zack_zoll

Catalin, are you familiar with Andre Kertesz at all?  This image reminds me very much of him.

Stephen, I think the reason that film is generally considered to be a 'truer artistic medium' is because it is a more hands-on process, and the artist is (theoretically) involved from start to finish. Of course this is BS, since there are always people like Robert Mappelthorpe who didn't develop his own film, and hardly ever set foot into a darkroom. Ditto for Avedon and a hundred others. I'm not starting a debate here ... just saying that there are arguments on both sides, and most of those arguments have so many exceptions that they're basically all bunk.

I am going to play devil's advocate though, because I like how this has turned into a conversation about art, and not just the photo.

Is different always better? What about Araki and his bondage photos? Or Mappelthorpe's 'self portrait with whip'? Those are different. Are they universally good? Who gets to judge? What about Irving Penn's portraits from 'Small Change', which were all of blue-collar, everyday workers? Those aren't different at all: does that mean that the critical reception it got was incorrect?

And for those of you that think this is different ... have you been on Deviant Art lately?

I have to agree very strongly with Alex. This image does not tell a story. This image attempts to tell a story in the sense of a period piece, but as myself and others mentioned, the elements of the image are not accurate to any particular time period ... it's just 'old stuff.'

I'm going to talk about one of my own images that is very similar, because I don't want to sound like I'm being overly critical of Mark's photo. As I said ... it may not stick with me, but it is indeed an excellent image.

In my portfolio is an image called 'The Repair Tech' - it is a young woman putting a pair of calipers up to a camera. Sorry for not linking, but it's giving me some trouble. At any rate ... my image suffers from the same problems this image does. The props and background are all WWII-era (the backdrop is actually surplus camo netting), but the woman's dress is not. She has the pin-up spit curl, but her makeup is done in a modern style, her shirt is the wrong cut, and her nails have a design on them - something that never would have been done at the time. One or two of these flaws may have been okay, but the combination of all three make it clear that this is NOT a "real" pin-up photo: it is a modernized pin-up-style photo that would normally feature a roller derby queen, or chicks with lots of tattoos. It just so happens that this paticular modern pin-up has authentic props. That doesn't make it authentic.

More importantly though, my image is posed. The woman is looking up like she was distracted in the middle or working, but that wasn't what actually happened. To really capture that feel, what I should have done is posed her, and then yelled her name and snapped the photo the second she looked up. That would have been much more natural, rather than having her gaze into the camera, which is what I did instead.

I hope I didn't confuse matters by critiquing myself here, but like I said ... I think Mark is potentially on to something if he changes a few things, and I don't want to sound too negative about him and his work, but I think understandng the shortcomings is helpful to others.

I make this comment often, but I think it applies here as much as ever.

This photo is confused. It has no idea what it wants to be. It's not a good glamour shot, because her hair is messy, the skin is unretouched, her nails are dirty, and you can see up her nose. It's not a revealing portrait, because great attention is paid to her hair (it's done to look messy, but still done), and she's obviously posed. It's not a proper period piece, because her clean skin and hair and her makeup say 'high class', while her dress, dirty nails, and woefully unadorned cane say otherwise. It's not even fantastic as a technical showcase, for reasons already stated.

That said, that doesn't mean it's a bad image. It's an excellent image, and it very much deserves to be Photo of the Week. It does mean that a month from now, I'm unlikely to remember this photo.

If I were to offer advice, I would say to pay more attention to what you want from your model while you are shooting, and don't be afraid to run the shoot. Directions are good, but even the lack of direction, or even the lack of doing anything ... making ... her ... wait ... until ... you ... are ... good ... and ... ready ... can have an important impact on how the photo is taken.

I feel like you didn't give your model clear enough direction here, or that you didn't give her enough time to get 'in character.' Her top hand is definitely posed (too unnaturally - like you just moved it a moment ago), while the bottom one is merely supporting the cane, and lacks the grace of the upper hand.

The best way to take this photo is to use a wireless remote, or a long cable release. pose the model, and then walk around so she is looking directly at your face, rather than up at a light. Then just wait. Silently. Until she is uncomfortable. Then wait longer. Don't smile, don't say anything, just wait. Stare her down, if you can. And then when she feels nervous, and uncomfortable, and about a foot tall, THEN you take the photograph. And when you do that you get the look that you tried to pose her in; but this time, it's natural. She's actually feeling those emotions, rather than being told to pretend she has them.

Out of curiousity:  do you like this image because it's a stong photo, or because you like this girl?

I'll bet if you asked nicely and offered a good-sized commission, he'd send you one ;)

A bit contrasty for my tastes, but very well-seen.  I like it.

This is a very well-taken photo, but it doesn't interest me because I don't know why you're showing it.  I think you need to go further with it.  If your goal is to make something commercial, you should also lighten the wrinkles in her neck from turning, and clean up the hair, rather than just smoothing the face.  I would also burn in the lips and nose slightly, as I think they get a little lost.

If you're showing it as a non-commercial portrait, I wouldn't touch up the image at all, aside from removing any obvious pimples or anything that might upset her.  For non-commercial portraiture, smoothing out the face eliminates most of the character that person shows.

It's hard to tell from the smoothed-out expression, but it looks like the non-retouched version would display some hesitation and unease at having her photo taken, and the less-than-perfect (although still very well-done) hair would add to that, and not take away, as it does in a commercial image.

Bruce, I think you summed it up yourself; there's not much else to say.  If the artist feels like it's overdone, than it's probably really overdone.  After all - isn't the whole point of the portfolio to make you stand out?

What about taking the same photo in a different context, like in a glass of water?  Or photoshopping it into a still pond as a sort of meta-joke?

I'm not quite sure what this photo is saying. It's not a flattering moment for either woman, but neither are the women "off" enough to make it look like you captured a special moment. I'm also a little bothered by the feather up the one woman's nose, but I probably wouldn't be if the image were more compelling.

Looking at your portfolio, you have many photos of beautiful women photographed candidly that are much better than this one.  This image occupies that nebulous space between 'off guard' and 'posed', and doesn't really work for either.

I think the reason some of your other images like this work better is that these women here are onstage, or otherwise being watched.  Even when adjusting her dress, the judge maintains her composure.  That makes it pretty tough to take a compelling candid without resorting to the good-ol' extreme close-up.

I see that, but with an added wrinkle. She looks like she stopped to listen to gossip or whining or something else that she really doesn't want to hear.

Paul, my stongest comment is that unless my monitor is way out of whack, the processing and the way you've presented this image seem incongruous with the subject matter of the image. You've used a 4x5, which generally captures a much wider tonal range than what is shown on my screen. It appears that you've boosted the sharpness and the contrast quite a bit, which both makes it look more digital, and also makes the background (both the kitchen and the flowers on the table) more compelling focal points than the woman, at least in terms of contrast and where your eye immediately focuses. It appears you've tried to edit the whole image together rather that spot-toning, which leads to improvements in some places and compromises in others.

More importantly though, making it look more modern - to me at least - robs the image of what you're trying to do. Maria doesn't look like she's been there forever, and some of the 'time' that a 4x5 camera is magically able to capture has gone away. I think this modernization of the image has a lot to do with why so many have said that they would like it more if it were their own family member.

If it were my image, I would make two new scans of the negative: one as if Tia Maria were the only part of the photo that mattered, and one as if the background were the only part that mattered. I would then layer them over each other in Photoshop, and blend/erase as necessary to produce an image where Maria is ever-so-slightly lighter than she is now(especially her hands), and the background is slightly darker and lower contrast. And I wouldn't use the sharpening tool at all - not even a little. I'm using an old Xenar single-coat lens on my 4x5, and I've still only felt the need to apply a sharpening filter a few times. The resolvng power of the camera is such that you're really not going to add anything.

If you didn't sharpen the image at all, I might switch to a lower-acutance developer, assuming you develop your own. I've had less-than-fantastic luck getting my black and whites done at a lab, as they usually use ID-11 or TMax or another catch-all developer that is relatively high contrast and acutance. I find that for shooting and scanning, the best bet is to develop for very low contrast (and a longer tonal range), and add the contrast later if you want it.

Wow, that is a fantastic image.  I usually try to come up with something actually critical to say, but all I can do is comment on how cool it is.

Sandeep, I don't think eliminating the dragons will help.  (A) the use of swan as spirit guide is still pagan, and (B) the idea of cleansing fire is Christian, even if the dragons are not.

I wasn't trying to tell you how to alter your image - just pointing out that some people will view it differently.  I think what you should do is figure out who it is for (and "for myself" is a perfectly acceptable answer) and then select the symbolisim you wish to use.

To give you an analogy, this photo is wearing a tuxedo and a t-shirt.  Pick one.  Either one is right, but it can't be both.

Sandeep, purgatory in Christianity is a tricky thing to really nail down.  I'm no theologian, but I am very interested in different religions and their views - particularly where they interesect.

The idea of a Judeo-Christian purgatory may or may not have existed 'before Jesus,' as the Wikipedia article claims.  Around the 1500s (not 1400s - I looked it up), the Roman Catholic church began selling 'indulgences' to raise money.  And indulgence was basically a paid excuse for a minor sin.  These minor sins would land you in purgatory, but not necessarily Hell.  It was at this time that the Church started promoting the idea of purgatory.  Jesus himself generally spoke in terms of black and white (be a good person and go to Heaven, or don't and go to Hell), and many early Christians considered the idea of purgatory to be a pagan holdover.  To this day, many churches don't even discuss purgatory.   In my own, Presbyterian, I've never heard it discussed.

Similarly, dragons would never be considered a good thing in Christianity, as all 'monsters' are the children of Cain, and are basically born from his sin.

I'm not saying this to make you change your mind in any way.  I just want you to be aware of any possible implications of your work.  A Christian would not view the scene you've put together as a good thing.  There really isn't a history of 'good' dragons in Western folklore, unless you count The Neverending Story.  This is why I say that, depending on your audience, this image may not read the way you intend it to.

As far as the photo itself ... I'm actually not bothered by the fact that the dragons don't 'fit in.'  I think that, as you've said, they create depth and the impression of running a gauntlet.  The reason I mention the swan though is because he doesn't fill the same role as the dragons.  The left 2/3rds of the image is very active.  The area around the swan is not very busy, and he looks pushed back.  The swan looks more like a casual observer than an active participant.  There's also only one of him, compared with seven (?) dragons.  Personally, I would crop out that second of the photo and put at least one swan in the sky.

Lastly, I want to close by saying that while I appreciate your respect for my opinion, I am not your photography teacher, so you shouldn't trust my opinion any more than anyone else's, unless you agree with it.

A nice image, but it doesn't look old.  The high contrast and flared highlights make it look distinctly modern.  I don't think that this image is exactly sure what it wants to be.

Sandeep, are you familiar with the Japanese graphic design style?  This image reminds me very much of that.  There is a lot going on; to Western eyes, it can be argued that there is way too much stuff in your photo, and that the repetition of the dragons - which aren't lit to match the background - detracts from the picture.  But to Eastern eyes (or at least Japanese eyes), you've done an excellent job making sure that all the parts of the photo are filled, and there is no dead, boring space anywhere.  I guess I'd need to know what you were trying for, and whom your intended audience was, before I could tell you if it 'works' or not.  The only objective comment I can make is that you should probably crop it to 8x10, since that swan on the far right is all by itself and really isn't adding anything over there.

You also may want to rethink the title, and how you explain the work.  Purgatory is a common concept in a variety of religions, but the word itself generally refers to the Christian idea of Purgatory, which is not ancient at all (circa 1400s), and does not involve dragons.  Again, if you're going for a Japanese feel then mixing metaphors is pretty much par for the course.  But if you intend your work for a Western market, you should consider changing the name, as many Westerners will see it as an Eastern corruption or misunderstanding of their beliefs.

A good image, but I would like to see either more light on her or less.  You've sort of got a Rembrandt pattern there (see the triangle on her left side?), but the light is high enough to create a shadow across her face.  If you want a soft look, the light should be more even.  If you're going for the harsh look, moving the light back and possibly putting a piece of cardboard between the light and camera will illuminate just the edges of her face.  You also might want to underexpose slightly, as the light right under her right eye is just a little hot.

But I must say, for a first attempt this is very good!

I like the effect here, but I probaby would have left a little bit of the ground in the picture (maybe under another texture layer) so the car doesn't look so much like a separate layer.

Technically very well done, but I don't like her pose.  She looks extremely off-balance, and the combination of clothing and pose makes her legs look quite short.

I think the 'crossing over the body' pose works best with the arms or legs, but not both.  I would like to see her with either her legs slightly farther than shoulder-width apart, or with one of her arms on the back of a chair or something to give visual support to the pose.

The actual shooting part is great though.  Keep it up!

Excellent image.  Great colours, composition, and post-processing.  My only critiques have to do with posing;  I think her head should be tilting down slightly so we don't see right up her nose, and with her pale skin that little bit of stomach showing is a bit distracting.

Otherwise, awesome shot!

Excellent. The only 'critique' I can offer is that it might look a little more natural if the model's head was raised slightly, just an inch. She could still look down, but that neck angle, combined with the angle of the close arm and her backwards lean, makes her look a little strained.

That's pretty nitpicky though.