Kate with turban

I think the model is very beautiful it's the photo that isn't my taste. Actually it's not so much the whole photo but the bad printing, bad exposure, and poor focus it seems. I like the pose. If I didn't find any merit in this I wouldn't take the time to comment at all. As others have mentioned the lighting on the proifile is very good. I like the way her arm mimics the shape or her breast and a few other things.

Geraldine: Actually that image looked the same at high res. I scaled it down just so that it would display better in the comments. The difference is that file had less artifacts from the jpeg compression. That might have something to do with the size of the file. So you can do it to the full size file and print it and you can also use similiar techniques in a traditional darkroom but they are a bit more tedious.

Congrats on being chosen for the POW in the hot seat, I mean Top Spot. Every Tom, DICK and Hairy will be gunning for you now so buck up chap!

 

Folks, this is a great image albeit not perfectly exposed. Why?

 

This image works because of the nice use of negative space (can be black or white) and the combinations of triangles (arms, breast,nose, chin) and the wonderful lines of her back and the delicate hand with line of the cigarette leading us out of the frame.

 

This image doesn't let the eye escape. Excellent us of cropping -- if it was cropped.

 

It all goes back to the nonsense of having to "rate" an image with a number. Paul's rating system in this world of imagery bombardment is: "I like it." "I don't like it." and that's subject to change over time.

 

We could debate ad infinitum all the gory details of the technical side (which has validity because some of us have spent marathon sessions in a wet darkroom -- back when dinasours roamed earth) but what would that accomplish. Nothing -- unless we are specifically asked to "teach" a particular viewer. Otherwise we should maybe understand that most who come here want feedback of a more general nature. Who knows?

 

By the way, using the "pimp" hat is not allowed on anybody else or the Pimp Hat Police will punish your posterior.

 

Job well done!

 

 

nobody is 'gunning for him' to excuse any comments you don't agree with in such a manner is unfair to everyone.

 

A lot of people come here to learn not to give and receive praise. I've heard a number of times someone say they see a picture and think it's great because it's much better than anything they've ever done. They really don't know why they like or why they don't like something. But then someone comes in and points out what they like and don't like about it and the less experienced person will say "yeah that's what it is I think is great/lacking/off/etc" or they can say "that's not why I don't like it".

 

I think of photography as a group of musicians playing a song. The composition, tones or colors, subject, timing, technical proficiency, etc. all are different parts that contribute to the whole. If one piece is off beat or off tempo then the whole arrangement suffers. Which brings me back to my statement that this could be such a great image if it were exposed properly.

Wow, not to the picture but to the comments. I've never seen so much bickering and badgering between...ummm....grownups? When did this POW forum become bitch session 101. By the time I got to the bottom of this comment page, I'd forgotten what the POW was and the photographer. Scroll up....oh yeah....nice pic Jonathan....I've actually perused through your portfolio and you've got some quality shots in there. Keep up the good work.

This picture isn't so bad, but there are lots of better photos on this site.

With respect to whether this photo is posed or not, several posts above Mary made a good point. In her opinion she felt that while the subject might not have been posing per se, she did feel that the subject was "aware" of the camera. Recently I shot a photograph of my two boys where I instructed them to do whatever "felt natural" to them. While I am very pleased with the result, there is no doubt that they were "aware" of the camera, and careful analysis of my effort will reveal the same sort of "stiffness" that Mary refers to in this photograph.

 

However, does this matter? I suppose it does if the picture in question is attempting to portray itself as a "candid". It doesn't mean the picture is bad, or a fraud or something similar. It merely means that the viewer - me - is not as fulfilled as I might otherwise be since I am left to reflect upon a generic interpretation of what a young lady such as this might be thinking/feeling rather than reflecting upon what *this particular lady* might be thinking/feeling since in my opinion she is thinking something like "Oh, Jonathan has noticed me in front of this window here, keep the contemplative look and hold still...". As I said in the paragraph above, I have a photo of my boys where they are aware of the camera and I very much like the result. However, I can't deny that I would be even happier had I known it was a truly "candid" moment.

 

With respect to the exposure, it certainly seems a stop or two short. Some seem to prefer the mood this creates while others seem to think better exposure or some post-exposure manipulation is in order. I tend to prefer Tom's high key approach (sans grain).

 

Overall, I would say this photo is decent, and I can certainly understand why it would appeal to some. However, as often seems to be the case, I think there are other photographs in the POW recipient's folders that are stronger overall.

I've always liked Jonathan Charles' work and I'm glad one of his pictures was chosen POW. This one is not my favorite, but it works very well. The grain and darker exposure are the things that give it its special atmosphere. Shoot it again with "perfect" exposure, less grain and razor-sharp focus and what have you left? Nothing.

 

It's sad to see that for some photographers, good technique equals with shadow details everywhere, anal pursuit of absolute sharpness and a total lack of consideration for the content of the image. Actually, good technique is whatever will convey the idea the photographer had in mind. According to this definition, I find Jonathan's technique outstanding.

 

Most of the pictures shown here as counterexamples are cold and clinical and aren't as expressive as this POW. Technique with little vision is sad indeed. Congratulations again, Charles!

I don't really like this shot for the following reasons: the cigarette is too close to the edge of the frame for my liking and the grain/soft focus don't work for me. I think given the opportunity, the execution could have been better. On a positive note, you have other shots in your portfolio I like very much.

I just tuned in and was rather amazed (and very pleased) to find this is POW, and much more amazed by the volume and style of the comments.

 

Thank you for all the positive crits and also for the thoughtful negative ones. Some of the comments can easily be answered to avoid too much random speculation:

 

Unposed - as I'd already said she was sitting (NOT in a bathroom!) relaxing after we had been taking some other photos and I just thought her natural pose would make a good picture so I picked up the camera and said something like "That looks great - don't move for a second..." and took actually 2 shots in quick succession, this the second after I had moved to get a better face profile. So Geraldine was absolutely right and so was Mary's comment (she knew I was taking it) though the posture was just her habitual one. It wasn't unposed in the sense that I just saw her sitting like this at the bus-stop as Rienk & Aslan find understandably hard to believe - in fact I think it would be rather dodgy to photograph someone in that situation without asking permission first (as I did - in sign language - for the "Tatoo" photo), so it would then be less candid.

 

Exposure - it's interesting that all the "experts" seem to agree that the shot was under-exposed whereas it was seriously OVER-exposed. The camera was on manual and been set up for the previous shots (farther from the window). I guessed that the skin tones would be about the same so to avoid any delay which could spoil the pose I didn't stop to check - my guess turned out to be not quite right. It's the over-exposure that causes the "highlight creep" over the edges.

 

Tonal range - I had a fair degree of control over the final contrast as the neg scanner is actually a very good one. My usual aim is to reproduce my impression of the scene rather than go always for maximum clarity. As I looked up from my coffee I was slightly dazzled by the window light and this was partly what I liked about it so that's the way the final print is; I also didn't correct the highlight creep. To include highlight and shadow detail in a very high dynamic range situation means you have keep the contrast quite low.

 

Grain - the grain was initially quite uneven and "clumpy" (as is common with over-exposure) so I removed it and then thought the result was less effective. I therefore re-added a more even grain pattern (using a method I described in detail in the comment on "Olivia", which avoids pixellation) to the depth that looked about right to me.

 

So that's it: part accident, part design. It succeeded in getting the effect I wanted so I'm happy with it but it obviously won't appeal to everyone and I'm very interested to see the other viewpoints.

 

Thanks also to the photo.net people ..."for making all this possible".

This is a photo critique forum. Not all the comments will be complimentary, and people who are displeased by an image, even if in the minority, should not be assumed to have dark motives, jealousy, character flaws, etc. because they express their point of view. Any more than the people who favor an image should be assailed for having "kitschy" taste.

 

To be specific, I think Tom has been quite articulate and impersonal in expressing his reservations about this image, and is more than entitled to do so. There would not be a discussion unless there were different points of view, and as long as we keep the commentary from becoming personal, we should welcome all points of view that are well-expressed.

I would've liked to see more of the lower back (not necessarily ass, but whatever).

 

It's such a lovely part of a lady.

I love the feeling of this photograph and the technique that presents this feeling. As one who thinks first with emotion, I can only describe this photograph as romantic. Tony summed up my thoughts exactly. This is the first nude I have seen on photo.net that conveys a woman so naturally. Many times I cringe when I see nudes because they are often over done to perfection, and many of these images are beautiful as well, but to me this stands out from the crowd.

 

Jonathan your technique works with this composition, very nicely done. I understand your vision and like it very much.

 

Congratulations

I have to question the preferences of the people calling the shots for photo of the week. For a while it seemed like the most creative, original shots were being chosen. Shots taken by people who really understand how to obtain nice color saturation and a perfect composition.

 

Then we come to this. Another nude shot.

 

Honestly, how many more nude shots are going to make it for photo of the week? Call me crazy but this shot does nothing for me. Who's deciding what makes the grade for photo of the week??

Apparently it's cold in your studio, otherwise she wouldn't be wearing a hat.

AHA! I know exactly what the look is now. It's not a hold still look there's a little something more to it. I think I recognize the whole body language. The cigarette doesn't appear to be lit. I bet she's holding a lighter in her left hand. In addition to the "hold that for a second look" is there also a bit of "for god's sake I was just about to have a smoke on my break can we hurry this up?" thrown in. Something, especially the arms makes me think that. I think I just need to go be European myself for a little bit. The toilet thing I just thought was funny and couldn't get it out of my head but this I feel certain about. I've seen the hand placements like that a few times in similar circumstances.

Such a mild mannered and pleasant photograph, this smoking lady with her hair in a towel. It looks quite domestic to me. What photo are all of you people looking at?

I loved Phillip's comment "Technique with little vision is sad indeed"... t

Re: The Photo.

 

Great shot! Before I read anything about it, I saw a lady just out of the shower having a quick smoke from her Paris hotel. The grain made me think this photo was of some famous actress from the 40's. Lovely to see a photo that I can play with in my imagination and write a whole story about. For that, congratulations!

 

Now, Re: The Comments.

 

As the Great Rodney King :) once said, "Can't we all just get along?" Stop the hatred! For god's sakes, this is a learning forum, not Jerry Springer.

 

Jonathan, I'm both sorry and happy for you, and your POW. I think the photo works. I respect the fact that it doesn't for everybody, but you don't deserve to have to sort through the bitching,whining and moaning to find the constructive critiques.

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.

The photo and subsequent discussion only serve to support theories of the dangers of coffee and cigarettes. Would grain still be an issue if Jonathan was drinking V8 and the model had a Nicorette patch? We may never know.

Two cents- I like the shot. It has a sense of time and space. It reads well. You can do a million things to change it. Personally, I'd leave it alone.

I really liked this photo. It had a certain elegance to it, but also showed a lot of personality. The graininess added to the relaxed atmosphere. Well done.

rule 1: Art is subjective

 

rule 2: "I like it or I don't"

 

rule 3: Art is subjective

Paul.

 

Do you really think you're clever?

This is an interesting photo. It's gray, not black and white. It has technical flaws that have been well documented by several photo.net denizens. If one were to rate it, aesthetics? Must be way below average. 3? Creativity? Not much in the model's semi-candid pose. 4? 5?

 

I like this picture. I like the semi-candid pose. The grainy gray print fits with her smoking (elegantly? I hate cigarettes and swore off women who smoke a long time ago. My problem, I know) after the shoot (or we can imagine the rendezvous in the hotel).

 

While this may not be this photographer's best (and I agree he has a fine portfolio), it works for me as a piece of art. He's captured a moment, constructed or not, of a woman comfortable with her body.

 

And while a few other posts have criticized Tom's aesthetics, accusing him for not liking this photo because the woman's not PLAYBOY enough, there's really no truth in that. The woman in this photo's beautiful enough--nice lines, good eyes. She may not be glossy and airbrushed, but a sense of beauty and sensuality comes through here.

 

It seems a lot of the discussion on Photo.net centers around technical details (which are important). These details are what are easiest to discuss, easiest to critique. However, the artistic merit of the photos is less likely to be assessed.

 

Last week I went to a show of one of the America's best photographers, Robert Adams. There were about 50 images (actually, silver gelatin prints). If they would have been posted on photo.net--and I considered do something like that as a lark, but wouldn't--I'm sure most would merit no response and very low ratings. I think only one or two images might even get a few ratings.

 

It's a slow night and I should quit rambling. I do have a point here. I think we all should try to look at the photos more as art. Is the photographer doing anything different than the herd? Does the photo speak to us in some way? Is it sublime (kant) in some way? Does the image stick with us and make us want to return to it?

These questions are more important than a thousand technical details.

 

Congratulations on the p-o-w!

Bravo Robert Brown... Well said.. So - maybe a more balanced combo of art and technique is in order. However, that said - I've had trouble understanding some images on photo.net that are truly bad technically but are "unusual" that are applauded. Visually an image has to have appeal. This one does "for me" and the "technical flaws" work here. Someone has taken lemon (overexposed shot) and made lemonaid... The result is elements that come together in a graceful and sensual way. This nude is sensual - not sexual (to me) even with the protruding nipples. The hand, the profile, the light in her face and the grain, the blown out window and even the towel create an artful image. I may be overly aware of the stiffness because of the kind of work I do but that is the only thing that detracts.