1983

I think this was somewhere around 1983.

I think the fey expression is key to this image and really makes it. I do have a little trouble with the extreme highlights down the right side. Nevertheless, it's a winsome photo.

Well it seems mr. meyer has not yet calibrated his monitor...?!?! The highlights on the right side of the frame...are perfect.

 

The lighting of this image is no easy job...especialy with those eyes staring back thru your view finder....I would like to Vote for a crop...just head and shoulders...not to say that just the way it is...just right

 

With out a doubt...she is your Favorite Muse... Juan

I finally figured out what is going on with the light on the right side. It's actually her hair, but out of focus. That shadowy breast-shaped thing isn't a shadow at all, but her left breast seen through hair. I mean, it's been over 20 years since I took the shot; I'm not going to be current on all the details. Until Juan shocked me back into reality, I was thinking David had a point . . . (though if it looks just like a blown highlight, but isn't, does it count as a blown highlight?).

when is a blown highlight not a blown highlight...? when you have a high light that has tone...this image has a real nice gradiation from light to dark...I tried my hand at cropping...and think as it is...is best Juan

Well that sounds nonsensical to me. The image is basically overexposed. Working the gamma curves restores some of the missing details.

Barry I guess if I had my druthers...I would rather have an image that may be slightly on the overexposed side but full of passion and life...obviously made with so much love...

 

So many portfolios on P.net have scenes of streets and buildings empty as the personalities of those who make those images...multiple shots of the same scene....perfectly exposed boring images of human-less towns and cities...describing them as though they are living out a dark and negative future...

 

This world needs more love and happiness...Thats what this picture is about for me...THATS what I see in the eyes of this woman....hope.

 

To me it's nonsensical and sad that someone could look at this beautiful image...of this beautiful woman...and only comment on the exposure...I would be proud to say I made this image...but it's you who have honored this soul...Juan

 

Funny nobody has mentioned her Mona Lisa Smile....!!!

Thanks so much for the comments; you have expressed what I love about this photo, and why I posted it. On the other hand, I did request critiques, and I think it's fair to talk about the exposure, too. I read somewhere, though, that you could look at works of some of the indisputably great photographers and find technical flaws; as a photo professor friend of mine says, you can get away with murder if you have a strong enough concept.

Barry...my point is the manner in which some folks give the critique...Some bedside manners are important for creating a learning enviroment...I think we make the images we do for the image first...some maybe for the exposure first...some are photographers first...some are artist first....

 

AND you knuckelhead....the exposure...after playing around with curves...levels...and other assorted Gamma features....shows to me you did right with this one...the details that some say may be missing...are right there in front of them....you made this the way you saw it...I respect you for that....and for allowing me to blather on...Juan

 

Well, you're right about the bedside manners; I've got to say I prefer yours! (But I've got to be careful here, too, as even David expressed concern over the highlights.) So, yes, you can say, "I'm concerned about the highlights; you might try them cooler," or you can say, "This picture is basically overexposed," and you might even mean the same thing, but the first one sure sounds better on the receiving end.

 

I am reminded of another photo professor I know who told me he was driven mad by his colleagues, who were all old RAF aerial photographers whose only criterion for a photograph was whether it appeared sharp corner to corner under a magnifying glass. They didn't care what it was of; if it was sharp it was good.

Well, all of that is called rationalizing and that is not critique, but discussion. I have seen numerous images with technical issues, where others would try to excuse the issues by various discussion tools, such as "I did this on purpose" or you don't understand the "content" of the image. All I can say is that the image as presented might be of an attractive girl, but that is NOT the issue. Had the image been of a building, the technical issues would be exactly the same.

John...you may choose to call it a disscussion...but in fact it was a critique of your critique....technicaly speaking of course...

it's a shame that someone who can give out so many insensitive critiques...can not take critiques when given to him... juan

 

 

 

 

 

I'm wondering if you could clarify a bit for me. If I hear you correctly, what you mean by critique is a discussion of technical issues? I.e., focus, tonal range, and so forth? Or does it include anything else?

The critique is for the quality of the image in technical terms. To go after the subject matter is a murky territory, unless its clearly some kindy of very cliche exposure, as for example: the canals of Venice, the Eiffel tower or the farm fields of Tuscany, of which there must be an additional 10,000 images produced in a year (tongue in cheek here) Even if an image is manipulated it would be assumed that it has to be done to some standard, either in the darkroom or on the computer, which is now becoming the standard. Many older film images taken with equipment that had limited metering features often show the characteristics in this exposure. Since I don't know if this image was cropped or not it appears that the camera or the exposure was set in the darker area of the image. because the camera was not metering the entire scene. (I have plenty of them myself in boxes) Some of the issues of such images can be caught during the scanning process of the negative, i.e. this image does have sufficient detail to be fixable, and actually would bring out more detail such as the girl's hair. I actually downloaded the image and did some work on it just out of curiosity to prove what I was writing. The problem is that she also has some dark shadows under her eyes and the manipulations starting bringing out these shadows which is not what I think you originally had in mind.

Barry....After just selecting the area of overexposure of this controversial image...I was able to darken and retain some valuable detail in the hair only...after careful consideration, I have decided that I like the lighter version of the building more....I have dowloaded it for your viewing pleasure...

 

Ok; thanks for the explanation. Knowing that you're coming largely from a technical point of view helps me evaluate what you are saying.

 

I of course have the advantage with this image of having the negative in hand, and a (somewhat dim) recollection of the photo session. The light here was coming almost entirely from a window behind the model, so you are right: the model's face and much of her skin was in shadow. I exposed, (I imagine) for an average, but even with B&W film, the dynamic range was a challenge. On the other hand, I think Juan is right; the highlights aren't entirely blown (though there's not much more in the negative than what you can see here). Part of what's contributing to the effect is a very shallow depth of field; what looks like undifferentiated white (or off-white) is, I think, her hair out of focus. Also, I had a fan blowing during this session, so I believe her hair was moving as well, also contributing to the blur effect. That is why the left breast looks the way it does; it is behind her moving hair.

 

As to the depth of field, look at the left side of the image; you can see how quickly the hair goes blurry. Even her left eye (on the right in the image, of course) does not look as sharp as her right eye.

 

Now, from an artistic point of view, I rather like the light background and the fact that her body blends into it. It's part of what made drew my eye to this image over most of the others I made in the same session; that and the facial expression Juan picked up on. (I've taken thousands of photos of this model, but never managed to capture quite that same look.) I don't think I would like the image as a whole as well if the background consisted of middle tones, or had much detail. Your mileage, of course, may vary, and that's why I submitted the image for critique. I mean, according to me, all my images are brilliant . . . so it helps to hear other points of view, particularly well thought-out ones, even if they don't ultimately change my mind. Hearing such views forces me to think about my own work in new ways.

 

I should add, though, that you make a good point with your reference to the model's being pretty as being an unreliable indicator of the quality of an image. A lot of what passes for critique here on PN, particularly with the nudes, is not about the photographs, but about how attractive the model is. So, I appreciate that you, for one, are not stuck in that trap.

I often like to look at my older images that I have stored away. In the early eighties I used a Minolta SRT201 which I still have and a Minolta X-700 which I also still have. The SRT201 was not used that much, but the X-700, while fully functional, is now a very worn unit. The images from the manual SRT-201 tend to have really nice exposure quality while the images from the X-700 often tend to have these washed out features. I assume that with the manual SRT I often spent some time wandering around in the general image area, playing with the metering needle while with the X-700 I just let the camera do the work. Not a good idea. When I started using a Nikon N6006 (Still a superb camera), the quality of the images changed abruptly and looked more like the SRT images. As a result, the SRT came out of mothballs and the X700 has been effectively retired.

Lovely empathic portrait. made even better by her hair catching the light.

 

IMHO there is no problem with the exposure - the area of interest (her face) is in the middle of the range and the highlights are not blown (no pixels even reach level 255). John may prefer the appearance with a different (darker or lower contrast) "gamma" curve but this does NOT mean the photo is over-exposed.

 

Best wishes, Jonathan

I fully agree with your observation, however in this image please note the lack of detail in those areas with lots of illumination. And in photoshop when auto-levels are used, the software immediately attempts to darken the image. It could, perhaps, lie in issues with the scanning of the negative.

To take John's position for a moment, the lack of 255-level pixels could just be a result of the scan settings (yes, John, I'm putting words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand, this was originally taken on B&W film, and it's hard to get truly blown highlights on that. I think what's going on here, at least in part, is that the background is blurred from shallow depth of field, and is also obscured by moving hair (adding to the blur, because the exposure is fairly long). However, I have also now looked at the negative carefully, and that area is very dense. Whether it's at the DMax, I don't know. I think it would look pretty much the same even with less exposure, because of the blur. So, John may be right and so may Jonathan and Juan (there seems to be a certain name repetition here). The question then becomes whether the effect, whatever causes it, works artistically, or, if it doesn't work, whether other aspects of the picture are strong enough to make the image as a whole work. I rather like the effect myself, because it gives the image an ethereal look. If the blurred/almost white areas were pure white I don't think it would be so good, but, as Jonathan points out, they aren't (though as John might retort, that could be just poor scanning of what should be pure white).

Hmm ... someone so interested in the debate ongoing under my work will undoubtedly find it interesting to pursue it further under one of his own photos also !?

 

Well, so what makes this beautiful? Some may just call it a gratuitous pic of a rather shy looking girl caught with her bra off !

Certainly I could think of a couple of arguments to defend that point of view, but they would be largely slogans such as the type that people that don't relate to this kind of photo will use to push them down on PN. The worse offenders I have found are those that one imagines are dying to do so but do not have the means to photograph models or, worse, those that indulge in such photography themselves but feel that their work is so highly superior to that of others.

 

However, as a frequent photographer myself of this genre, I beg to disagree, because I know what it means to work in order to gain the confidence of a model necessary for her to convey this look to the camera. Shyness should not be confused with defense or hostility, it is a sign on the contrary of a certain rapport and intimacy that is established with the photographer,"she offers herself and lets her guard down". A bond between model and photographer unlike many others which is long lasting and can lead to profound friendship in later years.

 

I'm hopeless on technical matters so I will not enter into that debate. However this photo symbolizes to me a modern young lady who is confident in her identity, even if she has trouble with how it may be perceived by others, hence the apparent shyness. It is a very human photo and one that I enjoy and identify with wholly.

 

That is what makes it beautiful to me and congratulations on posting such an excellent image. I am certain however that others could find all kinds of reasons to claim it is just another form of voyeurism.

 

 

 

Thanks for the comment, and thanks for your obvious understanding of the question I posed on your image. As you gathered, it was just a question. I find conclusory comments ("it's beautiful," "it sucks") to be worthless. I think people should be able to back up their assertions. Sadly, on PN, few people do.

I think I must be misinterpreting the term ?critique?. In every other instance I am familiar with, ?critique? implies an artistic evaluation of the image. This includes an evaluation of form, narrative, and technical issues relevant to the artistic merits of the foto in question. Admittedly, we don?t see much of this on PN, and (unfortunately from my perspective) too many of the critiques relate to purely technical issues and do not deal with how the technical issues effect (or should effect) the viewer.

 

 

For instance, in this image the primary area of interest is the face/eyes, the model is making very strong eye contact with the viewer (photographer) and the light shadowing on the face gives it depth (and for me emotional appeal). Both the hair on the left and the defocused/blown out/whatever area on the right tend to frame the face. The bare breasts tend to add a little bit of visual tension to the image, and are almost superfluous to the image. The sunspots/?freckles? on her arm and back create most of the tension with the face. For me, the freckles on the arm tend to complement the face because of the slight ?hint? of freckles on her face. Overall, the image causes me to empathize (per Jonathan Charles above) with the model. Excellent foto, my compliments to both you and the model.

 

My 2 cents worth,

Jim Phelps

 

Thanks . . . now THERE's a critique. I was, of course, being a bit flip with John, and I have always liked this image as a portrait. Your comments are beautifully put, and such comments allow me, as the photographer, to see the image afresh.

That's a little strange Barry, have you changed your mind ? .. possibly in order to reinforce your argument that one should call a spade a spade, you previously claimed under my photo (sic), that what inspired you to take the picture above was the beautiful breasts of this model .. I quote:

 

... "Oh, yes: as to my photo, I would be delighted if you commented that she has really nice breasts! That was certainly my take on the matter when I conceived the image . . . and really, it's a lot about what the image is about".

 

Personally, I don't look at photos of naked girls as bits of meat and I try to imagine not only what the author but the model also had in mind, sometimes I do or do not find it, but it would not occur to me to talk about her breasts as a primary focus of interest and I certainly agree with Jim that this picture deserves more than that, as I developed at length further up on this page. It would be so gratifying among fellow artists if more people also had the generosity to conceive of other's work in the same light of tolerance and understanding as they do their own.