my galery Light...

Wonderful image - perfect lighting, priceless expression and posture!

Excellent portrait Katerina...

love this portrait, great light! 6

Beautiful!

your work gets better and better. 

Wonderful work! expression here is so beautiful!

Regards! Hanan

Beautiful portrait!

Very nice portrait. Such nice light hitting her from the front. Love the dark painted bakcground as well, such a nice contrast. And her pose is great, dramatic but somehow her expression turns it down and makes it softer.

Nice!

/Martin.

Beautiful!

Very Good !

Beautifully lit. And refreshingly clean -- meaning, as the elves already said, no gimmicks, no over processing in PS. An enigmatic half smile and head tilt on the subject, almost a beckoning. Eyes very clear and sharp. It's a simple enough presentation of subject, but there is a mystery to the woman's gaze, gesture, and clothing. Very nicely done portrait.

I find this photo enchanting in the way it celebrates senior womanhood.

I do have two objections when compared to this photo (link): Her eyes seem lifeless as compared to the other which is filled with wisdom, and secondly, the framing - the long draping costume also used here (link), because of the prominent off-center vertical folds, this might have been more aesthetically balanced as a full body-length shot.

Stunning lighting, effectively rendering her draped frock and enlivening her eyes. Love her rosy cheeks against the colder blue tones of the dress. I agree with Michael, and think the framing feels a little awkward, especially on the bottom and it would be interesting to see a full-length portrait done like this. Her eyes seem a little forced open and, though the strongly-posed nature of her hands works well, the eyes seem to strain a bit, considering the overall mood.

Connecting to last week's discussion, as a matter of taste, I think integrating the background into the photo just a bit more could add depth and dimension to the photo. Though it's obviously a portrait, even just a bit more sense of the colors of the background, I think, would make this a richer photo, the reds and greens playing off her colder blue dress and the colder light on her face and body. I certainly understand a desire to have the background fade and am not suggesting bringing the background up to where it's intrusive (though I think the background could be well utilized at various levels of exposure), but I do think there's some potential in just a bit more balance between foreground and background here, as the background also adds narrative and character. It seems like she's standing in front of a painting (it's a little hard to be sure) and there appears to be a figure seated on or by the side of a bed, that much smaller figure in a nice relationship to the main woman's head. A bit of interplay, I think, could add something here. I know others, and possibly the photographer whose work this is, might find that distracting. So I mention it more as something to consider for other, similar photos and not necessarily as a suggestion to change this one.

Throughout Katerina's portfolio, there is an intensity of what I see as a combination of staged-ness and something akin to mysticism or mythological flavor, in some cases bordering on the surreal. This photo is somewhat understated compared to a lot of others, still fitting into the portfolio but taking a couple of steps back, IMO.

I was delighted to see one of Katerina's portraits as the POTW. I have had one of her shots in my Favorites folder for a long time.

I like the fact that the background fades....it brings all the more focus on the woman. I also like the 'coolness' of the color of the drape - it compliments the cool colors of her skin. I'm not sure I understand what Fred means about the background though - I'm a pretty visual person- but would be interested if he could link to an example?

I do wish we could get the POTW back on the front page though... more people need to see these wonderful photographs.

I do not like this picture as a portrait. It has all the hallmarks of a well lit stage with an actress playing a role. A bit over staged, perhaps, it's a matter of taste. I don't get sense this a portrait of this woman so much as some theatrical rendering. Which, as that, has as Steve describes, a very high level of production value.
Everybody has a right to a style. I prefer a different approach but this is a look some might like. Like wax museums.

Diane, if you take a look at most of Katerina's work, her backgrounds fade nicely but are also lit at different levels of dramatic impact and most of them have at least a bit more presence than this one and, I think, make her portraits overall a bit richer.

HERE'S one example from Katerina's portfolio where subject and background are a little more integrated. (Of course, it's a different photo. Just an example.)

It looks to me like she wanted to do something a bit different with this photo (the one which has been chosen Photo of the Week). What's interesting is that, for the most part (with a couple of exceptions) the backgrounds she allows to be more present are simply colored backgrounds with some texture to them. The background in the Photo of the Week above is one that has more going on in it, which may be the reason she kept it more in the dark. Or, she may simply have preferred, on this portrait, to really want to focus in a more isolated way on the subject. I am just seeing the rich, deep colors in the background, and even a bit of the story going on there, as potentially adding to rather than detracting from the portrait. For instance, the red drape in the background, could nicely work in tandem and in contrast to the draping of her blue dress.

Interestingly, the elves introduced this photo with talk of simplicity. Understood! Where I might disagree with the elves (and I know they were just talking about this particular photo and not necessarily making a judgment for all portraits) is in the assumption that a lack of props (and we could add background elements) makes you focus on the person rather than anything "added." IMO, a well-placed prop or two in a portrait can help us focus on the person and, even more importantly, the personality and character of the person. Good portrait photographers will usually get their photos to focus on the person. But there are many different kinds of focus and attention. Isolation is only one particular kind of focus.

As others have already stated, I do like the lighting on the woman, and I agree with the suggestion that, given the nature of her draped dress, a longer length portrait might have seemed to be more natural. I also find the angle of her head to be appealing, as if she habitually does that when interacting with people. I know I'm probably reading more into that aspect of the photo than is warranted, but it's just the way that I want to read the photograph.

Even though the lighting, with nearly all of it given to the woman and with the background quite dark, is supposed to focus the viewer's attention on the main subject (as suggested by the elves), for me it doesn't do that. With somewhat definable but very vague shapes in the background, shapes that don't relate in any way (that I can see) to the woman, I find myself wondering what's going on back there. Is that a bedpost, or a person sitting in a chair, and why the angle of whatever is on the right? Contrary to extreme simplicity focusing attention on the subject, I find it to be distracting. Compared to last week's POTW, I think it needs more of a Goldilocks approach: not too much, and not too little as well; something "just right." I think that Fred makes an excellent point about a background's potential to add narrative or character to the photograph (I like those words much more than the word "context" that I sometimes use in trying to make the same point). There is too little background here, and what little is there I find to be distracting rather than either invisible or complementary.

I'm not sure what to think about her eyes. They are wide open, and she seems to be staring at something just to the left of the camera. I wonder if her gaze was in transition from one place to another, just as her hands seem to be in transition from one position to another. To me, the eyes/hands are shown in a unique way, but it also has a sense of incompleteness, as if this was the second of three shots in two slightly different takes. I can certainly understand the "wax museum" reference made by Louis.

I agree with Diane: the POTW should be on the front page to increase its visibility.

Finally, as much as I appreciate the work of the elves, I don't like to see the elves' comment on the POTW at the top and as an introduction to the photograph. That is for the members to interpret for themselves. I think it would be fine for the elves to participate in the discussion, but they should do so in the body of the discussion, not at the head as if this is the direction the interpretation should go. Rather than using the name "the elves," use your real name(s) so we can get to know you better as an individual(s). Other p.net administrators do so in discussions in other forums, and I've appreciated that.

I agree with Louis.When first looking at it, it looked like a stage actress .Her look does not look natural to me, as well as her hands form. Her eyes are staring at the viewer , but has not a real expression and a warm look.

The light on her face is so strong , there are no shadows at all,and for me they are a tiny bit flat.

The BG does not add to the figure,maybe in order to enhance her, but as was already said it is too dark,a bit brighter BG would have given her some more context.

Looking at Katerina's files,she has some much better lighted and nice compositions, this one does not work for me.

About Stephen's remarke concerning the elves, I see it as not a needed one, but I think that it does not disturbe us to evaluate it as we see it, in our best possible feelings.

There is something incredibly inviting about this portrait; like it is begging to respond to her, come in and enjoy a good conversation over a nice tea or a drink... Something very human and direct. The hand pointing to go indoors....
And I don't know, but for me, it is something that doesn't just come from the lighting (superb), the pose (it looks posed, but natural looking, it does not strike me as too posed/odd), the natural qualities of the model... I I'd consider it what seems to have been the right kind of interaction while making this photo.
Personally, I do not miss the background all that much, though I can see how it would add narrative to the image. But I can also see how it would distract from the qualities this photo has... I'll have to take a look at Katerina's portofolio later to pass a better judgement on that.

Sometimes you just don't like an image and it doesn't really matter how "good" it is or isn't. That's pretty much where I am with this one, I just don't like it.

I will suggest right off that a great deal of my dislike for this image is the affectation I see here. Maybe its having done work theater folks for many years, but the models pose/gaze is too familiar and brings back issues dealing with canned actor gazes. Also, I get a strong hit of Joyce Tenneson from this image--robe, model and basic lighting on model--but without the depth or visual integration. So, basically, I am just suggesting that I don't like the image primarily because of some of my own biases when I look here and these don't really have anything to do with the actual objective success or failure of the image.

My more objective sense is that the light on the subject is really very nice and I don't have any issue, basically, with the darker background. I think this type of background and all of the "questions" as to what it might or might not be can add depth in its own way--we can be unsure of the story. But that said, I do think I agree at least in part with Fred regarding the integration here, but maybe for other reasons. For me the separation between the background and foreground seems to have lost any sense of being "organic" and I wonder if it isn't really just due to the processing of the image, which has made it feel maybe too "clean" vs being more of an "organic" type image. This one stands out in that regard from most of the others in Katerina's portfolio, IMO.

I think the square can be a great format but this sort of image does tend to be more difficult to manage in that format. I don't feel the shot needs to be full length of the model at all but having a single, isolated, strong vertical subject like this can create a bit of instability. I don't think it is too bad here, but often a little "ballast" can help steady things.

And, finally, is she giving us all the finger?

Ha! I wondered the same thing, but was too inhibited to ask. Hopefully, she's just in the process of moving her hands, and the camera came close to capturing an awkward moment.

She's really not posing for the camera, as most photographers would have their subjects doing in this situation. I think she's moving her head, eyes, and hands, and what we're seeing is a very temporary transition. I'm not suggesting that's good or bad, it's just what seems to be happening. Many times a great look can be grabbed during these temporary moments.

Here's a very different take from a photographer and subject/model who did some very obvious and intentional gesturing (especially with hands) but where it feels much more natural, even though there is a strong intentionality to the poses and gestures. I don't mean to compare Katerina's work to Stieglitz. Just to offer it as different approach to this sort of thing. Katerina is attempting something very different.

Stieglitz/O'Keeffe 1

Stieglitz/O'Keeffe 2

Natural doesn't have to be the goal. I take Katerina not to be after the natural, but to be staging everything and actually trying to impress a very theatrical feel by using her women more as models than subjects. I don't find that her photos are as much about the particular women as they are about her vision of women, and life. Like it or not, it is strongly bent toward the artificial, yet seems also to be hungering to be also very human, as seen in many of the looks in the eyes. I'm not sure it's achieved a clear and compelling balance or imbalance in order to really penetrate the viewer along those lines.

Re-reading the elves' introduction, I think they're wrong. These are very effected photos, yet the elves claim there is no effect here. I don't feel we're being made to focus on the "person" at all, as an individual. One problem may be the intensity and level of effect. Affectation is an integral part of real life and is worthy of being explored. These photos are so effected that it's a little hard to get past effect and move on to anything else.

Fred, thanks for the link. Your comments make more sense to me now.

I think though, in many of her other portraits (and the one you linked to) the subject is part of the background - and there's nothing wrong with that. In this shot however, I like the fact that the subject is NOT part of the background but stands away. I'm also glad it's not totally black but there is a sense of something there to provide some interest without taking the focus away from the woman. No matter how many times I look at this picture, I always see the woman first. In other shots in her portfolio, I tend to see the whole shot.....