single photos MOdel: Inge MUA: EWartistry

Slightly different tint and light.

Great light and shade, sharpness , contrast and tone , a wonderful portrait work

 

 

All of the best my friend

Movie star glamor shot. Excellent work!

Ya, great lighting... a bit harsh but that adds a feeling of old/classic.

Wonderful reminder of the 1930s and 1940s.

Thanks you for the kind words.

very nice one !

The lighting and mood of this photo are just fantastic. So is her expression ! Great work all around.

Please note the following:

 

This image has been selected for discussion. It is not necessarily the "best" picture

the Elves have seen this week, nor is it a contest.

 

Discussion of photo.net policy, including the choice

of Photograph of the Week should not take place here, but in the Site Feedback forum.

 

The About

Photograph of the Week

page tells you more about this feature of photo.net.

 

Before writing a contribution to this thread, please consider our reason for having

this forum: to help people learn about photography. Visitors have browsed the gallery,

found a few striking images and want to know things like why is it a good picture, why

does it work? Or, indeed, why doesn't it work, or how could it be improved? Try to answer

such questions with your contribution.

 

Light on the left jaw seems a bit strange but I do like the overall quality and expression. Reminds me of film noir. Congrats for the POW.

I'm guessing monolight with baffles from the front, producing sharp shadows. A little too hot on the forehead, however. Then a fill light from the model's left. It seems that softer lighting is all the rage nowadays, but this type of lighting seems to produce more of a moody, film noir effect.

The incredible lighting and tones make this a very appealing image. The model is gorgeous and I love the 1940's look. It may be an optical illusion, but her left eye appears to be looking at the camera and the right seems to be looking slightly away. A very minor nit in an otherwise very memorable image.

My first response to this photo is that it is basically well done. The light is right for this "Hollywood" style photograph(old Hollywood) and I don't see anything that has gotten out of control tonally.

 

Although I do think it is a nice photo, styling in these types of shots is so very important. Here, the makeup is near flawless. Her left eyebrow seems a bit too pasted down, but the rest looks very good. There is a bit of a breakdown with the hair, however. It is a nice amateur styling, however, the break on the forehead makes me think about bad comb-overs! This is a flaw that is really hard to let go. There are some other things about the hair that are weak, but might be overlooked if the forehead had been done right.

 

An issue I am struggling with in the pose is the fact that the eyes are so different, as if we are seeing her at the start of a wink. The right eye-her right-if you look at only that half of the photo, is a bit of a "deer-in-the-headlights" look. Her left eye is a bit more alluring and what has been referred to as Bedroom eyes. This incongruity causes me a little pause.

 

Overall, the lighting and makeup are very good, but I think the hair styling really let this photo down.

Hi all - I feel quite humbled to have a POW so shortly after joining the site. The Crits are very interesting and constructive/instructive and makes me realise what a tough school this is!...I am actually an amature photographer who is helped by an MUA (EWartistry) when we shoot once a week. Funnily enough we were saying this weekend that we must involve a hairstylist as this would make a big improvement and a stylist with access to decent clothes. So there is hope for us yet.

 

Thanks for the interest and the time you have all taken to comment - it will help me with future shoots.

 

Derek - TLV

I think this is very well done, I personally have no experience in this type of shoot but am a fan of the style and mood of this photo.

The only unusual aspect of this shot is the lighting on the forehead and jaw for me personally. It seems too strong compared to the overall feel of the shot, the left jaw then apears oversized or swollen and the left eye looks like some of it is cut off.

Perhaps it just needed to be softened a bit or moved more on to the hair?

The only other point for me is the makeup makes the models face look plastic when you compare the neck area to her lovely face, it almost looks too unreal, but that is just my personal taste.

Otherwise it is a great selection for POW and has potential for some real discussion which has been lacking lately.

Ok, good to see this picture on the frontpage ! Well done, Derek. I read with great interest what Mona Chrome and David Brown had to say about the hair, the eyes and the light. Surprisingly, I agree with them on all three accounts. Clearly, the hair was not "done" as well as it could have been. Indeed, the eyes are neither here nor there, one a little closed, the other one widely open. And yes, the effect light added at model left (low), brightens the jaw exagerately.

 

And yet, these 3 "flaws", in my opinion, contribute in a quite unique way to give this picture a different mood all together. Looking at such hollywood-style portraits in general, you often have the feeling that the models (actors) are posed forever, like statues, and the only thing, that brings life back into the pictures is often the person's eyes. Here, I see something different: she's not a statue, she's more real-looking, mostly because her hair isn't perfect. And her eyes do both look into the lens, in fact, but one is just more closed - another imperfection that reminds of real people in this real place called reality. :-)

 

As for the light on the jaw, what does it add ? Switch it off, and firstly, this side will fade into darkness, but secondly, you'll lose immediatly all these voluptuous shadowy curves on her chest and scapula (clavicule, in French). Now was this light well adjusted for the jaw ? Not really, but I think, that outlining the jaw with light was a very good idea: again a simple PShop exercice could show how dead this part of the face would be with no light at all. But what went just a little wrong is that this additionnal light was a bit too strong, and wasn't flagged at the top, to limit its impact on the cheek. So I'd conclude that this light was necessary, but could have been controlled a little more.

 

All that said, when there's so little to complain about in a portrait, and so many strong points, I call it a great portrait. Congrats.

It's good to see a pretty much straight portrait make it for POW. This has exceptionally good tones, very good clarity. The subtle shadows in it are exceptional. It's a great portrait which has a good tight crop. Congrats!

I like the hair... kinda juxtaposes a bit of wildness into the overall effect. Nice work, and congrats! -g-

It's a dramatic photo and one I find appealing. I especially like the sliver of light catching her jaw on the left (our left) which strongly defines her face amidst the shadows.

 

I would be very interested in details of the lighting set-up. The hotness on the forehead and chin could have been controlled using softboxes - or if you used them already, then moving them a little further away from her.

 

Although I noticed the eyes are different, I found it part of the girl's character. Some people do have one eye open wider than the other, or one pupil larger than the other. I find it intriguing that psychologically we equate 'aesthetic perfection' with symmetry. It's a proven statistic, regardless of the fact nobody is perfectly symmetrical!

 

Great job, particularly as you classify yourself 'amateur'. I look forward to seeing you become 'Pro'. The only difference between the two I might add, is the 'Pro' lives on income earned primarily from photographic work - more of a business definition rather than being based on a learned skill, natural talent or any high level of proficiency.

If it weren't for the difference in the eyes, one wide open, I'd have sworn this was a manequin. Even the hair looks stiff.

She is just like Marlene Dietrich in the Hollywood films of '30-s and '40-s. In my opinion, she is a modern Marlene Dietrich. I wouldn't discuss here about her aproportions of the eyes. It simply doesn't matter. I like the strong shadow of the curl. The breasts are wonderfully expressed. The strong and soft shadows plays in harmony. I would like to know more about the lighting. And the composition is perfect. But one thing I would change. I would use BW film, so that the skin would look natural and warm. Take the same one with the BW film!!!

Great work, the light, the model, b&w, shadows,... Excellent all the way, DDD

Maybe there's something I'm just not getting, but I don't see (and never have seen) the appeal of the plasticized glamor shot. If I wanted plastic, I would buy a barbee doll. Negative comments don't last long around here, but I feel compelled to offer my two cents.

 

--Lannie

I actually do like these Hollywood style glamour shots. I agree there's a plastic quality and

wouldn't want to do them myself, but I love looking through old Hollywood movie promo

and headshots. Behind the makeup and high drama lighting in, for instance, Von

Sternberg's handling of Dietrich, there's a sense of inner pathos meeting outer beauty

which can be very rich and moving when you look past the cosmetics.

 

I think this is a very good study and shows a photographer who knows what he's after and

is willing to learn his craft to get there. I think, aside from a few hair problems mentioned

and some lighting issues which don't distract me terribly much, this is fine work. It is rich,

dramatic, flattering, eye-catching, well posed, consciously lit, and it is surely glamorous.

The handling of black and white, skin tones, and textures is really impressive.

 

I don't think it quite gets to the heart of the matter yet and I suspect that will for sure

come in time and with more experience. I think it lacks in expression and connection

which will come from both the subject and the photographer and the play between them in

time. The naturalness, the sexiness, the comfort, the aliveness that Monroe, Swanson,

Crawford, Dietrich exude owes as much to their photographers' abilities to draw them out

and convey personality as it does to their gifts as actresses and beauties. The nuts and

bolts of this kind of portraiture may be hair, makeup, and lighting, but the heart is in

expression and connection.

I simply love this photo. To me it is all about texture and allure. The lighting creates mystery and sex appeal. Forget the above minor criticisms; the overall effect is gorgeous. And even though it is suggestive of the 30's and 40's, it is also contemporary to me. But maybe that reflects my age.