berj_bannayan

Critter,

You are right to be very proud of this image. As others have said before, it's eye-catching, sexy and evocative.

My only nit is the way the model has crossed the fingers of her left hand (the one with the key). Strangely enough I noticed something wrong with it right away -- the middle finger is crossed over the index.. but most people (AFAIK) cross the index over the middle (like the model has done with her left hand). Anyway.. just a silly thing.

Have you played with any other compositions/croppings of this image that didn't have the hands and behind centred in the frame? I'd be curious to see what that looks like (by either exposing more of the shoulders or more of the legs).

I really like this photo. I'm not sure I'd say it's the best of Johnathan's photos but I'm not a fan of such superlatives, anyway. It's a very good photo. Let's see if I can say why:

I like the greyness and underexposed model. For me it seems to add to the candidness of it. Imagine what your brain sees when you see someone against a bright window. The feeling I get is that I'm just passing by this woman and getting my first look -- eyes haven't had time to adjust, so it's all a little dark. I think it's silly to ask 'why would she be sitting there half naked with a cigarette?' I just get the feeling that this photo re-creates the actual scene very well. The quickness of it (low exposure, soft focus) implies the sort of voyeurism I'm talking about.

It is most certainly possible for this to actually be un-posed. Just because she's nude doesn't mean she's posing. Johnathan made a comment earlier explaining this (before this was POW). Almost 90% of my people photos are un-posed (for me candid = un-posed) and I'm always amazed at what you can capture when a person isn't mugging for the camera. Relaxed poses, unforced facial expressions, people comfortable with themselves. This photo exemplifies that for me.

And for the record I think neither Tom nor Tris 'attacked' this photo. They both critiqed it very clearly and precisely. I can't see anything vicious (not even a little) about Tom's crit. You want vicious crits? Attend the University of Waterloo's School of Architecture(where someone on the panel was heard to say: 'let's see if we can make her cry' and they did).

Happy new year to everyone.

This is a stunning photograph -- I'm sure it was even more remarkable in real life.

I must admit that when I first saw it I thought it was a composite image -- working in the visual effects industry where crowd duplication is commonplace has made me a bit cynical, I'm afraid. I'm so glad to hear that there is actually a place in the world that looks like this. I've got nothing against digital manipulation/creation. It just puts me in a good mood to think that, somewhere out there, one can actually stand in the middle of a monstrous field of sunflowers.

One last note. When I viewed the large version of this image I was struck by the resemblance to a crowd of people dancing at a rave in front of a DJ. I'm seeing this from the perspective of the DJ.. row upon row of dancers, some heads down, some heads up... just dancing. I guess it's a little odd to be imagining that kind of movement in a field of sunflowers but there you have it.

Have a look at this image for a decent example...

Wonderful work.

James Caird wrote:

> Optimum prints of 35mm negatives are 5" x 7"

I've often wondered at this.. the aspect ratio of a 35mm neg is 1:1.5. The aspect ratio of a 5x7 is 1:1.4, a 8x10 is 1.25 and a 4x6 (and 8x12) is 1:1.5.

It seems to me that to get an uncropped 35mm print (with as little paper wasted as possible) one needs a 4x6 or some multiple thereof. Why are 5x7 and 8x10 so prevalent? Is there some weird historical neg size that made these the standard? I only ask out of idle curiosity.

Now, re: the photo.

I agree that there are focus an exposure problems but overall I like the tone and mood of this photo alot. Maybe this is because this is just the type of photo I'm into taking right now (available light photos of musicians in bars/studios, etc) but I think it stands well on it's own. I like the high contrast and the fore/mid/background placement of the musicians. In my experience, the movement of the musicians and dark lighting in these situations make nailing focus *very* difficult and in many cases the blur lends a nice dynamic feeling to the image. In this case I could go either way.

What really sells it for me is that I get the feeling that this is just what the bar/hall/venue looked like -- dark, smoky, contrasty, gritty, etc. Heck, with a couple of drinks in me it would look a little blurry too.

Probably another pass at scanning and digital darkrooming is in order but, even as it is, I think it's an evocative image. Well done.

I like this photo but there's something about the the left hand that bothers me. I think I would like to be able to see more of that hand as well as having it all in focus. Have you tried this with a more open pose (and a wider shot)? That is pull the neck away from the camera a little and move the head up a bit. All the same I wouldn't want to lose the right hand in the background. Another thing to try would be to leave it as it is an just deepen the DOF. Another chord might do the trick too.

Good work.

I love the texture of the woman's face and her expression of concentration. I would recommend cropping this to get rid of the counter and everything on it -- ie crop just below her hands and then crop to the left and right as suits the composition. I suspect, though, that the bright white bag or whatever behind the bottle will become a problem with this crop.

Anyway, just my thoughts on it. Good work.

I *really* like this idea. It's funny as hell. Good eye!

As for the positioning of the sign I would suggest putting it in the same relative position in the frame but on the left instead of the right. I think the reason I would like to see it there has to do with English being read from left to right. In this image I think I would like to start on the left, read the words and then look to the right to see the context. If you can get to the site again and try it I'd love to see the results to see if it works or if I'm just imagining things.