'The Nun'

In some parts of the world 'nuns' have abandoned their 'habits' -- their

traditional clothing - for more modern but still modest clothing, but this

'nun', probably from a Ukrainian order, still dresses like what religious

people call a 'penguin', and the red cross on her headdress indicates she

ministers to medical needs. Your ratings, critiques and observations are

invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly, very critically or wish to

make a remark, please submit a helpful and constructive comment;

please share your photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! john

The appearance of this woman's face and framing is not meant as a comment on religion, her religion in particular, or for that matter any religion.

 

It is a straightforward photo, and I leave it to viewers to read into the photo, as captured, whatever each viewer wishes.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Interesting and emotional portrait!

I am quite sure this woman doesn't see herself like this, but this is how she photographed when I saw her.

 

Thanks for the evaluation . . . and same for your many others over time.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

This is one of your best portraits, I think, John. The simplicity of the habit against the light background, the iconic emblem of the cross and that beautifully weathered face with the shadowed eyes emerging as if from an enveloping mist - it all works wonderfully well. Into my favorites.

Over darkening of the eyes makes her look like a zombie nun. But the white garmit has nice soft tone.

I worked hard to make this capture be the vision you see, as it was 'touch and go' from the original capture NEF and JPEG to the processing in Adobe Photoshop CC to get this rendition.  There was no way to lighten the eyes -- they were just too dark to rescue, and so I had to incorporate them into the vision.  

 

This is my way of 'incorporating the background' as I have preached almost from the start -- to take her white habit and integrate it into the whiteness of the building behind her, then soften that light building and even it out somewhat to keep my vision intact.

Obviously you saw in my finished vision what I saw from the start, and I'm pleased that this finished version (not much changed really) suits you, and that you told me about it.  I hope it's happy in your favorite folder.

 

(But see the comment next below about the 'eyes', which couldn't be helped.)

 

I aim to please, first me, then other viewers, Jack, and so I thank you for telling me your reaction, and I'm pleased it suits you so.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

Meir, this capture never had enough info in the darkness of the eyes to rescue the eyes (see comment above) to lighten them to any different approach than shown here, so what you see is what you get.

 

If you see a 'zombie nun' then that's what you get - it's just a problem that cannot be overcome, at least as far as you're concerned, but to Jack McRitchie, he put it in his 'favorites' folder.  Tastes vary.

 

Thank you for the positive comment on the remainder of the processing . . . 

this woman was walking through a crowd, back mostly to me, with a long telephoto aimed at her, and she 'briefly' and I do mean 'briefly' turned once or twice toward me, and I reacted quickly and was able to make what I hope is a meaningful frame under ghastly circumstances  (even if it made her look 'zombie-like')

 

And who said nuns had to be all 'sweetness and light'?

 

Or that each photo had to portray the subject's inner soul?

 

Or perhaps that's exactly what I did?

 

;~))

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Very minimal though tense enough. You caught her strong personality and that white surroundings are perfect match, John! 

I like your comment; it makes more sense than I had in putting this all together.  Kudos.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

Maybe in his favorites folder under "shots not too take"?? :-)

That was a snide, unhelpful comment and not called for.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

I consider your remark disrespectful both to myself and John. Who are you to make such judgments.

I added a "smiley". Did not think you'd take me seriously.

 

Nevertheless John, as an honest critique, it is a photo, if it were mine, I'd not have kept as it appears on this post as indicated on my first comment.

 

The composition and tone of garment is nice but the face is over photo shopped. Too much contrast; too much burning in the eye sockets -hence I said "zombie". When I lightened the photo I saw that what appeared as eyeballs without pupils turned out to be eyelids and she is looking downward.

 

"...what you see is what you get" is not true. The naked eye would never have seen her eye sockets this way.  Impossible. They are burned, to the liking of some but not mine.

 

Her mouth appears to me as if she is snarling. Snarling is not a reflection of her "inner soul" as suggested.  Moreover, how can the "inner soul" be recorded if the eyes are not seen. "Inner soul" in a portrait generally comes through the eyes. 

 

As John says, different tastes (and Jack posts good photographs) but I can't critique in accordance with another's tastes. 

Actually, I made an attempt to lighten the eyes/eye sockets, but it proved impossible.  The information just was not there.  

 

You have misinterpreted either me and/or the information in the capture.  Her eyes are slightly visible (see right eye as we look at her, barely visible under a partly drawn lid.)

 

I would vastly have preferred to have had more 'eye' to work with, but life ain't perfect.

 

When you write, a smile doesn't undo otherwise objectionable writing -- you should keep that in mind.

 

It's different than when interracting in person.  I might come into contact with a bunch of n'er do wells at the local railroad station, hanging out, and if they see me and start to recognize me and maybe remark, address them as 'my kriminals' in rudimentary Russian, and maybe even give them the finger if I know they are accepting of me (somewhat), and in the right circumstances that can be an ice breaker, and even lead to acceptance and possibly more photos that day or another.

 

But in written remarks, I'm literal and emoticons carry little weight with me; write what you mean, and that'll carry much more weight.  Wryness in writing on a public forum unless you have a good close friend who knows you intimately and understands your foibles and your idiosyncrasies is likely to fail otherwise.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

This exercise on Photo.net is primarily for my own fun and education; I do not 'play it safe' or hide my 'less than the best' in order to try to outrank and outperform all the other outstanding photographers here.

 

I just try to have some fun and post what I think is interesting to me at the moment.  I spend a good deal of time taking photographs, processing them (not always my best skill), and then exposing them to criticism.

 

I am not always thin skinned about criticism.   I post some good ones (one of mine got Photo of the Week this week, for the third time) yet the one posted just before this was far superior technically and possibly emotionally, and I feel that it was a superior photo overall, but it lacked a 'story' which the Photo of the Week did.  

 

And the Photo of the Week got critiqued rather roundly, yet I did not rankle, because I recognized the truth of what was written, and frankly I invite the truth; I only rankle when I encounter gratuitous remarks that are not intended to help me as a photographer.  

 

You have contributed greatly to 'helping me' in my photographic education, but at other times you just seem willing to grab for attention like a burr under a saddle, and at those times I rankle and tell you so directly.  

 

Emoticons notwithstanding, it's the text that matters, not little squiggles designed to derogate your meaning, as I just don't know you that well as an individual -- we're not backslapping buddies, and don't have the personal contact and eye-to-eye contact necessary for such communications to succeed.  

 

Best just to be straightforward.

 

I understand as well as anyone, I think, the drawbacks of my postings, (in general), and don't need heckling, just honest critiques, which I can take like a man; see the congratulations I received for just that under the latest (of three) Photo(s) of the Week in posted comments today/yesterday under the photo 'Protest Cook'.

 

john

 

John (Crosley)

:-((