mikeseb

As gorgeous as she is, the out-of-focus (?motion blurred?) face is a fatal flaw. It is out of focus in such a way that it does not seem intentionally done for artistic effect, but rather appears to be a problem of technique.

Some suggested improvements: change camera angle so that the foliage at camera left doesn't appear to penetrate her head; better exposure so there's more detail in the shadowed areas of her torso.

 

I do not mean to be insulting, but is that a mop on her head?

exceptional composition. the shimmering black tones look like anthracite coal.

I wouldn't title it, past her first name and/or the location and/or the date.

 

I hate titles, in general, since they're almost always cheesy and stupid-sounding, pretentious, or just plain unhelpful.

 

If your image doesn't communicate to the viewer on its own, then what's the point of a title anyway?

she is fantastic, and it's a good composition; but her skin is beet red on my calibrated monitor and color-aware browser.

George, exceptional composition and lighting. Model doesn't hurt the eyes either!

 

Very well done; far beyond much of the crap that shows up on this section of the forum.

fantastic portrait, although she looks about twelve years old. I hope she's not....

Depends on what you are trying to achieve. The lighting on the model herself is not bad.

 

Main question: what do you want to do with the background? How visible do you want it to be? Do you want it to be visible and IN focus, or visible and OUT of focus?

 

The answers to these questions will dictate some technical decisions that will affect your lighting choices.

Andre, if she is representative of Ukrainian women, I'm on the next plane to Kiev.

 

Film, correct? The tonality gives it away. Lovely hint of grain, just the right amount. What film did you use?

 

Square format, or cropped?

 

Lovely work.

This is exceptional in all respects.

I think the facial expression is just fine. It suggests a certain ennui.

 

The image does indeed remind me of a Dutch Old Master, as I think someone mentioned above. She is beautiful; I'd love to see more of her in a less crowded scene.

 

Beautiful.

I'm not overly fond of close-up genital shots; a stark look at someone's crotch is rarely aesthetically pleasing, and suggests that the photographer's intention was primarily to titillate. I don't see much artistry in such images, yours included.

 

Furthermore, your impressionistic, heavy-handed post-production adds little to the image.

 

One man's opinion.

Best of the series with this model.

 

Agree with bumping the contrast ever so slightly.

Beautiful woman; don't care for the funky edges and WAAAY too heavy handed with the softening.

I vote for leaving it untitled.

 

What information will a title add that is not already contained in the photo itself? Will you call it "topless beautiful model in decrepit building" or something equally obvious? Or will you attempt to interpret the "mood" of the photo by calling it something like "lonely" or "innocent" (a strange title for a seminude woman holding what appears to be her pet possum)? My favorite superfluous titles are those which the photographer has seen fit to call "nude woman", as if staring at a fabulous pair of breasts hadn't already given that secret away.

 

My point is that the photo should convey your intention to the viewer without the pretentious, facile, or just plain silly baggage of a title attached.

 

But if you must, how about "[name of abandoned building], [city], [month], [year]" ?

If you tell me that this is the Ukrainian national dance, I'm immigrating!

 

:)

 

Beautiful photograph, as always.

Not very interesting, nor very well done. This was a grab shot of a naked dude out in public displaying his wares.

 

Maybe the Street forum?

Rudolph, I love this image. The lighting is superb. How did you light it? It looks like a large, soft source above and at camera right--correct?

She could not be any hotter....

I like the idea--an abstraction of a Rubenesque female body--but your artistic intent is betrayed by a want of craft.

 

For instance, remove the giant blob of black crap 2/3 up the photo above her navel (you wouldn't go to work with mustard on your shirt, why post an image that is supposed to represent what you're capable of without doing at least some cleaning!); crop or clone out the hot-burned right upper corner; go a bit easier with the smoothing/smudging all over and do it by manipulating depth of field in-camera instead. You'll then have more leeway to diffuse a bit more in post-processing without it looking so artificial.

The green color cast is the only problem I see with this image. It is otherwise good.

Posting images in the appropriate category for critique would be a start.

Dmitry, your work is exceptional. And in film, no less! Didn't you get the memo that FILM IS DEAD? :)

 

Lighting, processing, the tonality...sigh. Please keep it coming.

Excellent, gritty portrait; however, doesn't belong in "nudes" section.

John, you can photograph this young lady wearing burlap and a cow-dung chapeau, and she'd still be a stunner.

 

Forgive me for complimenting her, rather forthrightly, on her world-class backside; and accept my congratulations for having done it such justice.