It's true: one must be a saint to marry a photographer

One must be a saint to associate with a photographer. (And it really

is unmanipulated; that's a reflection.)

For the humor-challenged out there (and there are a few, judging by the early ratings), that's supposed to be a halo. Think Renaissance religious painting.

There are only two categories for rating - originality and aesthetics - no humour category...

As an image I think cropping to just yield the portrait of the woman with halo works by itself - but loses the reference you are trying to make. The horizontal line is not horizontal.

Yes, indeed, there is no humor category. On the other hand, I've never seen an image remotely like this on PNet. So how does it get a "1" or a "2" for originality? (And I have no idea what, or if, you rated it.) And if one's idea of aesthetics is horizontal lines, then I suppose that's that. But as to aesthetics, it looks to me like (except for that doggone non-horizontal line), that it follows such things as the rule of thirds; offers a comment on the normal relationship between photographer and model (the model usually is the one with the bare skin, judging by a lot of much higher-rated dreck seen on this site), visually places photographer and model in direct juxtapositon, and does in fact make reference to long-standing painting traditions -- not only the halo, but the attempts by early painters at including pastoral scenes (this one with a twist) in the space beyond the Virgin. In fact, I think the photo is fairly effective at what it is trying to do. I suspect its main problem is that it doesn't fit into any convenient boxes (portraits of eagles come to mind; macros of bugs come to mind; ten million pictures of bare breasts (including some I've done myself) come to mind; rustic barns come to mind), and people just don't know what to make of it.

Barry , there are still some of us who appreciate a little off - the - wall humo(u)r. I find the halo idea very funny ... it is the shot itself that may possibly be done differently. It is not at all self evident that the image of the photographer (you ?) is a reflection. The way the shot is cut in two looks awkward. The contrast difference in the two halves also jars a little.

If only the shot could be staged differently. Include some of the window/mirror frame. Show only

your upper section ( head, arms, camera ) above what is now the centerline (sit down ?) , thus reducing the outdoors part and , finally, stagger the two figures . - Consider these thoughts the ravings of a twisted mind, or perhaps take some of them on board...whatever, in any case I find the shot funny and what's more , highly original ! Best wishes, Walter.

Good points, Walter, and thanks for taking the time to comment. I find that people who actually see the print of this image are similarly confused; they seem to think that it's two images Photoshopped together. I guess that's the benefit of critique!

One of your more interesting nudes... The only time I've gotten nekked to do a shoot was at a nude beach where I'd been commissioned to do some nudes for a bride to be to give to her hubby on their honeymoon. There were so many nekked peeps around that it would have been awkward to remain clothed... kinda weird, kinda liberating... r.

Thanks for the comment! And thanks for spicing up the picture for me -- alas, I am actually wearing a rather baggy pair of swim trunks, though not visible in the reflection, so no naked photographer here, I'm afraid. Anyway, I've always liked this image. I'd never thought of it, though, in the sense that it reverses the typical photographer-model role, with the model dressed and the photographer (apparently) not.