mostly models Golden Goddess

Thoughts on the photograph are welcome, but something I'm really

unsure about is where to put the watermark.

Doug, this is a great shot...you really nailed this one. There are many things I like about this image..the coordinated colors/textures, the perspective, the additude....great exposure control...I think though that the little things are what set this image apart...my favorite detail is the subtle sheen on her skin that helps define her shape...wonderful capture.

Is this one of the first pictures of that recent photo session ? If so, then I'll probably wait a bit to see some more. First impressions on this one: nostrils are ok, which is rarely the case with such poses. Eyes are a tad too closed and neck a bit long imo, so perhaps the head was raised a bit too high or the camera was a bit too low. Love the dress, chest and arms, nice, well posed and well lit. Hair not really blown - good as well. Make-up... hmmmm... strange... so heavy on the eyes (which is ok) but then almost nothing on her skin...? More once you post the next few. Cheers.

Don't hold your breath, Marc! it will take a while, but yes, there will be more. Interesting comments, though, and I appreciate them. I picked this image to work with first, not quite at random, but not intending it to represent the best shot. It might still be, but that will be more coincidence than anything else. So...gentlemen...J..Marc...stay tuned.

 

 

And yes, the makeup--the makeup artist we almost had lined up backed out for good at the last minute. I think the eye makeup is a little heavy, too, but maybe that's just for daylight.

Thought she might have been young Jenna, then I saw the exposure date; I must say there's a slight resemblance.

 

This must have been a tricky picture - just about anything you touch (in editing) will mess with color which is so central. I like everything about this including her makeup. It gives her (don't give a damn) stare more attitude. The little patch of blue is just right too. The only thing is what looks like a little rip under the arm.

Hey Mike,

 

They're the same girl, only this one is about 20 or 30 minutes older than the Jenna at the door. In spite of Marc's keen observations, I'm beginning to wonder if this is the best take from the series. I'll post some others. That's not a rip in the dress, so it must be a shadow, or a crease.

Ok, and so... since I'm still not sleeping... why not give this one a little try too: simply brightening the eyes, correcting a bit that brighter area on the neck (which I forgot to mention earlier), and giving her dress a little extra color punch. And finally, a crop...

Boy, a side-by-side view of the two really shows the difference. The eyes seem a bit too bright, Marc, don't you think?

You guys are great, and I guess I'll have to give Marc a byline credit because I will most likely steal his improvements here, too.

 

 

About the eyes being bright, they're very underexposed, and as Marc probably discovered when he was working on it, the iris doesn't brighten up very well and begins to lose its human feel.

Good to see we are still talking here...:-) About the iris, I think it's ok - on my monitor at least - and still looks "human" to me... But I think Michael has a point if what he meant was that this part above the iris was a bit bright in my version. I also realize now that the dress hasn't been improved that much in my version: I find it a tad too red now perhaps.

coming back to this photo after the weekend, I think most of what I like about Marc's alterations is the crop. The nuances of color photography are such that I'm reminded of the old saying: 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. There's a range of "right" where subjectivity and personal preference play a role, but neither this one, or that one, or this other one are wrong, in my opinion, and likewise, neither is right. The proof of this would be to come back in a year and rescrint an image from scratch and then see how it differs.

 

 

 

I've always bee puzzled by how an artist decide a piece is "complete" - the final stroke of a paint brush, the last note of musical embellishment, and why a photograph is often in a state of flux. Maybe it's because we can make broad changes to a photo easily but not so a painting or a piece of music.

Michael, I hear poets are even worse in that regard...

"I've always bee puzzled by how an artist decide a piece is "complete" - the final stroke of a paint brush, the last note of musical embellishment, and why a photograph is often in a state of flux. Maybe it's because we can make broad changes to a photo easily but not so a painting or a piece of music."

 

I've always been puzzled by the same thing, Michael. And guess what, 2 persons gave me memorable answers to it:

 

1st person is Tony Dummett, who once told me "When you are almost there, then you are actually there already". He meant by that, one should never overdo it with final little touch up work - and that applies to Pshop too, I think. :-)

 

2nd person is not exactly a photo.net member, but is not unknown to you, for sure: it's Salvador Dali himself. In his "Journal of a Genius" (I hope the translation of the French title is correct), he explained that he once had a problem to put the final stroke to the tigh of his Jupiter. I kept on trying and trying, and got mad, day after day. Till he decided the following: "I need to do it with a stronger desire to succeed". So he decided he will not allow himself to try again for 2 or 3 weeks. After this, every day, he was to eager to try again, but no, he forced himself to wait, and observed a long time what went wrong without trying to make it right. 2 or 3 weeks later, as he finally allowed himself to try again, he was so hungry for perfection, that he did right in 3 minutes what he had done wrong for days...:-)

 

I think, to know when is the final stroke, one sometimes need to wait and refresh his mind.

 

As a side-note, you can see here an example of a painting redoing many times the same thing, and the same would indeed go for music or poetry. It's a true artistic dilema. So we all have to face it. :-) Cheers.

Thanks for that, Marc. Interesting perspective.

 

My take on it is more along the lines of "Interpretation" vs. "Imagination". An interpreted approach tends to follow a reference - an example of this is the recent glut of HDR and tone mapped images made popular by Dragan and others. The Imagined approach is more individualized where a piece is produced because "this is the way I see it" regardless of critique or objections. As there is no truth in art, both approaches are acceptable since art can be made for art's sake, or purposeful requiring mass approval.

 

How this affects the decision of the "final stroke" is perhaps both intellectual and sentient, but can also be mutually exclusive depending on whom one wishes to please.