Chanaé

Magnificent composition and control of light. I like the vintage atmosphere. Best regards.

Well done , Chuck!

Regards,

Mário

Observing Robinson :-). Karl

This old tree is a magical backdrop for your model in this shot. Almost like a 'fairy tale' image. B and W suites the composition perfectly! There seems to be an 'uneasy ease' about her 'body language and eyes'. It actually really makes for some nice tension and adds 'pause' for many 'story lines'!! Well done Chuck.

Best regards, Chuck!

PDE

Thank you all for your comments. I was very pleased with the result AND did some dodging and burning to get this look.

If this is a portrait of a tree, I understand the figure being used for scale to give the impression of size even if the tree itself is cropped rather severely. The harsh contrast may have been employed to show the tree's weathered age.

If this is a portrait of the girl, then this image has a multitude of problems that starts with a rather uncomfortable looking pose and expression. Placing a subject in or near a tree is a time honored approach but this rendering is so contrasty it creates textures that compete with the subject. Those textures make the composition very "busy" that draw you away from, not to, the subject. This is exacerbated by the deep depth of focus. No edge burning will fix this. The small size of the figure in the frame and the blown highlights of the background and dress do not help the center of interest of this picture either. The over all placement of the figure in the frame is good and with a different processing, depth of field, better pose and expression, and tighter composition, one might revisit this subject and location with better results.

Chuck has a nice portfolio out here with some really stunning stuff. In this particular shot, I'm not quite sure, like Louis, what he is trying to convey. It's an interesting idea, but I think it's over-sharpened and the gaze of the model makes it look like she wasn't ready for the shot. I think perhaps if her head had been turned the same direction as her gaze I'd find it more appealing. I don't mind the blown highlights because I think the significant parts of the image are exposed well, but I also agree with Louis that a tighter composition on the model would work a little better, unless, of course, Chuck's intent was to make the tree the focal point, in which case, I think a young child playing on the tree would have been more effective.

I agree with Louis and Bill. I understand the impulse behind the photo, but the subject's expression gives the impression that she is uncomfortable and unhappy. I suggest that to really work she should appear more involved (expression-wise) in the shot. The processing is also rather too heavy on the clarity (local high contrast) and vignetting - as Louis points out this might be good for the tree, but not so good for the girl/woman. Curiously enough I think if the shot was titled to tell us it was a documentary/travel shot I would not mind so much, but I think it is meant to be a portrait.

I decided not to view this image as a portrait per se. Otherwise, I'd be in agreement with everyone's observations. Instead, I view it as a wood nymph (dryad) at home in the forest. The subject's uncomfortable and unhappy expression (thanks, Robin) is simply due to her not liking the intrusion of a photographer. (I wonder whether Chuck talked with her in advance of taking the shot to make sure she knew what sort of expression he wanted.)

Under the above circumstances, I am perfectly happy with the appearance of the tree. I think the detail is extraordinary, although I agree tat the highlights need to be reduced.

I accept this photo at face value and am not moved to figure out how to classify or categorize it. Having read other comments, I don't wonder whether it's a portrait or not and any way I consider it, it seems to have the same effect on me and is telling me a story. It's not as refined as much of Chuck's other work, even in cases where he pushes the limits of highlights, shadows, and processing. I don't know if Chuck was trying something new and more raw with this or it's just a miss in terms of processing, but it does stand out in his portfolio. I'd probably go with a bit more refined processing, as with most of his other work, or else I'd push it much more in the direction it's going so it doesn't feel like a mistake.

I think the woman's expression goes well with the content, her body language, and the surroundings. I don't see either discomfort or unhappiness, but rather a sort of wondering and wandering eyes that seem in keeping with the theme.

I see her as posed almost theatrically and that gives the photo a certain presence I can relate to. All the world's a stage. There's a sculpturally stiff quality to her and to the photo that seem to convey something to me. There's a kind of deadness in her and in the scene, but a deadness that is searching to be alive and free.

I don't find this an easy photo by any means. Its emotional and visual challenges draw me in. If some of the overall aesthetic matters were dealt with, I think its expressiveness and questioning would be even stronger.

I like this picture very much just the way it is. The artist, Chuck Turner, shows a surreal composition in my way of view, and I love it.

Fred, I'm not sure I was trying to categorize the image per se, but rather to view it as telling a story about a wood nymph. I do realize that I was a bit flippant about the story line. But that was to emphasize the point that perhaps Chuck didn't intend (that word again) the image to be a straightforward portrait. Maybe Chuck wanted to create a fantasy.

The image has many contrasting elements and textures and although the brightness of the light behind the woman is somewhat harsh, it nonetheless focuses ones attention to that part in the image, maybe that was a calculated and deliberate part of the processing.
My personal interpretation of the image is that the woman has a somewhat mournful expression, perhaps in sympathy for the death of the very tree she sits in.

Girls in trees . . . nudes in nature . . . sometimes I wonder what the connection is. So I kind of like this one just because the model has what might be interpreted as a sort of "how did I get here?" kind of expression on her face.

Following upon the first sentence of the last comments by Martin, which has considerable merit as such, I feel that the girl is the main subject and the tree quite secondary. If she was sitting on a sofa or other less noticeable support the attention would be more directed to her expression and pose, which are reflective and of interest, but obstructed in this case by the tree "clutter" (however photogenic and well revealed by B&W the latter may be).

Arthur, can you clarify what you're saying. Are you saying that the tree, as shown in the photo we're looking it, is quite secondary. Or are you saying you'd prefer it to be secondary so that her expression might come through more?

As it stands now, it's hard for me to see the tree as secondary, though I can imagine some viewers wanting the tree to be handled differently so the woman would become a more clear subject that would rise to prominence.

I like the relationship of tree and woman the way it is. I feel it as a dialogue between woman and tree and think there's a challenge in the way the heaviness of the tree dominates without, in my mind, being able to overshadow the woman who retains a lot of presence.

There's a significant sense of scale being played with here that I think is important to the idea of the photo.

Fred,

Interesting differing perceptions we have. What I think I stated quite clearly above is that for me the tree is quite secondary, given the interesting expression and pose of the lady that contains more value than an oft viewed large and probably inanimate (dead) tree. I see no relationship between the tree and the girl. What then is the photographer trying to show us? If it is the tree with ground and sky, they cover at least 85% of the picture area. If it is the girl, then given her expression and pose there seems little point (to me) of her being placed in that position.

I feel there is no "dialogue" between the two as there might have been, although I agree with one of the commenters that this sort of placement of pretty (and even pensive as here) girls in natural surroundings have more often than not little to say (and I am not referring here to seeing a pretty girl or an impressive tree, but the relationship of the two) . It could be different of course, but that would require something more inventive, symbolic, symbiotic, emotional, enigmatic or aesthetic (a lot of hard work to achieve in this sort of scenario, and admittedly not an easy task).

So if it is the tree that is important, it might be best pictured alone or with some natural (normally present) lifeform, featureless yet effective masses of black or white, or a blurring of leaves to give effect of movement or ambiance which might heighten the impact. If it is the girl, I am pretty much certain that her expression would be more meaningful and compatible within her more normal or typical (for her) surroundings, and probably the simpler the better in this case.

So there I rest my critique, for what it may be worth, fully expecting many to disagree (but that is the purpose of a good and fruitful discussion I believe, and the more views with a difference the better...).

Arthur, it may have been stated quite clearly, which I guess means I'm simply dense. I'm fine, as you are, with disagreement. Doesn't that go without saying? I simply wanted to understand, so I asked you a question. Healthy disagreement often challenges us and I'm all for that. I asked if you think the tree, as it is shown, comes across to you as secondary or if the tree, to you emotionally and/or narratively, is secondary and therefore dominating too much? In other words, is it secondary as shown or should it be made much more secondary (or gotten rid of completely)? Another way to look at it is, do you think it was secondary to the photographer or is it that it's secondary to you? I suspect the photographer didn't experience the tree in this photo as secondary or he wouldn't have given it such prominence. If he did mean it to be secondary, then he sorely missed the mark, almost bizarrely so, though I don't think he did. I think I now do understand you better, that the tree is not important to you and the woman and her expression matter much more. (I apologize if I got you wrong!) In my opinion, focusing much more on the woman restricts the photo significantly but let me be clear in saying that I completely understand those who might want more of a portrait out of this. That is very much a matter of taste and I wouldn't be at all surprised to be in the minority on this, a place I often find myself and am getting more and more used to. ;-)

I keep looking at this photo because I really want to like it. And mostly I do. At first I was put off by her uncomfortable pose, but after awhile it seemed more like an honest in-between moment, the sort of thing that might be discarded as an outtake by a conventional editor. But there's something timeless about it, harkening back to an earlier era before people were so camera conscious that they played to the camera even when they weren't being photographed - just in case a security camera might be watching.

Yet the processing thwarts this timeless appeal. The white gown is blown and melds with the sky. The contrast and clarity feel a bit too heavy for this photo. I keep imagining it with a wet collodion type treatment. It seems to want to be that - like a still from the set of Photographing Fairies - yet the finishing touches are too contemporary.

Fred, I acknowledge and understand your points. They are appreciated. Nothing is really "black and white" in my mind about this image which I think has been constructed with some care by the photographer. Although it doesn't work for me for the reason mentioned (lack of relationship) I can see elements within it that tend to lift it out of the ordinary - for instance the way the girl's body flows with the lines of that part of the tree that is angled more closely to the bottom of the frame and the way her upper body and arms are angled similar to the upper branches of the tree. If it was a picture more about the tree I think that if her eyes were closed (dreaming pose) it might say more about this tree. What do you think? What is it that makes this image work for you in the way it is?

Arthur, if you have a specific question about something I've said, feel free to ask. Otherwise I'll repeat what I said above, adding a couple of things in brackets for clarification and also adding that I think this photo means to place the woman into a heavy environment, and the relationship of the heaviness and deadness of the tree to her seems to be at its core:

Earth and spirit?