robiek nude photographs "Vintage Chairperson", 2006

...I simply asked her to turn the other way.

This is actually my favorite of the three featuring this young lady. Some people might say the tattoos negate the "vintage" aspect, but I don't think so. In fact, this one has more of a vintage look to me than the two toned ones...something about the chair, her very natural figure, and of course, the hair. She looks like she could be someone in films from the twenties.

 

Excellent work with the 67II, as usual.

Not even the chair is from the 1920's...but somehow there's an old

feel...in contrast to very modern body art.

even the cold blue cast seems to fit... very nice

My trip through the nude critique forum is usually a pretty quick one, since I am easily bored with repetitive images of pert young things in arched poses. I would say in the past few weeks, I have paused to comment on less than a handful. This is the latest to catch my attention. Overall it is a marvellous image. There is a simplicity and elegance to the composition, and the skin tones have a luminous velvet quality that is both innocent and seductive. The tattoos add an element of aggression that counter the innocence. Her contradictions add a nice complexity that makes me want to know more. If I have any criticism it is in the shadowing of the face. A little more highlight to match the tone of her breasts would have been nice, at least to my eyes. There is a wonderful early 20th century feel to the whole image.

The lightsource is an interior floorlamp, I'm holding the P67II in hands and exposure time was from January to February.

 

Thank you for your encouraging comment.

I would have to agree with Milo G. This is a great nude image in contrast to the every day hum drum that passes through. The image with the carpet was a pleasure to see as well. Great job.

 

-JWrightwood

This picture comes close to being interesting but misses. The attitude of the model is excellent ,especially in relation to the chair. The light source is way too strong and for me is quite distracting. The lack of focus also keeps me out of the frame. The shadow on the wall empasizes the the closeness of the lights in an awkward way. Nice try though. Maybe another attempt could solve the problems. I think it would be worth it.

Dark side of the face seems a little too dark, but more importantly, why did you use "computer-generated DOF" in this case ?

 

Real DOF is progressive and absolutely logical - two items on the same plane will always be equally blurry. OTOH, Computer blur can be applied anywhere, but can easily result in very illogical - impossible - DOF effects. It's the case here, where the blurring on legs and hand is too strong, and where the arm of the armchair is progressively blurry, whereas the parallel line of the coussin she's seated on is not blurred accordingly.

 

I think this is a very nice photo, but all I see once I look closer is "sloppy" and inappropriate PS technique. Sorry if it sounds harsh: it's just that you have a good photo here, and I'd like to help you to trust your original a little more, and help you, for your next works, to recognize the technical weaknesses in your usage of PShop. Regards.

Beautiful image!Congatulations!

Gentlemen...thank you for your constructive and detailed critisism. I will probably try my...umm...tripod at any further old-feel-photographs, and then have the luxury of more (or less) and at least better placed light.

 

To the expert advice by Mark G. however I must slightly disagree, not to the fact that I'm probably inept in handling analog photographic material trough my scanner into the digital formate but to the thought of having intentionally done some PS magic. My guess is that the effect has something to do with .jpg compression.

 

But now I have the excellent chance to get the procedure explained for future remedy.

This is how I scan the work;

 

1. I scan the analog print at 600DPI (dust and all)

 

2. I remove the dust speckles from the appr. 9 000 Kb .jpg picture file with UleadPhotoImpact SE...one by one

 

3. I add a simple canvas and frame

 

4. I compress the .jpg file dimension to 100 Kb

 

5. I download the small file to PhotoNet

 

Looking at a large blow up of the final small .jpg file I can see unwanted pixelation and some other odd elements.

 

OK, now I'm all eyes...

 

 

 

 

I agree with the 20's feel of the image and I believe with a softer lighting and a possible sepia tone the vintage element would have been far more emphasized.

Simply elegant. really pleasing image. well done!

Thanks for your reply. So, if I get your answer straight, you mean you used no PS blurring at all on this photo...? No blurring via the PhotoImpact dust remover either...? Any vaseline or gel or oil on a glass filter in front of the lens then ?

Robie, just wonderful picture. love the pose, light and also the blue tones. But I can image it also good in sepia.

The lens I use is my Takumar SMC 6X7 105mm f/2.4 no filters or other material.

The crushed pixels need further research...

 

The other experiment included is, perhaps for Haleh and Rina, made by placing the blueish-grey Kodak paper original print on a green cardboard sheet, photographing it under my table light using a small pocket size Casio Exilim allround snapshotter, using no flash. The digital image turns out sepia(like), for some reason...