, she was smoking sigarette and she was so absent minded, and I took this photo unconspiciously!" Wold not you laugh to this comment of mine...

The grain works for me. I love grainy images and have a few 11x14's in my office from 3200 speed film. Surprisingly, there is a great receptivity from clients these days to grainy work. Because, I think there is a strong "art" feel and this image especially as it is a nude is a more "artsy" and subtle nude because of the grain than the ones where you can almost reach out and touch the skin. I love her profile and the play of light just under her jaw. If I had one critisism it would be that she looks extremely stiff and posed...which ruins the "mood" that is almost there but not quite. My guess is that she "knew" the photographer was shooting or might shoot and was terribly self conscious... It is all in her arm on the left of the image. It is so rigid and her back is rigid also... Not a photo of someone relaxing between shoots. I also like the cigarette - People are funny about what to do with their hands unless they are very professional models.. The cigarette in her hand gives her something to do and her hand, as a result looks delicate and graceful. All in all, I'm not saying I don't like it... The idea is good. The film choice and grain and many other factors work... Just too stiff for me to evoke the mood it is trying to convey.

Let's not pick on Tris..(or anyone...) Puleez.. Anyway, he peppered his critique with positive comments as well as good technical observations. Bravo... Focusing on the image instead would be a nice idea!

PPS - Baaad idea to choose POW based on "top 10" or highly rated photos....because...there is lots of favor rating and false ratings on this site and using the high rated criteria would only make the "war" worse.

 

I would not comment on the quality of the image without seeing the actual print, which may look beautiful. HP5 can be sharp, grainy, or whatever you want it to be, so I wouldn't make any judgements based on a little jpeg. A jpeg will never come close to seeing the print in person.

 

Overall, I like the image and the pose. The line on the right does distract from the subject. Congrats on POW -- I'm sure you know what in you're in for this week.

First of all I must say I'm getting more and more puzzled when I see the how the discussion level in photo.net evolves. I really don't understand why people attacks so easily other's work instead of just politely saying "I don't like it" and explaining why.

 

Coming to the photo, I say that usually nudes is a cathegory of photos that I don't understand. Some kind of nudes disturb me; others don't but I seldom appreciate them, mostly because I find difficult to evaluate them. I think that their esthetics depends too much on the beauty (or not) of the model (even if I think that in many cases the photographer should be credited for it more than the model). I think it is a normal thing: not everybody understands any kind of art.

 

Said that, I like this photo because of its overall atmosphere (I must say that I ran into it a week ago and so I made my opinion well before the POW). I don't mind if it's a candid or not (however it could perfectly be and I don't see why Jonathan should be so rudely accused to lie). I don't mind any discussion about tech details because I think that a photo should be judged for its overall aesthetics: sometimes a "perfect" exposition, focusing, thirds rule and nearly invisible grain makes for it, sometimes not. In this case the fuzzy atmosphere of Jonathan's photo takes advantage from the grain, the "soft" look and the contrast between the bright background and the dark body (I said dark but not muddy, its rendition probably depends also on the monitor settings). Anyway I think that too many details in the model's back would distract from the three main components of the photo: the face profile, the turban and the small breast profile. These makes for the portrait of an elegant woman.

 

I ever don't mind if this shot is "European" or not - perhaps because, as an European, I don't understand what others mean as "European" :-)

 

P.s. I'm rather on the puritan side, but this is a "pudic" kind of nude, similar to the ones you can find in advertisemens published in common newspaper and magazines. I can hardly imagine a context in which this photo on the front page of photo.net could create any embarassment...

I don't mind the portion of window frame at the right. What amazes me is how the ratings, looking at the rating history, of this photo have dropped so drastically since it made POW. I don't feel it deserves the harsh words it's gotten.

To Fabrizio.. Just for the record.. I personally never said the photographer told a "lie" as to the candid nature of this image.. What I said was that the model knew he was shooting and seems stiff. As a photographer who shoots 600-700 shots a week in the summer - of people - I can tell when someone I'm shooting "candidly" knows I'm there. Their body and face show it! It's amazing to see the bodily reactions.. Maybe it is because I shoot sooo many people that I can pick up on it.. Still, it is only my opinion.. Perhaps she just had lots of coffee...making her tense.. No matter what my opinion is.. It is still just a guess because I was not there. I guess I would be tense too if I were sitting in a wide open window - totally nude..

Intimate, warm, not cliche.

I really like this photo. I'm not sure I'd say it's the best of Johnathan's photos but I'm not a fan of such superlatives, anyway. It's a very good photo. Let's see if I can say why:

 

I like the greyness and underexposed model. For me it seems to add to the candidness of it. Imagine what your brain sees when you see someone against a bright window. The feeling I get is that I'm just passing by this woman and getting my first look -- eyes haven't had time to adjust, so it's all a little dark. I think it's silly to ask 'why would she be sitting there half naked with a cigarette?' I just get the feeling that this photo re-creates the actual scene very well. The quickness of it (low exposure, soft focus) implies the sort of voyeurism I'm talking about.

 

It is most certainly possible for this to actually be un-posed. Just because she's nude doesn't mean she's posing. Johnathan made a comment earlier explaining this (before this was POW). Almost 90% of my people photos are un-posed (for me candid = un-posed) and I'm always amazed at what you can capture when a person isn't mugging for the camera. Relaxed poses, unforced facial expressions, people comfortable with themselves. This photo exemplifies that for me.

 

And for the record I think neither Tom nor Tris 'attacked' this photo. They both critiqed it very clearly and precisely. I can't see anything vicious (not even a little) about Tom's crit. You want vicious crits? Attend the University of Waterloo's School of Architecture(where someone on the panel was heard to say: 'let's see if we can make her cry' and they did).

 

Happy new year to everyone.

For those who feel it's "european" (because of cigarette) I'd like to introduce a bit of Egypt, since that reminds me a queen Nefretette statue from ancient Egypt. As for increase of graininess which some of the members reckon to be nice, i think it's horrible. Not lack of sharpness, nor lack of contrast but increased level of grain spoiled the image. As someone put it "beauty of skin tone and graceful lines maximized" are poor due to this. Grain is better for high contrast photos, this one has reduce contrast (which is not bad afterall for makes the feeling), so grain isn't suitable everything else is OK.

Mary,

 

I was not referring to you in my previous posting (actually I read yours after sending mine). I must say that your kind of comment is the normal kind of comment I would like to see on photo.net: "I just don't gives me the feel of a candid". This is ok! If you read in other comments, you find something titled "Candid my ass" :-) Probably that was for Rienk just another way to express your same feelings :-) but it could be easily interpreted in some other (unpleasant) way...

 

 

Moreover, I see that easily people who criticizes is attacked for having bad portfolios and so on, so the discussions moves on a personal (other than questionable) approach and I think this is bad.

 

We should be more relaxed, concentrate on photograpy and take it easy!

Jonathan, Congratulations on your PoW. I think this is a good, not great, portrait. The darkness of Kate v. the extreme light background doesn't allow me to see what's on her face/mind. For me, her entire hand needs to be in there, w/room to breathe, for the cigarette helps make the shot. Her facial expression would, too, if we could see more of it.

 

 

Not sure if PoW is worth winning anymore given the firestorm you'll get, but enjoy your week. I'll leave speculations of the grassy knoll, accusations of cheating on the photo, whether Kate works for the CIA and knows something about 9/11 that we don't to others who have more time for that sort of nonsense.

I like this picture very much. The outlines are so elegant achieved by the perfect shooting angle in the arrange of few degrees. So, I can hardly believe this could be an typical unposed candid portrait according to my understanding: The figure takes a pose without any instruction from the photographer. The figure doesnt notice being photographed. For me, this is a good choice of POW regardless of the argument of the candidness.

 

BTW, since when has the thread of POW changed to the forum of Open Talk? But, why not, as long as we all respect each other?

"Unposed, yet elegant..."

 

Nothing says Elegance like a cigarette.

I guess we are doomed to have all sort of comments as long as we keep comparing apples and oranges... I mean it is difficult to discuss a portrait compared to a macro picture and so on. It is all on the shoulders of our photographic culture now. This is a very nice image. Looks candid enough, "retro" enough, sexy enough. It has a little bit of everything. It is not the greatest portrait I ever saw in my life, but it is a good one. Funny this image got rates a lot smaller than the last week's one, even though they are both in the "portrait" realm. Good.

For geraldine and Tony that arge that with a better file or the negative the grain would still be bad have a look at another example I (and someone else) did on another users file that has roughly the same about of contrast. The file was bigger and there was less compression for some reason. Here. That was about the same amount of time as this one if not less.

I'm not the worlds greatest black and white printer but I'm sure I can come up with a much better print than this. It might take a long time but I think I could do it without increasing the grain as much as indicated in the photoshopped example.

If you like the poor contrast that's fine but most people seem to be saying that the pose and mood make up for the technical deficiencies. I personally think that a great photograph will be a combination of a good subject in a good pose and captured succesfully with the right technique. To me this is lacking severely in the technical department to the point where it ruins it. I think it's sad because with the right lighting and exposure this would be a great image.

As for whether it's the print, the scan or the neg that's the problem it doesn't really matter. All that matters is the image on the top of this page because that's all we have available to us.

I find the discussion funny regarding whether it is posed or candid. I have a few images that people tell me look like candids. The truth is I don't do a lot of posing and go for that candid look. Helps with getting that Barbie thing going. One comment on a photo I have here said I caught a great expression during a break in the shoot but in reality I was working hard to get that reaction. Kind of the opposite of the candid/posed debate going on here.

Thanks Tom, I see what you're getting at. Grain would be less visible with any image once it is reduced from high res to low. The image here then I imagine must be a result of low res scanning, & if Jonathan so wished he could scan at a higher dpi, boost the contrast & then reduce it. This would indeed improve for display, but wouldn't help with printing since you use the high res file to print with.

Maria & Jasmine please chill out - you're lowering the tone here & it is disrespecting Jonathan, & other visitors, as well as Tom.