mark_onat

SImple and obvious, yet impressive and original. The best of all worlds. Also proves the adage of using black and white with just a dash of color.

I have a problem with photos that attempt to recreate painting effects, and this one is clearly hoping for a Vermeer-style effect, and the clothing only makes the comparison more obvious. Her expression is pretty good, but not incredible. I'm sorry photographers, but your photos will lose in comparison to oil paintings every time. Compare this to a Vermeer painting and tell me it's up to par. Remember, photography is 3D flattened into 2D. Painting is human-rendered 3D.
Photography is about event, time, speed, location and often abstractions that would be impossible to reproduce any other way.
The minute a photographer says I'm going to compete with painting on its own terms, they are destined to fail. OK, Ansel Adams competes with a Turner painting. That was with a view camera decades ago, and also includes the abstraction of B&W int he hands of a total master. Painting is fantasy. Modern photography is real. We are immersed in razor-sharp real imagery on a constant basis. It is no longer unique anymore. To many laymen, it's barely even interesting. What makes older photos interesting is the abstraction of the different film and printing techniques, as well as the distance of the subjects in the past.
The ubiquity of photography in the digital age, and its steady decline in value, while the value of actual, non-mediated classic talents like drawing, painting, sculpture, public speaking and playing instruments increases means that photographers have to try a lot harder to define exactly what arenas photography still excels in. Calling photography 'art' is even harder, and people need to stop acting like just because they say something art, that it is, because it isn't. Art takes either lottery-won talent or years of hard work and deep thought about what's come before, current times, movements, and technique. Most modern photography isn't even equalling the greats of photo's past.
This picture probably would've been better as a black and white, or at least with a more classic background. Of course, an ancient background would only exaggerate the intent, which to me is flawed. The lack of feet is probably the most interesting thing about the photo. I agree totally with the comment that whatever the subject was looking at is a missing element, and not addressed.

Phenomenal photograph. I don't care if it was manipulated. Photography itself is manipulation, although, fine, it's great if a photograph is 'pure', but there's too many people obsessed with purity in a medium that is suffering from digital growing pains.
All that matters is the final image, and this is a great one. Not only are the color splashes among the grey interesting, the composition of the shot itself is unquestionably great.

My favorite part is the sky. I agree with Photo.net's crop suggestion. I also have hit the wall with retouching. I have practiced years of my retouching myself, including when you had to do it with the enlarger, and at this point it's been overdone, and doesn't yield much. Photography to some degree is about reality. When you start building your own reality from scratch, you might as well be painting. I'm not saying pshop has no place, and I've seen people do great things with it, but something about the lighting and depth in this shot immediately struck me as not real, and that was it. The colors are great, and lightning is not easy to capture, and clearly a majority of people like the shot. I like it, too, but I'm not wowed by it.

I like your work a lot which is usually not how I feel about photoillustration. Your work is very painterly and you use figures, which I think most higher art must. Feel free to not answer a technical question, but are you using photography and 3d together? It seems like certain objects, if not the figures are rendered inside of 3D programs, and then mixed together.

Anyway, great techniques in using light as well.

Anybody who cant see this is a great photo is a tool. Maybe its goofy, which is only a problem to people with poles stuck up them, but technically it is unassailable. Great lighting, I always love crystalline/glassy effects, and the blue eyes complementing the beautiful darker background of the pool is stunning. Many things in this photo work. Great expression as well.

Phenomenal shot of course. It may have been shot in color, but then turned into b&w after the fact, a great option of digital. There is a sort of filmic quality to it, so maybe it was shot in b&w. I looked up Mouro Island in Spain, and it doesnt look like the right terrain for this shot, namely the high background, which made me think Pacific Coast. Anyway, great job. Looks like you got pretty wet....or used a great long lens...

I disagree that the gray object is a distraction. It gives a history of the flower, and implication of its fragility and short-lived status. You're a good photograher. Tell us what gear you're using.