A Kirghiz Girl

[zebra]

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[Manfred M]

Vladimir - I've been following your posts with great interest. You definitely demonstrate that you are comfortable behind the camera and appreciate how light works. Where you seem to do less well is in how you organize the elements in the pictures themselves. These unfortunately work against your strengths and result in a weaker image than you should have.

The image of this girl has all the makings of a great image, but for two things; what you have done with the model's eyes and the model's hair.

Let me start with the eyes; generally having the head positioned so that the eyes are right against the eye socket is not a good thing and in most cases a bit of white showing on either side of the iris results in a more effective shot. This is something to watch for when directing the model.

The hair has a number of issues and the most glaring one is the general mess that the various hair strands have caused. All the stray hair covering her shoulder does not work particularly well and there is so much of it, retouching it is likely not an option. The bright light accentuates the hair that is sticking out, especially on the right side of the image. This is tough to get 100% when shooting, so much of this can be cleaned up quite quickly in post. The brightly lit "beard" beside her cheek and chin are quite distracting.

The two more serious issues with the hair are how it falls on your model's forehead, creating large gaps of forehead and hair. Directing the model to brush it out of the way so that the hair / forehead are presented more cleanly is something you should look at doing before taking the shot.

Finally, the way the model's hair falls across her shoulder does not work all that well as it cuts off her head from the rest of her body. Generally getting her to brush it back off her should to expose her neck will get you a stronger shot. A longer looking neck (which works well from your shooting position is generally looked at being more attractive than what you show here. This would also largely "cure" the hair on the should issue that I mentioned before.

[george013]

Where do those "rules" come from?
Nothing of what you mention is disturbing me. A wonderful natural picture.

George

[Manfred M]

Where do those "rules" come from?
Nothing of what you mention is disturbing me. A wonderful natural picture.

George

Study serious portraiture and photographic techniques and you will understand this. These are not rules per se, but outcomes of some of the creative choices that Vladimir made.

[george013]

Study serious portraiture and photographic techniques and you will understand this. These are not rules per se, but outcomes of some of the creative choices that Vladimir made.

That's not an answer. Beside that, questioning is a part of a study

I don't know what you exactly mean with "These are not rules per se, but outcomes of some of the creative choices that Vladimir made". When I think I understand it well you're saying that your reaction is the result of Vladimirs creation. Just trying to use other words. In that case I would say it's your personal critic on the picture. When I read your reaction I believe you mean a general rule.

I've two books of Umberto Eco here 1) History of beauty and 2) History of ugliness.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/b...innerty-t.html
Good study/reading books but I didn't finish them yet.

George

[Manfred M]

George - Eco is approaching the subject as a scholar with a background in philosophy (and literature). That will suggest that he will likely approach views of beauty and ugliness (or lack of beauty) from a philosophical perspective. A biologist will probably look at the same questions a little differently and pay attention to how beauty or ugliness impact the ability of how certain genetic traits are carried on. An artist will likely take a completely different view. The same concepts can have a completely different definition, depending on the way someone is looking at the concept.

When I look at an image, I tend to look at it from a perspective that is a bit different. I'm not particularly interested in beauty, but rather on how effectively the photographer has presented their vision. This includes the technical aspects of the image (colour, light, exposure, sharpness and overall photographic technique), how the material has been organized (distractions, use of space and composition) and the emotional impact on the viewer (mood, impact, subject matter and originality). In other words, I use the same criteria as when I judge a photo competition. Beauty doesn't really play a role other than how it impacts the viewer.

If one formally studies photography, like I have, all of these concepts are covered in the course work. The point of view; the position of the subject's head, the positioning of the eyes, the shoulder, the hair, etc. are all done in a way that copies what photographers have learned from the great European master painters as well as from the well known photographers, especially from the 1940s and 1950s and onward. Some of the looks were created by the Hollywood film makers of the period. Rembrandt lighting is taught as is Paramount lighting (a Hollywood studio). It's all about the lines and shapes that translate from a three dimensional subject to a two dimensional image.

Certain issues with the way the eyes are positioned can lead to strange looking faces (hence my point about the positioning of the eyes) and others like fly-away hair or hair arrangement issues do have a negative impact on the final image. I often get my models to move their hair, change their shoulder and head position when I set up a shot. I'm sure I look at portraits differently than someone who has not studied portraiture, but it is not something I consciously did before I had learned portraiture.

[mugge]

I quite like it Vladimir but as Manfred points out there are rules for portraiture. We may like to do portraits and often they look fine but when compared to works done by professional portrait photographers we discover that it not so. I have no inclination to try my luck especially in a studio setting. This is only my opinion.
Cheers Ole

[billtils]

... and the emotional impact on the viewer (mood, impact, subject matter and originality).

Manfred

You have given Vladimir a succinct description of the factors to take into account when planning, shooting and processing a classic portrait shot. However, it could be argued that the elements in the text quoted above are the most important ones if the objective is to capture the essence of the model(s). We could look at it as a continuum from classic portraiture (painting and sculpture, not only photography) to street photography - personally, I think that Vladimir has done well if we judge the image as a representation of "Kirghiz girl" rather than as a more classical portrait.

As is always the case there will be a lot of personal taste; to illustrate with reference to some of your recent work, while I can appreciate the technical/set-up aspects of your recent nude shots, the one that stands out for me is Stephanie Katharine because it speaks to the model at least as much as to your skills.

[Stagecoach]

Wonderful image Vladimir, as have been so many that you have posted.

For me personally, it's strengths are that she looks 'natural' and unlike so many of the posed images we see so regularly that although possibly technically perfect just look so clinical.

[lovelife65]

I agree with some of the comments (disclaimer, I am not a professional "portrait" photographer).

I think it's a beautiful, natural portrait that looks real (great skin tones and texture). Not overly made up, overposed nor over processed. Could very well be the intent of the photographer, versus a more "studio" version.

Only thing I would suggest would be to correct the young ladies right eye (one where the hair hangs down) as there is glare that is distracting.

[FootLoose]

The main thing that bothers me with this shot is the lower left corner where the skin on the back of her shoulder is showing through her hair - it is too bright. Otherwise, I like this image. Her expression shows character and emotion, and invites the viewer to speculate about what or who she is looking at that way. I prefer this "dishevelled" look to the "picture-perfect" ice maidens generally used in portrait photography.