Untitled

Please note the following:

• This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.
• Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Help & Questions Forum.
• The About Photograph of the Week page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.
• Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery, found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer such questions with your contribution.

Ok, I'm going to be the odd one out here and no doubt get hate mail(don't bother my spam filter gets rid of most of it and any that gets through I don't bother to read anyway). Why? well because the elves and everyone else that views this think it's the bees knees, the dogs B------s. I love the colours, that splash of red seat is great but ... hate absolutely that hair covering part of her face. In the thumb nail I thought it was a bearded lady or some kind of daft religious garb. You photograph a beautiful woman and then cover up her face! Why? I spent years trying to make average women look beautiful and someone takes a photo of a beauty and covers her face, agh!

If it were a veil or other item of cultural significance covering her face, I could understand. But a "bearded lady" effect, assuming I'm not revealing my cultural ignorance, is something to which I can't relate. Given the dark background and dark clothing, spot of red, and her very fair skin, I think this could have been a striking portrait. I guess is it still striking, but in the wrong direction (IMO, or course).

It doesn't help to say we simply don't "like" or "don't like" photographs, especially when they're this unusual. I admire the photographer's courage.

The hair/eye/face/throat are "interesting": the fingers/finger positions/fingernails/red cushion are distractions. Her cleavage seems to serve no visual purpose (isn't erotic, doesn't hint at maternity), looks almost like a scar, is also a distraction.

"Interesting" means I'd like to see several frames of this in a sequence, perhaps with hair moving to different positions, perhaps revealing face and expression...something dramatic or cinema-like seems hinted-at and I'd like to know what it is.

I made my earlier comment intentionally before looking at Kemal Kamil's portfolio.

It's interesting to look now, afterward, because I see that he does seem to have a cinematic orientation AND he's played quite a lot with hair-in-face, though not as decisively/graphically as in our example. It's good to see someone exploring unusual visual ideas, whether or not everybody "likes" them.

When someone steps beyond the norm, conformists opinions fly. Unusual, quirky, and thought provoking. This is what the POW is supposed to be. I like it.

I don't do portraits.... just landscapes. So I'll start tilting my camera at about 30 degrees and make the sky magenta. That would be unusual, quirky, and (to some) thought provoking. Is that what it takes? Is it good as long as it's different?

I'm sorry, it's unnatural. It's so posed, the hands would instinctively move to brush away the hair from her face. It just looks messy, and the splash of red detracts from the whole picture.

There are several issues with this photo:

1. it pretends to show movement, but the same movement is frozen - probably choosing high shutter speed (consider the high definition of the model's hair). Some blur would have been good;
2. the overall setting (tones, backdrop, seat, dress, etc.) transmits the feeling some sort of "classic painting", however the lighting from the right makes the hands totally defined photographically and their definition is completely inconsistent with the overall mood of the photo.

I did go and see Kemal's images before I decide to add a comment here, the man is capable and of very interesting touches to most of his images, very creative with portraits and handling light in a proper manner.

Why would we just wait for a photo of a lady to just see how beautiful her face is ? , this image although it did not record the movement 100% and not showed the intended blurring of the lady's hair, still it do communicate in a very advanced way with the viewer.

I did enjoy viewing this image and it do deserve been a POW.
It is now up to photo.net to delete me from the system if they wish so, I am not Rashed Abdulla but Saud, the younger brother of Rashed.

First of all, well done to the author and a deserved POW in my eyes. Even if this is not my style.
Color-wise and processing wide, it reminds me of a painting. I honestly do not agree with the other posters on the hair covering the face. To me it gives a meaning to an otherwise sterile technical photo. In such a setting it gives me the feeling of a woman that is denying herself to the camera and the viewer where the hair are used to convey a sense of fast movement.

For myself,this is a good capture specially the red and black colours caused the shot very unique...I like the composition also and the atmosphere.

Regards(Bobby).

Kudos to Kemal for stepping outside the box. It's a very unusual & different shot. It has tremendous impact, not only in the face but in the splash of red. It actually has a Mona Lisa pose. The head placement in the frame is very good for a portrait. I like this a lot

Glenn Stear says "I love the colours, that splash of red seat is great but ... hate absolutely that hair covering part of her face. In the thumb nail I thought it was a bearded lady or some kind of daft religious garb. You photograph a beautiful woman and then cover up her face!"
... and I agree completely... your words are my words

When I saw it I thought of an orthodox Jewish bearded lady. Well, let me put it another way. My first glance made me think of a bearded orthodox Jew, and then I realized that it was a woman. I think that the cleavage was the tip-off. (Cover her up to the neck and draw your own conclusion.) It was a unique moment in my viewing experience, one I hope never to have again. It does absolutely nothing for me but make me want to go on to the next image. If that is reactionary, then I am reactionary--but at least I'm an honest reactionary.

--Lannie

Enigmatic! Thus I like that this makes you think. Most photos don't, you look, you see, you move on. This one makes you stop and try to figure out what's going on, even though you see everything that is going on instantly. BUT why is this going on? AND, I don't think you have to have an answer to make it good. I realize with my own work that lots of folks don't like having to think. They come into the gallery and ask, "what it this". Well, I always include the answer, so my response is "keep looking, you'll figure it out", and then they go back to work, studying it.

Aesthetically, I'd crop this to get the face and hands in the rule of thirds, it would balance out better, as now it's not. The downside to the hair in face is the lack of separation w/ background, otherwise superb lighting, great black on black, hard to accomplish, as we see here.

The red seat balances out the hands, and helps keep the eye in balancing out that strong look to the left side, which tends to send the eye in that direction for it to see what's so exciting over there, even though our brain tells our eye to relax, nothing is over there. Hope that makes sense- I always pay attention to where, and how long, my eye searches around so I can 'fix' it if it does not stay in the image, nothing worse than something throwing out the whole piece due to one of the many image breakers that are out there (tonal mergers, line mergers, tension points, etc.). And those that don't like this piece and express that, don't feel like that will disqualify you from further participation here, this site has never been about conforming, but expressing/discussing how it makes us feel, and that will vary greatly. Besides, you are in the majority on this one.

Blessings, MS

PS I don't look at the portfolio as I believe each piece, unless it's framed in a series, is published to work on it's own.
PPS Although most my work is straight forward, here is one of mine that folks want to turn over, or stand on their head to view: http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=7327281

I appreciate all of the comments that have been provided, and I'm struck by fundamental disagreements among some of the posts regarding this photo. That alone makes it a good POW.

While there are elements that really attract me to the photo, I still come back to my basic question, one that I've had for many years after viewing photographs and reading comments on PN: Is being "different" enough to be considered "good?" Yes, Kemal has a photo that, as Ken Thalheimer stated, is stepping outside the box. I also admire photographers who stretch beyond the norms, but I'm struck by viewers who seem to consider the images produced by this stretching to be good by default. I don't think it's fair to label people who may not like the photo or elements of the photo as "conformists" and simply dismiss their views by putting them into a category and labeling that category with an unflattering term.

The one opinion contrary to mine that I thought was very well expressed, one that made me take a second look at the photo from a new perspective, was offered by Francesco Pessolano who, as John Kelly recommended, offered a well-reasoned basis for his opinion of the photo, something I failed to do in my first posting. I don't fully agree with Francesco, or at least I don't interpret the photo in the same way as Francesco, but I can understand his reasoning and can appreciate his opinion.

Finally, Michael Seewald makes a good point about appreciating photos that make you think. I believe that's a good criterion many use to evaluate a photo, including myself. For my own reasons, based on my life experiences, I also appreciate photos that capture the essence of a place (landscapes) or of a person (portraits), and that do this in a way that make the photo attractive and/or compelling (by "attractive," I don't necessarily mean beautiful but rather visually inviting; some of the most compelling photographs are not "beautiful" in the traditional sense of the word). Notwithstanding the expanded view that I now have of Kemal's photo because of the opinion expressed by Francesco Pessolano, I don't find this a compelling photograph of a woman, despite the many elements that in the photo that I think are well done, simply because the way that the hair covers the face. It's different, but it's not different in a way that I find intellectually or aesthetically interesting. For those who disagree with this opinion based on criteria that go beyond just being "different," I value their points of view.

I guess I have a certain bias regarding imagery that puts some responsibility on the maker of an image to give us some clues as to intent. Now, certainly, any individual image can create its own interest, however, I do find that works in series become more rich and make us believe in the artist.

In Kemal's case I am not totally sure I can get a clear picture of what is important or what Kemal wants to say. In many ways, I like this photo but would like to see it being supported in the photostream. Yes, there are other images with hair in the face, but most of those are so stylized, while this one is much more straight, that they really don't feel connected. The others in the set this appears have little relation or story telling connection. So I am feeling like this is a one off with nothing behind it at all, except maybe some play. Now play is a very important part of the creative process but at some point there should be something more, IMO.

As I look over all the work, I just get a sense that although Kemal appears very talented technically as to shooting and post processing that we are essentially presented with a sort of smorgasbord of images rather than a consistently organized and strong body of work. Too many versions and very little curating of the work. It just leaves me wondering, and not in a good way.

I found it very reminicent of old oil painting portraits of yore. Can't put my finger on what artist it reminds me of most, but definitely makes me feel like I'm looking at something from the Met in NYC. I thought it was a neat juxtoposition having that very old world painterly feel you accomplished with her dress, the light, and her body's posing, with the VERY modern approach of having her hair covering most of her face. But I will say that I agree, the thumbnail made me go, what, bearded lady? or a religious veil? It took a few seconds for my brain to realize what it actually was once I opened the image.

Firstly, and to make it shorter, here are some of the posts before mine I find myself in agreement with:

“Enigmatic! Thus I like that this makes you think. Most photos don't, you look, you see, you move on. This one makes you stop and try to figure out what's going on, even though you see everything that is going on instantly” Michael Seewald.

“It gives me the feeling of a woman that is denying herself to the camera and the viewer where the hair are used to convey a sense of fast movement.” Francesco Pessolano.

“It's a very unusual & different shot. It has tremendous impact, not only in the face but in the splash of red. It actually has a Mona Lisa pose. The head placement in the frame is very good for a portrait. I like this a lot” Ken Talheimer.

“I thought it was a neat juxtoposition having that very old world painterly feel you accomplished with her dress, the light, and her body's posing, with the VERY modern approach of having her hair covering most of her face.” Vail Fucci

To all the above I would like to add that being different is only, at best, half of what can make a picture a "good" one. And I'll now try to explain what leads me to believe this is indeed a great picture.

1) Regarding this picture's meaning - enigmatic indeed : a) I'm not sure where the photographer originated from but his name sounds like a muslim name to me, and if indeed this picture would be shown in a muslim country, I would consider it much more meaningful in a way, since the veil would have been replaced, in this case, by the movement of this woman's hair, that is : by a NATURAL movement. The question raised by this picture may then be : are women's faces naturally or culturally meant to be covered up in muslim countries ? b) Red nail varnish and the red chair, imo, are two symbols of desire and sensuality, and these two symbols are directly contradicting the covered face. The question raised here, for me, would be : should a woman's desire and sexuality be exhibited or inhibited and remain hidden ? Another very interesting question raised in a very subtle and beautiful way, I would say... c) I like as well the fact (that others have already pointed out), that this picture is somehow a "second Mona Lisa", and very reminiscent of western old Painting History : perhaps a picture that's in direct opposition to our "uncovered" Mona Lisa, just like Islam is somehow opposed to Christian beliefs ? If I read it this way, then this picture is an elegant representation of what opposes these two dominant religions.

2) Should faces always be seen in portraits ? I would simply say "no", be it just in the name of the photographer's freedom of expression. What matters first is the message that's sent out. If a portrait tells a story, why would one ask to see a face's features as well - who cares !? Why should a portrait always remain a description of one person's reality ? Why couldn't there be such thing as a symbolic portrait...? Once we see this picture, we should be asking for its meaning. We shouldn't regret what's not shown, and rather we should question what's there to see. Finally, this picture's approach reminds me somehow of Painter Francis Bacon's faces that were brushed away and became impossible to identify in so many of his paintings. Why would such brush strokes hiding faces be ok in a painting, and unacceptable in a photo...?

3) A triangular composition of 3 (or 4) meaningful elements : The covered face (and breast clivage), the hands, the chair. I'd simply say that all else being - as noted earlier - a beautiful black on black, these elements are what our eyes distinguish immediately. Isn't this composition a strong lead to the meaning of this image...?

For me this picture is a very clever and well composed image that raises questions, whereas most portrait with faces are - at best - telling us about the person's personality or the person's life. So, I see it as a refreshingly different kind of portrait that makes us think. One of Kemal's best works imo, and I'm glad the Elves picked this one for discussion ! Most of Kemal's body of work is anyway interesting - although I may at times regret to feel the Photoshop work a little too much. Certainly well worth a look anyway, be it just for the beautiful collection of great expressions... All the best and congratulations for this POW.

For me the overall quality of the photo is very good.
The texture, color, lighting, and crop all work very well.
I do take interest in photos that go outside the box, and this is outside the box for sure.
No doubt, It does grab your interest, but once I start to get into the photo, with exception of the eyes, the finger nails and cleavage, I can't help but see the likeness of a Jewish Rabi in a black robe.
So for me the quality is very good, but sorry I don't get this one.
G

the first time I saw this picture, I immediately remembered the painting Mona Lisa.... but this one is Lisa Mary ..... and more mysterious, more stylish also more bizarre......... and i love this photo! congrats for POW!