The pool had been heated to 90 degrees . . .

Shot at night with pool and deck lights on. Photo manipulated only to

extent of removing some out-of-focus leaves on the bottom of the pool.

There seems to be a lot of photo for a very little subject. Yet too much contrast from the hair to be effective as a minimalim, and not very graphic either.

 

The idea is probably a good one - you may want to play with composition some, and placement of the model in the frame.

in my opinion, a good work. original and nice idea of trying a non conventional crop... 6/6

I am confused by previous comments. The placement in the frame is what makes this a show stopper. Negative space is used very effectively. Does not to graphic either, mean the subject does not appear cheap and tawdry?

 

Barry, this is a fantastic photograph. As is your Barbara on the Rocks and Moonrise over Daina. It is always refreshing to see a nude handled with appropriate respect.

 

Thank you. You get it. I find it increasingly disheartening to go through the photos on PNet and see that the highest rated nudes tend to be the most graphic or involve the models with the most impressive bodies. They're not so much about the photography as about the body parts. I find it particularly disheartening to see the thousandth picture of someone's ass, genitals, or bare breasts rated highly for "originality." (This, of course, only applies to female asses, genitals, or breasts; male ones don't seem nearly so "original.") The people doing the rating and the commenting seem too often to be coming to the task as gawkers rather than photographers.

 

Based at least on what I've seen in several years of looking at photos here, I believe this photo is quite "original" compared to others on PNet, but I suspect it would be rated quite a bit higher, both for originality and aesthetics if I had the model closer and with the private bits clearly exposed.

 

I don't mean this as an attack on Chad's comment; I interpret his "graphic" reference to refer to the placement of the subject in the image, which is a perfectly legitimate (and appreciated) comment.

Uh, yeah, by graphic I mean tone, shape, and composition, not graphic in the sexuality sense.

 

It would be rather hard to make a sexually graphic photo no matter where the model was placed in the frame if she (or he) is under water.

 

Rather, what I was getting at would be something like moving the model down just a bit (hard to specify distances when we're talking about something on screen and with no reference point...), so, while still near the top, she has a little space to 'breathe'. Then perhaps lightening the bottom portion of the water so it doesn't have quite so much contrast to give it more of a minimalistic feel.

 

However, the hair will always probably be a stark contrast, unless you went with an albino model. Perhaps less exposure overall would darken the water some and make that contrast less, though that's hard to tell since one of the main light sources was under the water. And, I could just be wacky, and that contrast could be what makes the photo for other folks.

I'm proud of myself. For the second time on one of my images I've gotten both the lowest and highest possible ratings for both originality and aesthetics. I'd sure be interested to know what was on 1/1's mind.

The picture is outstanding. To decry the use of negative space is to deny the picture's essence. I got no complaints, except that I didn't make the photo myself.

By the way, as a new member to Photo.net, I agree wholeheartedly with some of your comments about ratings. Some people cannot seem to separate aesthetics from originality and innovation.

Ratings on nudes make no sense. I do nudes, I love nudes. But to do a really original nude, is a rare thing. That fact should be recognized. There are too many out there who see a great set of tits or a lovely butt, and think they should rate it highly. The reason you have two scores is exactly because they are not one and the same. I have rated some photos with 4, 5 or 6 for aethetics and 1 or 2 for originality. The converse is also true, although not as frequently.

Sorry for the diatribe, but your remarks resonated with me.

At any rate, I very much enjoyed your portfolio, and hope you keep up the good work.

And more on the idea of ratings: there should be no shame in getting a low originality rating, so long as there's a high aesthetics rating. If I can take the same picture Ansel Adams did (or Edward Weston), I'm not being original, but I'm certainly showing a mastery of the craft.