The shadowed grey is just right, still leaving details, many loose this in dark grey or even black, well done

I think that you should show all figure of a model ,without croping the Bottom of her body.

This picture was intended mainly as a portrait and was not posed but taken when she was relaxing after we had been working on some other more arranged photos (e.g. "Silver Fish" in this portfolio). Including the whole figure would have changed it to more of an abstract nude - in any case it would not have worked in this photo as she was wearing a rather uninspiring pair of jeans!

Wonderful photo Jonathan, very nice.

Very nice, I like the delicate grain.

Delicate and decadent. Looks like it should come out of a 50's french film.

A wonderful image. I agree with Jasmine...it seems to be an image from the past.

congratulations Jonathan -- I saw this picture earlier and liked it for its non-aggressive approach. Actually, my first impression was: gosh, that's post-coital cigarette. Whatever you've done to her, it worked. She looks very realxed and natural and the grain (plus her cigarette) toned down the usual message -- I am not implying that your model is sexless, I am simply saying she's much more here. Funny, to say but perhaps you should try to shoot all your nudes with their hair covered?

Very elegant and classy picture. I agree it reminds me of 50's/60's glamour. It makes me want to be Audrey Hepburn!

May I be the first to say Congratulations on Photo of the Week! Well deserved. Very nice work

Peter Christoph

Love the whole portfolio Jonathan, a great range of shots that all look well thought out.

I agree with the above commenter. All your photos are well done. You have taken some of the best, no, rather, you have taken THE BEST nudes on photo.net.

Peter Christoph

This is the best shot in all your portfolios. It's natural, unposed, real. I don't get that feeling from your other photos. Post the version with the jeans.

Love it. It's the kind of picture that's not neurotic, but the very simplistic presentation captures the beauty of the subject's chiselled outline from her face to her bust line. The lady in the picture also shows sophistication. Classic example of a picture worth a thousand words.

Well done.

I really don't like this. Partly because I think this has a lot of potential but it wasn't pulled off effectively. As much as most people on here hate watching photos get ripped apart I hate seeing what I consider mediocer black and white photos being selected as POW.

In general the whole image looks muddy. Especially the body. It's too dark without enough contrast. Overall there is a lack of sharpness. It doesn't appear to be in focus. Also the strong backlighting is causing a lot of flare that reduces contrast a lot in some areas wich makes it look softer. Not even a good soft. My guess would be that this was drastically underexposed.

The lighting on the face looks nice and for the most part I like the pose except I can't stop thinking that she might be holding a wad of toilet paper in her left hand based on another comment someone made. I would have liked to see more of her butt and maybe what she was sitting on but in the way it is now I would crop up from the bottom a bit. There's just enough there right now to make me think there should be more. Cutting off a bit of the bottom eliminates that desire for me.

I think with a pretty heavy unsharp mask, increased contrast, some burning on the turbin and around the face and maybe the shoulder to eliminate some of the effects of the flare and cropping and I think it could be nice. Well at least to my liking.

I wouldn't agree that this is the best shot in your otherwise fine portfolio. In fact I think this one stands out as one that doesn't belong.

I made some changes digitally (complete with mat and frame) to illustrate what I would have done traditionally. The changes increase the graininess which I think looks nice. I'd be interested to know what you or anyone else thinks.

Tom

Is your comment and remake of the photo a send up? You've succeeded in making a delicate and nostalgic pleasure into something horribly gross. The beauty of the photo is in it's evcation of a differnent time and place. The low contrast grainess of an old print, the cigarette, turban, the facial porfile, the nonchalance all trasnsport me to a differnt era (as was mentioned a Paris hotel room in the 1950's perhaps). Delightful.

I would tend to agree with Tom's observation that one's first impression might well be that this was an underexposed negative worked up to be presented fullblown. As it is I don't have a problem with that artistically, though the final product doesn't move me particularly, either.

To typify this image as a "good photograph" in terms of the overall technique employed only seems to have validity with regard to the picture's compositional concerns. The pose suggests an offhand nature (though we don't know how extemporaneous the true nature of this shot is) which might appeal. The picture is terribly weak, however, when it comes to contrast, edge definition and shadow detail, most especially when one considers the emulsion at work, and again, this condition most likely is due to underexposure of the subject by what appears to be in the range of 2 full stops--due to the relatively strong backlighting by all indications.

I've no problem with the photographer going with this image. In fact I have two rolls of similarly-lit portraitures of my daughter which I've considered "working up," and might still.

This photograph holds my interest in several ways and should ably serve as grist for the discussion mill throughout this coming week, but I think labeling it as a "great photo" or even an especially competently-rendered image is a stretch.

And now let us all count together the number of 8-8, 9-9 and 10-10 scores it accumulates along the way.

Note: I offer the following rationale for the grade I've decided to give this picture in hope of making better sense of it for anyone with interest. There is little hope of that shy a comment of explanation due to the poor nature of the process.

In short, I assign a grade of 3 for originality or cleverness for the reason I feel the photographer on balance missed his shot on this occasion. The composition isn't bad, even good in its own way, but the lack of contrast and shadow detail leave the picture lacking any semblance of excellence, actually beg a credible explanation for this image's selection in the first place. For aesthetics I assign a score of 5, this because I feel the image succeeds compostionally in spite of its technical drawbacks, or should you prefer, doesn't offend greatly with regard to its aforementioned shortcomings. Try to consider this 5 in light of my regret that not more happened to be achieved from this photographic opportunity.

Just as it is...the softness (and therefore, lack of sharpness...don't really care for the revised version above) really works with the subject. It is a soft, relaxed, easy moment. As others have mentioned, it does initially appear to be straight from a classic film (a much "softer" Joan Crawford comes to mind). I am drawn to what is outside the window...what is she watching? Looks like rain? I like that we can just barely see images outside the window. It adds that much more.

Just for fun though...I, too, would like to see the jeans in the shot, maybe even with the jeans being the only portion in color?? It would definitely change the mood of the photo...but might be interesting.

Congratulations on POW...your entire body of work is exquisite. You do inspire...

Now, besides usual POW a@@ kissing, tell me one thing: why photos like this one are being selected for POW? I'd say the execution is rather poor and subject has beaten to dead meat.

Another issue; a nude image on the front page of frequently visited site? I'll tell you this - thanks to this photo I can't browse Photo.net from my office computer.

When this is a candid portrait I'm a whale on dope...Sorry. I also think either the scan or the print it is possibly scanned from (I don't know what this Nikon scanner is, I don't care too much for hardware...) is very bad. I use almost only HP 5 film, and I never get this greyness in my pictures, never. There's very little contrast, and I'm afraid most of the grey is produced in Photoshop. Well, sorry, I will take a look at your portfolio now, should have done that first. And what is so european about this picture???? Shit, I hate that expression. Poor aussies, yanks, africans and south-americans, shoot whatever you want, you'll never get european! Hah! Well, I guess this pic is gonna reach the 300 comment limit. Let's see what happens. Gotta go now. Bye y'all. Rienki

So much for that "no frontal nudity" thing.

Anyway if people are interested in knowing why I think this is a poor photo have a look at Tandy Howard's work. Most on HP5 even the POW that was selected from Tandy's folder shows the capabilites of this film. Not that we are judging film but this is just horribly underexposed and makes the body lose it's shape in the murkiness.

Here are a couple of other figure shots I found on here to illustrate my point. (And that point is that this film is capable of much better tonal reproductions even though the flare from the back light would still cause softness. It doesn't have to be perfectly sharp or grain free. These shots are meant to illustrate the capabilities of this film on similiar subjects not to compare content to the POW. If the image was still soft and flared but the skin at least had more tones closer to these I think it would be a lot better.) One is even a backlit nude.

Rienk, it's European because she's smoking! Wait maybe that's a typo. Maybe she is on the toilet like someone else suggested. Maybe She's a peein?

The model is obviously holding recently utilised ice cubes in her left hand. The alternative is too disgusting to mention on <i>This Server</i>. <br><br> I doubt whether the photographer, Jonathan Charles, used a spot meter and the Zone System to calculate his exposure <i>a la</i> Ansel Adams and so had to deal with an in-camera meter confused into delivering an underexposed model, (no reverse-pun intended), heavily backlit (notice though, Space Cadets, the print has not shirked the backlighting: there is quite a good deal of supportive highlight detail there). <br><br> Given the circumstances of the ambient light, the model's features would have been quite grainy due to this underexposure. What to do? <i>What</i> to do? A decent print in these circumstances is always difficult. <br><br> Jonathan has resisted the temptation to soup up the tonality of the model's figure in order to render it within a "normal" range of tones. To do otherwise would have accentuated the grain (born of flare) far too much. He has left the figure darkish, a a little more mysterious in his print... and is to be congratulated for that discretion. I do not concur with Tom Menegatos's rendition of the image because of this: Tom has made her too grainy and "genre" looking. An honest effort, but not as involving as the original. <br><br>(Although I am not "against" CCD cameras in any way shape or form, I wonder what the result would have been with silicon grain? Just digital noise?... or can the new and inescapable medium deliver the quasi-Pointillist texture that film can <i>and has</i> delivered so effectively here?) <br><br> The cigarette is something I like. I think it DOES make the whole atmosphere of the photograph somewhat "European" in appeal. In fact I'll go further: the turban works for me too. It evokes a memory of <i>lazy days spent doing the bleedin' obvious</i> (and the luscious clean up afterwards) without a care in the world. Later that night? A financially struggling, but fashionable restaurant (perhaps we know the chef?) for a late dinner and some mellow red wine, a walk through the Botanic Gardens under pendant lamplights and then home to bed and a good night's sleep in the arms of someone you (think) you love... and who (you hope) loves you. <br><br> I realise she was a model, but we can dream, can't we? This is a romantic image, whether or not romance was involved in the actual picture-making. Well done, Jonathan. <br><br> <i>(I </i>knew<i> I'd come across your pictures before, Jon. This was <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=368257">one I really liked</a> too).</i>

is this better?

Just for the record the graininess of my manipulation is due <b>mostly</b> (emphasized for Tony) to the jpeg compression of the file I was working with. If you look closely at the patterns you should be able to see that. With a better copy or the negative and more than the 10 minutes in photoshop could have been better but it's really not worth more time. <p> I still can't see past what I see although I really like the other nudes in the "Early Nudes" folder and the outdoor nudes. <p> Tony the one you pointed out is nice. I was just looking at that a while back. The tones in the model are about the same but that one has the benefit of a properly exposed background and the model isn't the main subject.

What's the deal with POW's and head things?

C'mon, now. Just what makes this pic deserve solid 10;s and so much praise?!? It looks rather candid, it's got a nice atmosphere and the low-contrast and grainy finish works okay. But that's it. The face looks dreamy and almost works, but it's not enough. There's nothing special about the geometry or composition, no details to keep your eyes busy. If you'd aim for a european look you'd have to use another background and setup.

It does succeed to capture a certain feeling, and it's probably a fair choice for POW, but I get the feeling people are praising it to the skies just because it differs from the usual nudes and they think they "ought to see" more in it than there is. Having said that, I'd like to congratulate Jonathan for generally taking interesting and well executed nudes - you're doing a good job. And I'd gladly listen to anyone explaining why this pic is so great...

It's not great, Dan, but it's made my grey hairs revert a little. Currently it's averaging 7s... that's not quite "solid 10s", is it?

Tom, surely some of the graininess is a result of your hyping up the (admittedly underexposed) greys in the model's figure to render them in a more contrasty tonal range? It's not really an important point, just a matter of "techno" detail.

Aslan (below), it IS possible to take candid shots so well they look posed, you know.

Don't make me laugh! I like the photo though...

Wow !! Somebody told me a few days back " go see the comments on POW, and you'll see ! "... Done. Was my first time. Last week's picture by Peter Cristoph was a picture I had rated 10 / 10 or very close to that before it came to this stage, and it was really something special... What about this week ? well, I do believe it is far less special than last week's picture, but I understand that some people might like it too... What surprised me is the average ratings this picture got - far from a solid 10 ! Then here's an innocent question I want to ask: how is POW selected ? Why not pick systematically from the top 10 ratings of that week or such ? Whoever was in charge of the selection, I would feel safer to avoid a war like the one above, by simply applying a system, a rule... Another way would be to have " The pictureS of the Week " with an S, or such... Final word: As far as I know, nobody in Photo.net or elsewhere can say for sure that he's right... so I would find appropriate not to get aggressive, no matter what one's opinion might be... After seing this, I can say for sure, that I wouldn't want to be the photographer who took this image...

A beautiful profile, very reminiscent of Jane Seymour. Although it would be nice to see more skin tone, with backlighting you just can't have it all & I too would choose not to have a totally bleached background & opt for underexposure. It doesn't looked posed to me, even if the subject was aware she was being snapped & stopped still for a moment longer, it still looks like she just happened to be there when the photographer took out his weapon (ooer missus not intended - ok well maybe). I found ilford HP5 does lack a little in contrast & tone even when using an external light meter, so I always blamed the processing lab, or my camera not coping with the dynamic range. Perhaps it is the film. The soft focus & grain may be a compromise on another subject, but because this is naked lady by a window, it adds to the atmosphere, as does the cigarette.

ps Tony - digital noise is very similar but not as soft or blended in. It looks much harsher on the edges of the speckles.

Tom - your contrast boost makes it look like something torn out of an old newspaper! I think it can't be worked with this level of grain for any size res (just read Tony's remark below about your pointing the jpeg out).

I must admit that personally I usually don't like images that have this level of grain. However this image uses that grain to it's advantage by giving it that old 1950-60's feel. It could almost be a still from an old home movie, shot while on holiday in the hotel room. So looking at the photo in that perspective one can say that this image does it's job very well and therefore can be considered a good photo. Well done in receiving POW.

The line down the right side of the frame is distracting.

Marc, there's no war going on here. It's a discussion among people who have like-minded interests.

As to the POW selection process, I get the feeling that POW is selected by either "theme" (implicitly admitted in the caption to last week's POW - they were looking for a portrait) or personal preference of the Dominant Elf for the week (it amounts to the same thing): one single choice that can't possibly satisfy X-hundred-thousand interested kibbitzers all in the same 7-day period! Variety is the spice of life. The POW is not selected as the result of a popularity contest, nor should it be.., otherwise me might have stills from Ally McBeal every week. It is selected (I think) to provoke discussion and to highlight otherwise neglected genres of photography which otherwise might not receive due attention (for "photography" in the last sentence read "imaging"... under protest).

Tom's rendition is quite grainy due to the original he had to work with: a JPEG. Hardly hi-res material! So, it appears more soupy than the original (being a derivative of it).

Having said that, I still think a higher-key version would unduly accentuate the grain. Not as much a Tom's quick sketch, but perhaps too much nevertheless. Sorry Tom, I didn't read your post in enough detail. You DID qualify your posted version by referring to the original already being a (lossy) JPEG.

WHAT'S WITH YOU GUYS? When people post up multiple long negative crits, especially on POW where they know lots of people will see them, I think it has more to do with their egos than the photo being discussed.

Anyway, like I said before, it's a lovely pic. Congratulations.

I insist; otherwise I would say, "I was passing through and on my way I saw this pretty lady, naked and only with a turban on her head, she was smoking sigarette and she was so absent minded, and I took this photo unconspiciously!" Wold not you laugh to this comment of mine...

The grain works for me. I love grainy images and have a few 11x14's in my office from 3200 speed film. Surprisingly, there is a great receptivity from clients these days to grainy work. Because, I think there is a strong "art" feel and this image especially as it is a nude is a more "artsy" and subtle nude because of the grain than the ones where you can almost reach out and touch the skin. I love her profile and the play of light just under her jaw. If I had one critisism it would be that she looks extremely stiff and posed...which ruins the "mood" that is almost there but not quite. My guess is that she "knew" the photographer was shooting or might shoot and was terribly self conscious... It is all in her arm on the left of the image. It is so rigid and her back is rigid also... Not a photo of someone relaxing between shoots. I also like the cigarette - People are funny about what to do with their hands unless they are very professional models.. The cigarette in her hand gives her something to do and her hand, as a result looks delicate and graceful. All in all, I'm not saying I don't like it... The idea is good. The film choice and grain and many other factors work... Just too stiff for me to evoke the mood it is trying to convey.

Let's not pick on Tris..(or anyone...) Puleez.. Anyway, he peppered his critique with positive comments as well as good technical observations. Bravo... Focusing on the image instead would be a nice idea! PPS - Baaad idea to choose POW based on "top 10" or highly rated photos....because...there is lots of favor rating and false ratings on this site and using the high rated criteria would only make the "war" worse.

I would not comment on the quality of the image without seeing the actual print, which may look beautiful. HP5 can be sharp, grainy, or whatever you want it to be, so I wouldn't make any judgements based on a little jpeg. A jpeg will never come close to seeing the print in person.

Overall, I like the image and the pose. The line on the right does distract from the subject. Congrats on POW -- I'm sure you know what in you're in for this week.

First of all I must say I'm getting more and more puzzled when I see the how the discussion level in photo.net evolves. I really don't understand why people attacks so easily other's work instead of just politely saying "I don't like it" and explaining why.

Coming to the photo, I say that usually nudes is a cathegory of photos that I don't understand. Some kind of nudes disturb me; others don't but I seldom appreciate them, mostly because I find difficult to evaluate them. I think that their esthetics depends too much on the beauty (or not) of the model (even if I think that in many cases the photographer should be credited for it more than the model). I think it is a normal thing: not everybody understands any kind of art.

Said that, I like this photo because of its overall atmosphere (I must say that I ran into it a week ago and so I made my opinion well before the POW). I don't mind if it's a candid or not (however it could perfectly be and I don't see why Jonathan should be so rudely accused to lie). I don't mind any discussion about tech details because I think that a photo should be judged for its overall aesthetics: sometimes a "perfect" exposition, focusing, thirds rule and nearly invisible grain makes for it, sometimes not. In this case the fuzzy atmosphere of Jonathan's photo takes advantage from the grain, the "soft" look and the contrast between the bright background and the dark body (I said dark but not muddy, its rendition probably depends also on the monitor settings). Anyway I think that too many details in the model's back would distract from the three main components of the photo: the face profile, the turban and the small breast profile. These makes for the portrait of an elegant woman.

I ever don't mind if this shot is "European" or not - perhaps because, as an European, I don't understand what others mean as "European" :-)

P.s. I'm rather on the puritan side, but this is a "pudic" kind of nude, similar to the ones you can find in advertisemens published in common newspaper and magazines. I can hardly imagine a context in which this photo on the front page of photo.net could create any embarassment...

I don't mind the portion of window frame at the right. What amazes me is how the ratings, looking at the rating history, of this photo have dropped so drastically since it made POW. I don't feel it deserves the harsh words it's gotten.

To Fabrizio.. Just for the record.. I personally never said the photographer told a "lie" as to the candid nature of this image.. What I said was that the model knew he was shooting and seems stiff. As a photographer who shoots 600-700 shots a week in the summer - of people - I can tell when someone I'm shooting "candidly" knows I'm there. Their body and face show it! It's amazing to see the bodily reactions.. Maybe it is because I shoot sooo many people that I can pick up on it.. Still, it is only my opinion.. Perhaps she just had lots of coffee...making her tense.. No matter what my opinion is.. It is still just a guess because I was not there. I guess I would be tense too if I were sitting in a wide open window - totally nude..

Intimate, warm, not cliche.

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.

For those who feel it's "european" (because of cigarette) I'd like to introduce a bit of Egypt, since that reminds me a queen Nefretette statue from ancient Egypt. As for increase of graininess which some of the members reckon to be nice, i think it's horrible. Not lack of sharpness, nor lack of contrast but increased level of grain spoiled the image. As someone put it "beauty of skin tone and graceful lines maximized" are poor due to this. Grain is better for high contrast photos, this one has reduce contrast (which is not bad afterall for makes the feeling), so grain isn't suitable everything else is OK.

Mary,

I was not referring to you in my previous posting (actually I read yours after sending mine). I must say that your kind of comment is the normal kind of comment I would like to see on photo.net: "I just don't gives me the feel of a candid". This is ok! If you read in other comments, you find something titled "Candid my ass" :-) Probably that was for Rienk just another way to express your same feelings :-) but it could be easily interpreted in some other (unpleasant) way...

Moreover, I see that easily people who criticizes is attacked for having bad portfolios and so on, so the discussions moves on a personal (other than questionable) approach and I think this is bad.

We should be more relaxed, concentrate on photograpy and take it easy!

Jonathan, Congratulations on your PoW. I think this is a good, not great, portrait. The darkness of Kate v. the extreme light background doesn't allow me to see what's on her face/mind. For me, her entire hand needs to be in there, w/room to breathe, for the cigarette helps make the shot. Her facial expression would, too, if we could see more of it.

Not sure if PoW is worth winning anymore given the firestorm you'll get, but enjoy your week. I'll leave speculations of the grassy knoll, accusations of cheating on the photo, whether Kate works for the CIA and knows something about 9/11 that we don't to others who have more time for that sort of nonsense.

I like this picture very much. The outlines are so elegant achieved by the perfect shooting angle in the arrange of few degrees. So, I can hardly believe this could be an typical “unposed candid portrait” according to my understanding: The figure takes a pose without any instruction from the photographer. The figure doesn’t notice being photographed. For me, this is a good choice of POW regardless of the argument of the candidness.

BTW, since when has the thread of POW changed to the forum of Open Talk? But, why not, as long as we all respect each other?

"Unposed, yet elegant..."

Nothing says Elegance like a cigarette.

I guess we are doomed to have all sort of comments as long as we keep comparing apples and oranges... I mean it is difficult to discuss a portrait compared to a macro picture and so on. It is all on the shoulders of our photographic culture now. This is a very nice image. Looks candid enough, "retro" enough, sexy enough. It has a little bit of everything. It is not the greatest portrait I ever saw in my life, but it is a good one. Funny this image got rates a lot smaller than the last week's one, even though they are both in the "portrait" realm. Good.

For geraldine and Tony that arge that with a better file or the negative the grain would still be bad have a look at another example I (and someone else) did on another users file that has roughly the same about of contrast. The file was bigger and there was less compression for some reason. Here. That was about the same amount of time as this one if not less.

I'm not the worlds greatest black and white printer but I'm sure I can come up with a much better print than this. It might take a long time but I think I could do it without increasing the grain as much as indicated in the photoshopped example.

If you like the poor contrast that's fine but most people seem to be saying that the pose and mood make up for the technical deficiencies. I personally think that a great photograph will be a combination of a good subject in a good pose and captured succesfully with the right technique. To me this is lacking severely in the technical department to the point where it ruins it. I think it's sad because with the right lighting and exposure this would be a great image.

As for whether it's the print, the scan or the neg that's the problem it doesn't really matter. All that matters is the image on the top of this page because that's all we have available to us.

I find the discussion funny regarding whether it is posed or candid. I have a few images that people tell me look like candids. The truth is I don't do a lot of posing and go for that candid look. Helps with getting that Barbie thing going. One comment on a photo I have here said I caught a great expression during a break in the shoot but in reality I was working hard to get that reaction. Kind of the opposite of the candid/posed debate going on here.

Thanks Tom, I see what you're getting at. Grain would be less visible with any image once it is reduced from high res to low. The image here then I imagine must be a result of low res scanning, & if Jonathan so wished he could scan at a higher dpi, boost the contrast & then reduce it. This would indeed improve for display, but wouldn't help with printing since you use the high res file to print with.

Maria & Jasmine please chill out - you're lowering the tone here & it is disrespecting Jonathan, & other visitors, as well as Tom.

I think the model is very beautiful it's the photo that isn't my taste. Actually it's not so much the whole photo but the bad printing, bad exposure, and poor focus it seems. I like the pose. If I didn't find any merit in this I wouldn't take the time to comment at all. As others have mentioned the lighting on the proifile is very good. I like the way her arm mimics the shape or her breast and a few other things.

Geraldine: Actually that image looked the same at high res. I scaled it down just so that it would display better in the comments. The difference is that file had less artifacts from the jpeg compression. That might have something to do with the size of the file. So you can do it to the full size file and print it and you can also use similiar techniques in a traditional darkroom but they are a bit more tedious.

Congrats on being chosen for the POW in the hot seat, I mean Top Spot. Every Tom, DICK and Hairy will be gunning for you now so buck up chap!

Folks, this is a great image albeit not perfectly exposed. Why?

This image works because of the nice use of negative space (can be black or white) and the combinations of triangles (arms, breast,nose, chin) and the wonderful lines of her back and the delicate hand with line of the cigarette leading us out of the frame.

This image doesn't let the eye escape. Excellent us of cropping -- if it was cropped.

It all goes back to the nonsense of having to "rate" an image with a number. Paul's rating system in this world of imagery bombardment is: "I like it." "I don't like it." and that's subject to change over time.

We could debate ad infinitum all the gory details of the technical side (which has validity because some of us have spent marathon sessions in a wet darkroom -- back when dinasours roamed earth) but what would that accomplish. Nothing -- unless we are specifically asked to "teach" a particular viewer. Otherwise we should maybe understand that most who come here want feedback of a more general nature. Who knows?

By the way, using the "pimp" hat is not allowed on anybody else or the Pimp Hat Police will punish your posterior.

Job well done!

nobody is 'gunning for him' to excuse any comments you don't agree with in such a manner is unfair to everyone.

A lot of people come here to learn not to give and receive praise. I've heard a number of times someone say they see a picture and think it's great because it's much better than anything they've ever done. They really don't know why they like or why they don't like something. But then someone comes in and points out what they like and don't like about it and the less experienced person will say "yeah that's what it is I think is great/lacking/off/etc" or they can say "that's not why I don't like it".

I think of photography as a group of musicians playing a song. The composition, tones or colors, subject, timing, technical proficiency, etc. all are different parts that contribute to the whole. If one piece is off beat or off tempo then the whole arrangement suffers. Which brings me back to my statement that this could be such a great image if it were exposed properly.

Wow, not to the picture but to the comments. I've never seen so much bickering and badgering between...ummm....grownups? When did this POW forum become bitch session 101. By the time I got to the bottom of this comment page, I'd forgotten what the POW was and the photographer. Scroll up....oh yeah....nice pic Jonathan....I've actually perused through your portfolio and you've got some quality shots in there. Keep up the good work.

This picture isn't so bad, but there are lots of better photos on this site.

With respect to whether this photo is posed or not, several posts above Mary made a good point. In her opinion she felt that while the subject might not have been posing per se, she did feel that the subject was "aware" of the camera. Recently I shot a photograph of my two boys where I instructed them to do whatever "felt natural" to them. While I am very pleased with the result, there is no doubt that they were "aware" of the camera, and careful analysis of my effort will reveal the same sort of "stiffness" that Mary refers to in this photograph.

However, does this matter? I suppose it does if the picture in question is attempting to portray itself as a "candid". It doesn't mean the picture is bad, or a fraud or something similar. It merely means that the viewer - me - is not as fulfilled as I might otherwise be since I am left to reflect upon a generic interpretation of what a young lady such as this might be thinking/feeling rather than reflecting upon what *this particular lady* might be thinking/feeling since in my opinion she is thinking something like "Oh, Jonathan has noticed me in front of this window here, keep the contemplative look and hold still...". As I said in the paragraph above, I have a photo of my boys where they are aware of the camera and I very much like the result. However, I can't deny that I would be even happier had I known it was a truly "candid" moment.

With respect to the exposure, it certainly seems a stop or two short. Some seem to prefer the mood this creates while others seem to think better exposure or some post-exposure manipulation is in order. I tend to prefer Tom's high key approach (sans grain).

Overall, I would say this photo is decent, and I can certainly understand why it would appeal to some. However, as often seems to be the case, I think there are other photographs in the POW recipient's folders that are stronger overall.

I've always liked Jonathan Charles' work and I'm glad one of his pictures was chosen POW. This one is not my favorite, but it works very well. The grain and darker exposure are the things that give it its special atmosphere. Shoot it again with "perfect" exposure, less grain and razor-sharp focus and what have you left? Nothing.<br><br> It's sad to see that for some photographers, good technique equals with shadow details everywhere, anal pursuit of absolute sharpness and a total lack of consideration for the content of the image. Actually, good technique is whatever will convey the idea the photographer had in mind. According to this definition, I find Jonathan's technique outstanding.<br><br> Most of the pictures shown here as counterexamples are cold and clinical and aren't as expressive as this POW. Technique with little vision is sad indeed. Congratulations again, Charles!

I don't really like this shot for the following reasons: the cigarette is too close to the edge of the frame for my liking and the grain/soft focus don't work for me. I think given the opportunity, the execution could have been better. On a positive note, you have other shots in your portfolio I like very much.

I just tuned in and was rather amazed (and very pleased) to find this is POW, and much more amazed by the volume and style of the comments.

Thank you for all the positive crits and also for the thoughtful negative ones. Some of the comments can easily be answered to avoid too much random speculation:

Unposed - as I'd already said she was sitting (NOT in a bathroom!) relaxing after we had been taking some other photos and I just thought her natural pose would make a good picture so I picked up the camera and said something like "That looks great - don't move for a second..." and took actually 2 shots in quick succession, this the second after I had moved to get a better face profile. So Geraldine was absolutely right and so was Mary's comment (she knew I was taking it) though the posture was just her habitual one. It wasn't unposed in the sense that I just saw her sitting like this at the bus-stop as Rienk & Aslan find understandably hard to believe - in fact I think it would be rather dodgy to photograph someone in that situation without asking permission first (as I did - in sign language - for the "Tatoo" photo), so it would then be less candid.

Exposure - it's interesting that all the "experts" seem to agree that the shot was under-exposed whereas it was seriously OVER-exposed. The camera was on manual and been set up for the previous shots (farther from the window). I guessed that the skin tones would be about the same so to avoid any delay which could spoil the pose I didn't stop to check - my guess turned out to be not quite right. It's the over-exposure that causes the "highlight creep" over the edges.

Tonal range - I had a fair degree of control over the final contrast as the neg scanner is actually a very good one. My usual aim is to reproduce my impression of the scene rather than go always for maximum clarity. As I looked up from my coffee I was slightly dazzled by the window light and this was partly what I liked about it so that's the way the final print is; I also didn't correct the highlight creep. To include highlight and shadow detail in a very high dynamic range situation means you have keep the contrast quite low.

Grain - the grain was initially quite uneven and "clumpy" (as is common with over-exposure) so I removed it and then thought the result was less effective. I therefore re-added a more even grain pattern (using a method I described in detail in the comment on "Olivia", which avoids pixellation) to the depth that looked about right to me.

So that's it: part accident, part design. It succeeded in getting the effect I wanted so I'm happy with it but it obviously won't appeal to everyone and I'm very interested to see the other viewpoints.

Thanks also to the photo.net people ..."for making all this possible".

This is a photo critique forum. Not all the comments will be complimentary, and people who are displeased by an image, even if in the minority, should not be assumed to have dark motives, jealousy, character flaws, etc. because they express their point of view. Any more than the people who favor an image should be assailed for having "kitschy" taste.

To be specific, I think Tom has been quite articulate and impersonal in expressing his reservations about this image, and is more than entitled to do so. There would not be a discussion unless there were different points of view, and as long as we keep the commentary from becoming personal, we should welcome all points of view that are well-expressed.

I would've liked to see more of the lower back (not necessarily ass, but whatever).

It's such a lovely part of a lady.

I love the feeling of this photograph and the technique that presents this feeling. As one who thinks first with emotion, I can only describe this photograph as romantic. Tony summed up my thoughts exactly. This is the first nude I have seen on photo.net that conveys a woman so naturally. Many times I cringe when I see nudes because they are often over done to perfection, and many of these images are beautiful as well, but to me this stands out from the crowd.

Jonathan your technique works with this composition, very nicely done. I understand your vision and like it very much.

Congratulations

I have to question the preferences of the people calling the shots for photo of the week. For a while it seemed like the most creative, original shots were being chosen. Shots taken by people who really understand how to obtain nice color saturation and a perfect composition.

Then we come to this. Another nude shot.

Honestly, how many more nude shots are going to make it for photo of the week? Call me crazy but this shot does nothing for me. Who's deciding what makes the grade for photo of the week??

Jonathan, Congratulations on POW. It will be good to bring well deserved attention to your portfolio. I find it fascinating, although I don't quite know exactly what to make of it, that so many women are responding positively to this work. Comments from women photographers are the minority on photo net and perhaps you can take it as a compliment that so many of us appreciate your work. Perhaps confirmation that your nudes are truly artistic - more than simply titillating? Thank you again for sharing your wonderful work with us.

Apparently it's cold in your studio, otherwise she wouldn't be wearing a hat.

AHA! I know exactly what the look is now. It's not a hold still look there's a little something more to it. I think I recognize the whole body language. The cigarette doesn't appear to be lit. I bet she's holding a lighter in her left hand. In addition to the "hold that for a second look" is there also a bit of "for god's sake I was just about to have a smoke on my break can we hurry this up?" thrown in. Something, especially the arms makes me think that. I think I just need to go be European myself for a little bit. The toilet thing I just thought was funny and couldn't get it out of my head but this I feel certain about. I've seen the hand placements like that a few times in similar circumstances.

Such a mild mannered and pleasant photograph, this smoking lady with her hair in a towel. It looks quite domestic to me. What photo are all of you people looking at?

I loved Phillip's comment "Technique with little vision is sad indeed"... t

Re: The Photo.

Great shot! Before I read anything about it, I saw a lady just out of the shower having a quick smoke from her Paris hotel. The grain made me think this photo was of some famous actress from the 40's. Lovely to see a photo that I can play with in my imagination and write a whole story about. For that, congratulations!

Now, Re: The Comments.

As the Great Rodney King :) once said, "Can't we all just get along?" Stop the hatred! For god's sakes, this is a learning forum, not Jerry Springer.

Jonathan, I'm both sorry and happy for you, and your POW. I think the photo works. I respect the fact that it doesn't for everybody, but you don't deserve to have to sort through the bitching,whining and moaning to find the constructive critiques.

I know I simply like this photo, without detailed discussions about candidness, pose, composition, cropping, lighting, camera type, film speed, exposure or even scanner which are getting tedious here for me.

The photo and subsequent discussion only serve to support theories of the dangers of coffee and cigarettes. Would grain still be an issue if Jonathan was drinking V8 and the model had a Nicorette patch? We may never know.

Two cents- I like the shot. It has a sense of time and space. It reads well. You can do a million things to change it. Personally, I'd leave it alone.

I really liked this photo. It had a certain elegance to it, but also showed a lot of personality. The graininess added to the relaxed atmosphere. Well done.

rule 1: Art is subjective

rule 2: "I like it or I don't"

rule 3: Art is subjective

Paul.

Do you really think you're clever?

This is an interesting photo. It's gray, not black and white. It has technical flaws that have been well documented by several photo.net denizens. If one were to rate it, aesthetics? Must be way below average. 3? Creativity? Not much in the model's semi-candid pose. 4? 5?

I like this picture. I like the semi-candid pose. The grainy gray print fits with her smoking (elegantly? I hate cigarettes and swore off women who smoke a long time ago. My problem, I know) after the shoot (or we can imagine the rendezvous in the hotel).

While this may not be this photographer's best (and I agree he has a fine portfolio), it works for me as a piece of art. He's captured a moment, constructed or not, of a woman comfortable with her body.

And while a few other posts have criticized Tom's aesthetics, accusing him for not liking this photo because the woman's not PLAYBOY enough, there's really no truth in that. The woman in this photo's beautiful enough--nice lines, good eyes. She may not be glossy and airbrushed, but a sense of beauty and sensuality comes through here.

It seems a lot of the discussion on Photo.net centers around technical details (which are important). These details are what are easiest to discuss, easiest to critique. However, the artistic merit of the photos is less likely to be assessed.

Last week I went to a show of one of the America's best photographers, Robert Adams. There were about 50 images (actually, silver gelatin prints). If they would have been posted on photo.net--and I considered do something like that as a lark, but wouldn't--I'm sure most would merit no response and very low ratings. I think only one or two images might even get a few ratings.

It's a slow night and I should quit rambling. I do have a point here. I think we all should try to look at the photos more as art. Is the photographer doing anything different than the herd? Does the photo speak to us in some way? Is it sublime (kant) in some way? Does the image stick with us and make us want to return to it? These questions are more important than a thousand technical details.

Congratulations on the p-o-w!

Bravo Robert Brown... Well said.. So - maybe a more balanced combo of art and technique is in order. However, that said - I've had trouble understanding some images on photo.net that are truly bad technically but are "unusual" that are applauded. Visually an image has to have appeal. This one does "for me" and the "technical flaws" work here. Someone has taken lemon (overexposed shot) and made lemonaid... The result is elements that come together in a graceful and sensual way. This nude is sensual - not sexual (to me) even with the protruding nipples. The hand, the profile, the light in her face and the grain, the blown out window and even the towel create an artful image. I may be overly aware of the stiffness because of the kind of work I do but that is the only thing that detracts.

Robert's point is very interesting. I think he is probably right that if many of the masterpieces of art photography were posted incognito on photo.net, they would not receive high ratings, or even much attention.

And I am not just referring to the work of contemporary photographers whose work is "challenging". I think it would apply to most of the work of celebrated photographers whose names everyone would recognize, perhaps excluding only their most well-known images, which we have all been taught to think of as "great". Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, to name just a few from a very long list. For example, take away the most familiar ten images from AA's "100 images" book: would the remaining 90 command much attention or respect here?

Many art galleries that feature photographs are on-line. If you visit them, you will find many photographs with an aesthetic completely opposite to the technically perfect, well-lit, simple, magic hour light, "high impact", "high concept" compositions which advertising has caused most of us to associate with quality in photography.

This contrast is almost certainly deliberate on the part of many of these photographers (and gallery owners). Why pay hundreds of dollars for an image to hang on your wall, if it looks like it came from National Geographic, or that you could buy on a postcard for $3.00, or as a nicely framed poster that you can buy at the mall for $50.00? If you are interested in looking, the AfterImage Gallery in Dallas has an excellent Links Page.

I am not saying that all of these "art" photographs are good, or that all of the photographs that are popular on photo.net are bad, but the contrast between the two aesthetics is really quite striking and interesting.

I think it should be similar to ski jumping, that distance (here general impression particular photo makes) isn't only criteria for a good jump (photograph), you've got to do it in special way - correct style (technicaly proper photo) to get good scores. Some photos could be quite good for the impresssion they make but wouldn't be judge as masterpieces using technical measure of correctness. Good photo should have both atributes. Julia Liu wrote:"I know I simply like this photo, without detailed discussions about candidness, pose, composition, cropping, lighting, camera type, film speed, exposure or even scanner which are getting tedious here for me.", but here personal feeling aren't enough I guess. Technical correctness is a must. Nonetheless this is outstanding photo.

PS:By the way Photo of the Week (POW) should be change to Photo of the week critique (POWC).

Love Black and Whites!...

I agree with Robert, Mary and Brian that technical stuff is just "means" and not an "end" (I hope I translated with the correct words). The "end" is to achieve a photo "which works". OTOH Pawel's comparison with ski jumping is very good. A similar concept was expressed by a computer guru that once wrote in a book "Style distinguishes excellence from accomplishment" (he meant a slightly different concept but I think that his sentence perfectly applies here). In general a masterpiece photo MUST work and SHOULD be tecnhically correct.

But POW is not a gallery of masterpieces, as I understand it: it's a gallery of photos "which work" (of course some times they could be ALSO masterpieces). Many people thinks the opposite way - from here suggestions come about selecting the POW by ratings or similar ideas. The problem is probably the crawling idea of a continuos competition between photo.net members, so that the POW owner is perceived as a "winner" of a weekly competition (BTW this idea of competition pushed to the edge is also responsible of crazy things such as the rating war occurred last summer). Maybe Pawel's idea of turning POW in POWC or something similar could solve some misunderstandings.

The elves select photos not on the basis of objective and demonstrable criteria, but because they like the overall picture and they think it "would be inspirational and educational to other photo.net users". To provoke discussion. If the discussion stays on the proper trail, I think they are succesful in it. For me the meaning of the discussion is not to argue if the elves were right or wrong, but just to compare my opinion with others. The very "end" of the discussion is not to judge if the POW just works or it's a masterpiece, but to learn different ways to see it other than those coming from my very personal attitude.

Edited

There are many aspects of this almost-silhouette that I like: the classic, strong, profiles of the model's face and breast, the way the breast is framed by her arm, the vertical lines curving down the frame. All of these, with the turban and the diffused lighting combine to create a soft, "romantic" image. I also like the cigarette, which contributes to the feeling that this is a candid, relaxed moment, and also adds what some have referred to here as a "European" air of sophistication. Strange how hard these advertising-engendered associations die, and stranger still that these days a cigarette is more risque than a breast!

The thing that significantly weakens the image for me is the framing. The bottom edge is in completely the wrong place and interrupts all the vertical lines of the image. The knees sticking up and the cigarette arm coming across are also not very pleasing and create a confusing jumble at the bottom of the frame, very much in contrast to the elegant lines of the rest of the image.

We are told by the photographer that the cropping was done like this to remove an unaesthetic pair of jeans, but I think it might be better with the jeans than framed like this. As much as I like the feeling contributed by the cigarette hand, I think the composition might be stronger without the knees and the cigarette arm and hand.

I'm not an advocate of this type of manipulation, but for illustrative purposes I've attached an edit of the image. I think this edit is not as good a photo as the original -- the cigarette was an important element -- but I like the composition better.

Alternate crop that reduces busyness and elimanates some of the dead space.

I like the softness and graininess of the image. I like the air of a woman who is casually comfortable with her body. The greyness...well, I'm not nuts about it, but I can handle it. The crop? Horrible. The beautiful violin-shape of her torso is abruptly guillotined in half ("European" indeed ;) . The bottom half of the image is busy and crowded, leaving the image unbalanced with the space all around her upper half. I agree with Brian - however uninspiring her jeans, I think it would be better to include them than rather than interrupt what I can just imagine would be a gorgeous image.

Her pose, which could easily be natural, is lovely, a classic female profile, arm framing breast. Lots of compositional triangles. Good job there. I've attached an alternate crop, which I think does it better justice, but of course, cropping is the artist's perogative.

The only problem I have with this lovely photo isn't the photo, it's describing it as a candid portrait. It didn't seem to meet my definition of "candid" before I read the photographer's comments, even less so thereafter. But that's certainly not a criticism of the photograph. I find it an interesting counterpoint to last week's POW, both photos are very "flat" in their composition and show very strong, graphical lines. I would like to see Photo*s* of the week occasionally, a set of three perhaps. Three examples of a similar type or category of photograph. I don't care for the alternate crops, the original crop is fine, with the cigarette just touching the edge of the photograph and the hand on the knee . . .

another attempt more tones less grain than before

Since my original opinions and interpretations were such a success and received so well and I didn't get a single new rating in response to my show boating I decided to try again :-p

I'm not saying Jonathan is wrong in his interpretation but personally I like to see something different.

To me, the posted image looks more like what the film saw and not what the viewer saw. The human eye is capable of capturing much more detail than film can. Also it's apparant that those that think that the grainy and faded appearance of this photo is reminicent of something from the fifties don't know a whole lot about black and white film and processing. I wasn't around in the 50's let alone taking photographs but I have seen my fair share of old black and white prints and they hold their own against prints I'm making today. What does make this look older is the softness of the image especially that caused by the backlighting. Those types of features are more characteristic of the beautiful abberations of older lenses, mainly flare from uncoated lenses and spherical abberation.

Since the eye can see better than film most people try and print to compensate to make it look like what we would expect to see if we were there. While I can't argue that this is what Jonathan saw because I wasn't there I would have expected to see a much larger tonal scale on the skin. At least that's the way I like skin to look on prints. It's my personal preference and I'm sticking with it :-p

Elaine has expressed the reasons for the crop much better than I could and I agree with her 100%.

Here's another quick interpretation with less grain indicating how I would like to see this image.

I always thought this image was very powerful but I obviously don't see it the same way other people here do. This is a matter of personal opinion and experience and I'm sure we'll each see this slightly different. It's the beauty of photography, while the motivation for taking a photo is important to the photographer the interpretation of an image becomes personal to the viewer. Read Edie Cloissone's comment on last week's POW to see what I'm talking about.

When I see this image (before the crop) I see something far from a warm recolection of a time with one's lover. The camera angle and position to the subject gives me the impression I'm laying in bed looking at her. The body language isn't consistant with intimacy while the nudity implies something more happening. Her posture is stiff and reserved. Not as relaxed as I would expect to see. Her back is towards me and her hollowed eye gaze extends past the current environment and there isn't even a hint of a smile or any type of content in her face. This is not what I want to see in a woman sitting on my bed. My favorite part is that streak of light on her cheek that drips from her eye implying a tear she's holding back. It reminds me of the black lines clowns and mime may paint on their faces to simulate sadness. Though her beautiful body may be here with me her mind is definately somewhere else. Also the fact that the side facing me is dark and muddy but the part away from me is in light doesn't send a friendly message either.

Now with the crop. The crop makes the picture very different. You can't tell she's sitting down and the background is just a collection of shades that don't indicate that she's in a room. To me this looks more like she's leaning up against the side of a balcony looking out. It's also less "European" since it looks like she's smoking outside. :) Now it looks like she's missing something but it's no longer me looking at her as a participant in the scene but more of a silent observer. I think this could have also been achieved by going wider and showing her alone in the room.

This version I'm posting matches more closely how I would like to see this image printed.

I enjoy the feeling this photograph envokes, it is certainly not technically perfect, but the key issue here is do the technical shortcomings get in the way of the emotion of the photograph? I think resoundingly no. My original issue with the shot was the proximity of the cigarette to the left border and the observation that it's unlit. The line on the right side really didn't bother me but it's obvious from Tom's last crop that it has to go. I actually think Tom's last rework frames the shot the best for me though I like the original exposure much better. In this last one the detail that is brought out in the turban and skin tones does not outweigh the loss of the curl of her eyelashes and the shape of her lips and nose, which were real important to me when I first saw this photo. Her breast just looks grotesque in the last rework as well. Keep the original exposure, go with Tom's crop.

While the image can be considered lacking in technical merit (too flat, not sharp, too much grain), these are the very qualities that give it the 'atmosphere' and evoke nostalgic thoughts in some viewers. I don't think Tom's attempts to improve it are anywhere near as pleasing as the original. I often find myself admiring images which have some technical flaw but which evoked a more emotional response than those that are super-sharp, fine grained and demonstrate all the tones of the Zone System. Both approaches are valid, but I think the non-technical 'look' probably suits this image better. I think one's opinion of this image depends on whether one can enjoy the technical deficiencies.

Does it matter if it was truly "candid" or not? I don't think so. To my eye she appears to be looking out of the window, and it is not obviously posed. That's enough analysis for me.

I would be interested to see the uncropped version of this shot, to see what was originally in the frame, particularly to see if the presence of jeans added to or detracted from the composition and atmosphere.

When I looked at this picture among the others in its portfolio, it stood out to me, but not in a positive way. Your other pictures are mostly very well composed with body parts cropped carefully and effectively. This one seemed forced. The delicate grain and beautiful profile beg to be presented somehow, but to me there just doesn't seem to be enough there. The crop is very uncomfortable and stands out as less effective than others in your folders. The pose, as others have said seems stiff. The greatest parts of this image; the classically beautiful model and the grain, to me don't raise this image enough to be able to consider the perceived or real technical defecits as additive to its overall aesthetic appeal. This woman and this grain in a nicer crop and with just a bit more actual candidness (and resultant tenderness) would be terrific, in my opinion.

I don't think the various manipulations by others add much, but do go to show that this shot really wants to work in many people's minds.

The texture implies tenderness and fading memories while the model conjures thoughts of complex post-adolescent relationships, but the posture and composition just don't quite bring it all the way home for me.

A very personal image; voyeuristic but not lurid, it just feels appreciative of a beautiful person in a beautiful moment, probably just as you felt when you saw her there, and it almost creates the complete vicarious moment, but not quite. I think it is that personal feeling that makes this seem more a portrait than a study of light as last week's POW seemed to me. Most of your other nudes lean more to the abstract or experimenting with form and light kind of images, this is more satisfying in that regard as it seems that many people are able to connect with this person and apply it to a moment in their lives, you can't do that with most images of nudes I've seen. It isn't better or worse, just a different feel that you caught.

Congratulations. Your portfolio is very creative with great variety and you seem greatly willing to experiment which is just great.

I first thought with this POW we would have got a neutral image for the mass on this site at last. But, an average rating of 7/6.61, and so extensive critiques covering almost every fields? Hmmmm, the deal with POW really makes fun.

Dave if you want to leave comments about me on photo pages because you don't want my emails that's fine but at least do it on my photo pages so that it doesn't clutter other people's pages. For you or anyone else that cares to badmouth me I think <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=429293">this would be an appropriate image.</a> And if for some reason I'm delayed in responding I'm sure the image will sum up my feelings until I can respond. <p> These are the last two paragraphs from the last email you sent me. <p> "Okay? Leave it there - I used some strong language earlier and am not ashamed to say to you "apologies" - I wish I hadn't but I was both angry and in a hurry. <p> Go well with the photography. So far as I am concerned, this debate has ended - feel free to speak to me of photography, the rest - let us leave it behind us." <p> I don't know what provoked you but this is definately not the place for this discussion. <p> Oh... and Grow one.

Dave this is going to be my last response to you on here or anywhere else it doesn't belong. I guess you didn't like the page I asked you to leave comments on. Maybe you'll like this one better. I uploaded the photo again and copied all the comments that I managed to save from the original. I told you I'm not hiding anything in regards to that and now it's out there again for everyone to see. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=513963 You threatened to "expose" me for something I always admitted was a farce. I just didn't give the details otherwise it would have ruined it. If you want to leave a comment leave it there otherwise I won't even read it here and it just goes to show you're still as ... Sorry Jonathan... as you've seen I can easily get riled up.

The quality of a print is difficult to judge without having it in your hand. For some reason the way the photo is cropped makes me feel as if I am missing out on something. When I look at it I want to see what was cut out. If I had the original I might agree with the way it was cropped.

I like the picture. Posed or not dosen't make a difference to me, I like nudes when a woman appears natural and comfortable with herself

Thanks for letting me see it. It made me think about it, maybe those are the best.

I know it's often tempting when judging a photo to suggest a tighter crop and sometimes this does improve the composition, especially when there is nothing much in the cropped off areas. You have got to remember though that if you only see the picture AFTER it's been cropped, you don't know what was cropped off and you often wonder if there was something interesting just outside the frame that you would like to have seen - eg several people have commented that they wanted to see her jeans included (to me that would have spoiled the timeless, slightly stylised image I was trying to create). So it's sometimes best to include a little "dead space" around the subject just to reassure the viewers that they're not missing anything, unless you positively want them to imagine a continuing busy scene in which case you can deliberately crop cutting through objects so they are forced to realize that the frame is just a sample of what was going on.

In this photo I included very little real dead space, the parts which have been cropped off in the suggested versions contain (to me) important elements:

THE LINE on the right identifies the background as being the view through a window. Seeing the cropped version after the original you already know it's a window, but if you hadn't seen the line first it wouldn't be at all clear. Does it matter where she is? ... Well yes: to me, looking out through a window carries a certain symbolism - it's a thing you do when you when you're pondering your life or your future, and this was the intended mood - not sad but pensive.

THE KNEE: again, when you know her elbow is resting on her knee the pose looks natural and quite relaxed - this was her normal posture (quite recognisable, which is why I called it a portrait), not forced or self conscious. If the knee is cropped off the arm seems to be hanging "with no visible means of support" and the overall position looks very uncomfortable as it would naturally hang straight down. So (to me) the knee is necessary to make sense of the arm: the cropped versions only work because you already know the knee is there.

THE CIGARETTE (BTW it was alight) is included because it was part of the real scene and is also somewhat symbolic - people, however perfect or self confidant they appear, usually have aspects to their lives which are not totally under their control and have to live with that and the need for a cigarette to relax is a hint at this. I kept it near the edge of the frame because I didn't want it to dominate the picture like in a cigarette ad, just to be an apparently random detail to get you thinking - even perhaps subconsciously.

I think it is these small elements along with the deliberate lack of detail and the (added) grain that are important in trying to make the picture something you can "go into" rather than just look at.

It seems from the comments that there is a clear division of approach between two groups:

- those who are focussed on the technical "photographic" aspects like visibility of fine detail, sculptural tone gradients, conventional framing and compositional rules and graphic impact;

- those who are seeing the image as an illustration of an idea, where the technical factors are sometimes important but are secondary to the overall effect (and following the rules may detract from it).

It is very interesting to me, to pick up a point made earlier by LaDawna, that there is a predominance - not absolute - of women photographers who see my (especially nude) photographs as I intended them and I'm very encouraged by this: that they can in a way identify with the subject as well as the picture.

Jonathan, even though I basically like this photograph, I don't agree with the dichotomy that you have advanced in your last post between the people who are "focused" on the photograph's elements and those who have responded to the overall "effect". This basically dismisses those who have criticized various aspects of the photo as being hung up on details.

I suppose you need to dismiss some of the criticisms, because almost every aspect of this photo has been criticized by someone, and if all the criticisms were true, then the photo should be thrown in the trash -- which is not the case. But I do think some of the criticisms are valid, and you are dismissing them too easily -- that you are being perhaps a little too easy on yourself.

The overall "effect" of a photo is the result of a combination of the various elements, including, if it is not abstract, the pictorial content. It isn't some phenomenon on top of all the elements -- something mystical which cannot be analyzed, to which one can only respond. People here are analyzing the photo's elements in order to understand and to communicate why it is that the photo does not have a positive effect for them, or perhaps (like me) to understand how it could have a stronger effect. They are not ignoring the "effect" at the expense of the details.

While the elements may combine non-additively so that the overall effect is greater than the sum of the elements, the manner of this combination can also be analysed.

If all this were not so, there would hardly be any point in submitting photos for critique. We would all just rate the photos according to whether we respond to them or not (a fancy way of saying we "like" them). The comments could be eliminated or replaced by cheers and boos of various volumes. And producing a photo to which people respond would be entirely a matter of luck or god-given unanalyzable "talent", since an understanding of how the photographic elements combine could never be taught or learned.

Ultimately it comes down to what Jonathan thinks the image should look like because it's his photograph. Anyone else who looks at it will see something different based on their opinion, preferences and experiences. Someone may learn something in here but ultimately it's just a place for a bunch of people who otherwise couldn't meet on a regular basis to get to gether and talk about something they enjoy.

Brian, I'm sorry if I seemed to be dismissing the criticisms; what I was trying to do, in the first part of the comment, was to explain why I cropped the photo the way I did. The second part about the dichotomy of view was just an observation on the comments, many of them taking very predominantly one approach or the other.

I wasn't saying that the technical side is unimportant, just that it's the means to an end. I use different techniques on each photo to try and get a particular effect. I'm sure it doesn't always work and that's why I find the comments so interesting. IMHO a crit along the lines "The use of xxx (technique) does not for me help create the effect intended because ..." is totally valid whereas "This is too [soft / harsh / busy / simple / etc.]" implies that there is an absolute ideal, irrespective of the context, which you are just accidentally failing to achieve.

I don't believe in the mystery theory and when I see a picture that appeals to me I think hard about how it succeeded and what I can learn from that. I don't write lists or anything I just bury it somewhere in the back of my mind to use as a kind of vocabulary some time later.

I don't think Jonathon was dismissing criticisms -he was just defending the descisions he made as the artist, even as various of us were defending ours as meddlers ;)

I agree with you, Jonathan, about the space around the model giving it context and a somewhat lighter air - for me, though, it seemed unbalanced somehow: what appeared to be a tight crop on the bottom was competing with a looser one in the space around her head. Looking at it again, I think what I found most distracting was the tiny triangle of white/light grey formed at the very bottom by the intersection of her arms and leg. It pulled my eyes downward to expect to see more of her, only to run into the edge. That's what I meant by busyness.

The various sharpenings people have attempted are cruel and unusual, to my eye...I have a feeling that this makes a much better print than a jpeg.

Do you have a copy of the original image (before it was cropped) that you could post? I know others have expressed interest in it, too. I'd like to see the image that you started with.

I agree with a lot of the comments here suggesting that it is a nice image -- as well as those who have already pointed out some of the problems with it from their perspectives. I think it is certainly above average, but POW? Not. And I agree, we shouldn't have nudes on the front page of photo.net because of the problems that it causes for those of use who might be accessing the site from our offices.

Hmm. This week's discussion has ranged from interesting critique to honest discussion to petty, petulant, and personal posts. Sometimes with the same people! Ah, well.

My opinion on the picture: It works because of the light on the eye and cheek, which keep it from being a total silhouette, though the silhouetted shape is the main attraction of the image. I like that Jonathan let the background almost blow out completely, maintaining both contrast with the subject and depth to the image.

I must confess that the effect of overexposure on the image reduces my enjoyment of it on one dimension. Although such a feeling doesn't necessarily ruin a photograph, I would here prefer some suggestion of definition in the model's back.

With no deliberate bottom to the frame, it also seems natural to wonder about what is below the frame, as some have done above. I accept Jonathan's explanation for the framing, but it does have that effect on me.

One thing has stayed in my mind, though, after reading Jonathan's original post: the "created" grain. I'm struggling with whether or not, to me, that added grain pushes this into the realm of "digital art." I have nothing against images that have been altered. Restoration of photographic or printing possibilities seems fair game, as long as it is disclosed where the alteration reaches into creating or eliminating elements. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how to feel about it. The feeling of the grain in this image succeeds, and I guess I can accept it; after all, I've seen beatiful nature images printed with film grain selectively blurred out to enable large prints from 35mm slides, so the converse should be fair game. From an analytical perspective, I still wonder how the original grain compares.

[I'm resisting a temptation to delve into thoughts on digital alteration in editorial, nature, commercial, and fine art photography, but felt that the topic deserved mention because it colors my perception of the photograph.]

Bottom line: an evocative image that would work better for me with improved tonal range and definition, especially in the model's back.

I don't think the re-edits improve upon the original, which says something positive for the decisions made in presenting the original.

Enjoy.

My dear friends! Kate is great and nice. But if we could see rainy day as background it would be better. It is only my modest comment. Of course, the back of the woman has to be darker. Then, it is easy to imagine that the person who made the picture, has been unnoticed.

Rather reluctantly, as I think it spoils the atmosphere of the originally posted picture, I've rescanned the whole negative to show the crop. I also left out the added grain...

...you asked for it

Whatever you say I don't think I'm going to change my mind about the jeans!

Jonathan - Thanks for satisfying my (and perhaps others') curiosity. I do certainly see why you've presented it the way you have (in the original). Although this composition does avoid the cut-off feeling, it does sacrifice the timelessness of the original. The jeans, in a way, force a certain interpretation of the picture.

Though it's difficult to evaluate in small size, I think I prefer it without the added grain. [And not from the academic perspective I mention above, strangely.] This way, it feels like better defined to me.

Enjoy.

Jonathan, you win on the cropping.

The cropped version is definitely better.

without reading through all 118 comments, i'm probably safe in assuming that the photo was called many things including flared out, washed out, grainy, and underexposed. its unfortunate that alot of photographers restrict themselves to the crusty idea that a photo can't be great if it isn't tack sharp or it doesn't span the entire range of zones. looking through the photographer's uploads, i'd say this is exactly the look that he was going for. anyone interested in this departure from the "correct" should check out Edward Steichen's work. cheers

to comment because so many others have already expressed my thoughts. i think this photo is beautiful. your model is beautiful. the cropping and grain are beautiful. it has the shy quality of the late 50's. beautiful.

Edward Steichen - Greta Garbo - 1928

I'm familiar with some of Steichen's work and I would tend to disagree with your opinions of the quality of his work from a technical standpoint but I'm glad you brought him up.

I'll post an example for other's to see.

Just want to add... Good idea to get the jeans out but looking at that shape it would have looked great if she wasn't wearing the jeans. I have to say that, except for the crop, I prefer the second image you posted.

Tom, i never used the term quality in my statement. for me, his work sets a quality standard. also, i understand that he was a technical wizard, especially in the darkroom. i was only trying to say that his work was often much more flat and less sharp than people usually strive for. this was because of his technique, though, not because a lack of technical knowledge or facilities. i know that all his work wasn't totally impressionistic(i'm not sure that term works here), but alot of what he is known for falls into this category.

When I read that a lot of the grain was ersatz, I was disappointed. I even felt a little "cheated" (although it's not your responsibility in life to keep me happy, of course; my feelings were purely personal). Now that I've seen both versions, I'm doubly sure you made a mistake. I think you might have made more of an impact using just the original.

Tony, that's an interesting comment - I'm taking it as being serious (please tell me if I'm wrong).

From my viewpoint grain is grain, it doesn't matter how it got there. Obviously it's not part of the real scene so it's an added artefact either due to chemical manipulation (push processing etc.) or digital manipulation (filtered noise addition). So what's the difference?

From your previous perceptive, thoughtful & witty comments I didn't imagine you were a member of the photochemical puritan league. If so how come you are so active in a forum that depends entirely on the vagaries of scanning, JPEG compression & RGB monitors as its medium?

Do you think there might be some inconsistancy here?

Please don't take this as a personal attack, I should really like to understand your distinction.

Jonathan

Jonathan,

I can't answer for Tony but I have similiar sentiments. When looking at a small jpeg it's sometimes hard to tell but there's a big difference between adding noise and real film grain in prints from my experience. Grain on film changes properties depending on the density at that part of the negative while noise is pretty even but looks different in light and dark areas. There are plug-ins for photoshop that can recreate grain in a more natural fashion and can also convert color images to specific emulsions but I haven't tried them. This is coming from someone that likes playing with grain on film to get different effects. There's even an Add Grain filter in photoshop that might be a little better but it takes some time getting the right settings.

I'm sure if the technology existed to reach the same audience with images capable of reproducing the quality of the actual prints we'd all jump on it. In the meantime jpegs and rgb monitors beats sending prints out to a few thousand people :)

Tom

I have to add that I agree with Tony's sentiments to some degree. When you first said that the scene was overexposed when many were assuming it was underexposed, I had this sentimental feeling of some shots I had done as a student years ago where I overexposed negatives with the idea in mind that once I got enough light through the negative to get the image down on paper, it would have a nice grain with intended blown out areas and nice dark blacks, all with a nice heavy feeling.

While I definitely use digital manipulation to some extent, it sometimes seems too easy to throw on a filter, almost like cheating. What took a whole night in the darkroom 18 years ago can be done so swiftly now (when done effectively as you have done here), in a fully lit room with my wife and kids right here, the Flintstones on TV and a glass of sweet iced tea beside my monitor.

Some people have said that all they do with photoshop is to recreate what they could do in the darkroom, nothing more. Others feel just fine doing anything to a picture with photoshop, taking it far beyond what a traditional darkroom is capable of. This one seems in between. The negative did not lend itself to a grainy product in and of itself, but you created a picture that very easily could have come out of a "real" darkroom, just not necessarily with that negative.

You applied the grain very well, so I don't have any problem at all with how it looks, but something inside says maybe you made it look a way that it didn't look in your mind when you took it. No offense, I often crop and "touch-up" with photoshop because it looks better than how i saw it in my mind on the scene.

I'm rambling, bottom line for me is as I stated above, the digital enhancement looks fine to me, but there is a nagging feeling inside which feels like I wish you had gotten to that 1950's feel in a 1950's way. Not to speak for him, but maybe this is what gnaws at Tony.

BTW: agree with others that your crop is best. The jeans have to go.

As I said John, it's not your job to keep me happy, so my comment wasn't any more than that, a comment, from a personal point of view. It wasn't of the "thundering denunciation" type. I hope you took it as a benign expression of mild disappointment. That's how it was meant.

I read your tech note explaining how you made the "grain", and viewed the sample (not the same kind of pic, really, so it's hard to judge one against the other). To me, photoshop noise isn't identical to grain (I didn't think your example was "convincing" - admittedly that was after I knew the grain wasn't real). Your merging of your "grain" and "natural layers" trick I'm sure would come closer than just adding noise to more realistic-looking grain (I sort of half-tried it myself... but ran out of time) but.... oh, I don't know... your volunteering of the information about the ersatz grain just left me a little flat.

Good on you for being forthright about it, though. You obviously don't have any problem at all with the effect (actually, it's hard to tell with a thumbnail anyway).

Now, to "inconsistency". Firstly, I'm not a wet darkroom purist. Secondly, I think there is a difference between manufactured "grain" (it's not really grain, it's white noise, emphasised at the edge areas with some layer merging options) and real film grain. Not just from a purist-type "anti-fake" standpoint. I just don't think it works (at least in the example). Given that I have to imagine what the full resolution version would look like, I don't think you needed to do what you did. I think the pic might have been OK on its own.

Tom put it well when he said, "...I wish you had gotten to that 1950's feel in a 1950's way". He knows what I wanted to express better than I do.

I'd be interested to see either a detail at full resolution or perhaps the whole file at that size (JPEG level "0"!). Any chance? It'd be interesting to see what the final effect really looked like "as the photographer intended". An attachment to an email would be fine.

You don't have to, of course, but if you're feeling in an expansive mood...?

Cheers, and if I haven't already said it, congrats on POW. It's a very evocative picture.

Tony Dummet and Mary Ball... You just made me realize, that I really was out of my mind when I proposed this other way to select the POW... You are right about the different kinds of ratings around PN, as well as when you say that it would just make the war worse... The thing is, that there shouldn't ever be any war here, but that just doesn't seem to work - and here I disagree with you Tony, when you say that there are only people here who defend their opinion, and I rather agree with somebody who said that all this is often an ego battle... Anyway, back to this POW... There have been many suggestions to improve his picture, and I find some of them were interesting, and some really an ego affair... but overall, I would say that none of the comments has convinced me that changing this or that in the shot would have made it really obviously better. That certainly means at least that this picture - which I find far less powerful than a few others by the same author - was decently done given the purpose and the style chosen for it. This image doesn't suggest that much to me, and doesn't make me feel much, but it works: it has a unity, and a cohesion that make it a decent image at least. An opportunity to say that I haven't seen many people in here who can admit that a picture is well done though they don't like it ! A rating shouldn't be only the expression of what one likes, but also an attempt to judge objectively of the objective factors of an image. I think that such an approach would really help Photo.net to be the wonderful tool it could be... A tool for every one of us to improve his understanding of photography...

To me, this type of photo has zero originality. How many photo's of nudity have been taken? Billions? It really is just an ordinary photo.

<i>A rating shouldn't be only the expression of what one likes, but also an attempt to judge objectively of the objective factors of an image. I think that such an approach would really help Photo.net to be the wonderful tool it could be... A tool for every one of us to improve his understanding of photography...</i> <p> You're having a wet dream, Marc, but I feel your sentiment deserves to be repeated, even if it only does reach the precious few who feel the same way.

Marc, thank you for your fair comment. I would never expect any picture to make a positive emotional impact with everyone & as you say the ratings system would work a lot better if people were encouraged to be more objective in at least one of their scores. I've given some thought about the scoring system and my present feeling is that there are really a minimum of 3 independent parameters: originality, technical competence & personal impact. (I once worked in a scientific editorial committee and we would judge submissions by: "Is it new? Is it true? Does it matter?" which are broadly the same criteria). The first 2 could be combined as a kind of technical merit score (objective) which could still be independent of emotional impact (subjective).

Whatever method is used it's bound to be deeply flawed & open to abuse. I've practically stopped giving scores except occasionally to encourage photographers whose work I think has been scored too low. I don't think scoring should be abandoned though as it keeps the forum alive with controversy which is valuable in itself.

Tony, Tom & Michael, I quite agree that close examination of grain pattern will usually reveal the method used (I remember people arguing endlessly about the relative merits of Tri-X & HP5 grain patterns!). My point is that we should ask: 1 - what's the grain there for? and 2 - does this or that version achieve the goal successfully?

If you like to see grain only BECAUSE it's an unavoidable accidental consequence of the limitations of the film, then it seems to me you might as well spend your time looking at random ink-blots - there is certainly no creative input into your choice.

If your aim is an accurate copy of old - style photojournalist work using the original ciné film in the first 35mm cameras, then you will have to do something fancy with push-processing or very selective enlargement - but NB this is phoney, you're only pretending to be using old film.

If you want the grain to soften the details of an image - because they are not part of, or work against, the overall message - without making the picture look uncomfortably blurred (ie the eye is happier if it can see detail even if it's not of the scene) then you can choose whatever kind of grain / noise works best.

I also don't like random pixellated noise for the reasons you both mentioned, and I do like (for illogical nostalgic reasons probably) the pattern produced by real grain so my preference is to reproduce something similar to this. I should have said real B&W film grain because colour film grain doesn't appeal to me so I prefer my "ersatz" colour grain to the real thing!

FINALLY (I'm sorry this is so long) the grain on the small jpeg file is coarser than on the original. When I shrank it down the grain practically disappeared and because of the low contrast of the skin tones the jpeg compression produced ugly "contour-lines" and in the large view random square blocks. I therefore re-applied the grain on the small image at the same scale as had been on the full-size image to avoid this and to achieve the same texture.

Tony I'll happily send you the full file (you'd better leave it loading up overnight!)

Jonathan

Nice framing, lovely image--like an antique of sorts. I love the grain and the delicate contrast in your original printing, too.

When read as a thread, compiled over several days the discussion about whether the "grain" is grain looks silly. In reality, it's the kind of thing that a couple of photographers would swap a few coded phrases over in three or four seconds of conversation and then get on to the next pic. So this comment should be read in that context. <p> Jon, your three choices about why I (for one) "like" grain assumes that I do in fact like it. Insofar as it is part of the original medium of capture I guess I'd have to say that I do like to <i>see</i> it, but that is not the same as actually <i>liking</i> the grain, in and of itself. <p> The grain is <i>part</i> of the picture, like the texture of canvas is part of a painting. I know what you're going to say: hiss is part of an old analog music recording too... do I like <i>that</i>? No, I don't. So where does that leave me? <p> I guess I <i>do</i> have to admit that I like grain in itself (on a read-back, the hair is too fine to split), but, like Baby Bear, only when it's "just right" (how did you drag that out of me?). When I've evaluated hi-res digital pictures from CCD cameras I usually add noise to make <i>ersatz</i> "film grain" to get a kind of equivalence, to make it look like the medium I'm more familiar with, and yes, I add contrast to clip blacks, to make the CCD capture look more like film (I don't publish these pix, they are for private consumption). Seeing as I've never used a CCD camera for serious work (only for evaluations) I don't know what will happen when <i>der tag</i> comes. Will I give in and soup-up the images just as you have done here? I'll keep you posted. I think I'll have to wean myself onto CCD imaging slowly. <p> (Incidentally, part of the explanation for the common misconception that CCD images have low dynamic range is that they don't appear as contrasty as a film representation of the same scene. In fact, modern CCD chips have much more dynamic range than film. They reproduce more faithfully than film, especially shadow details. That's what throws us. The reason people get fooled into thinking the opposite is because CCD images, as a rule, don't deliver that "film" look). <p> What I guess I'm saying is that grain is <i>part</i> of the image, and if it's there I like to see it rendered <i>as was</i>, not enhanced by machine methods (where <i>are</i> those hair-splitting scissors?). <p> Grain gives a picture an impressionistic "natural look" (I'm aware of the monumental contradictions in that statement, by the way). It takes us one step away from a noiseless, grainless, reality (found so often in videotaped TV shows, for example) and provides a basic resolution, beyond which the image cannot be taken. In fact, many TV producers use similar effects to Jon's to create grain (and other effects like "filmlike" gamma) in studio video footage. <p> Maybe it's something like the addition of digital dither in CDs. Noise (at a subliminal level) is added to give the quiet moments of the recording some <i>texture</i>. There is nothing so silent as <i>complete</i> digital silence. There is nothing so black as complete digital black (like last week's POW had). Grain is good. It gives us something to hang on to. <p> But should we <i>add</i> grain when it's already there. Now <i>that</i> I could argue with you for hours, Jon. But only over a beer (or a nice glass of Australian un-wooded chardonnay). I think it's been done to death here. <p> (Send the JPEG, I'd like to see it now that I've gazed at my navel so much over it, but don't forget the lowest quality compression bit, PS Level "0"!)

It is not really anything special. It just OK. Sorry, but that is my opinon.

Jonathan,

Thanks for posting the original. Like the others, I agree your cropping was excellent. I'm not sure about the grain, though--I'm still considering . . .

What I find interesting is the people that comment on how they don't like some of the "technical" qualities of the shot are being dismissed while the photographer performed a bit of technical tinkering to get the effect that he wanted.

Obviously these qualities (softness and grain) are important to the presentation of the photo or the photographer wouldn't have added them in. It's going to be a matter of preference wether you like the effect or not.

When Ted Turner added digital color to old black and white movies it came under quite a bit of criticism. The fact that digital is being used now to recreate those qualities is somewhat amusing :)

I don't know if it's the digital manipulation that made me think there were problems with this photo or not. I do know I like the second one better. That one seems to convey a sense of the past more than the top one to me.

For the record... I'm not some old timer that that's set in my ways. Before I ever even stepped foot in a real darkroom I was using digital imaging to play with photographs and I still do. As well as appreciating todays sharp optics and the beautiful irregularites caused by old lenses. Anyone that has looked through my portfolio knows I like both fine and coarse grain. I've even defended grain, softness and exposure problems together all in another POW.

But to me, the image above doesn't seem to represent some of the feelings that were expressed by people leaving comments. That doesn't make me right and them wrong. This image works for a lot of people but you can't please everybody. It has resulted in an educational thread though :)

It's realy nice portrait of pretty woman.

I just love it, Jonathan. Exquisite shape and form, beautifully candid. I hate cigarettes, but here it adds a really cool visual touch. Very nice work.

I just love these classic photo's. And it's not just the moment you captured that makes it so. It's the the fact that you used B&W film, and the way how the grain here adds to the overall effect and intention of the photo. (If I am not mistaken). The low contrast also makes for an interesting effect. At first, I didn't even notice that cigarette, because it is so subtle. There is only one thing I am curious about. I use Ilford HP5 a lot, and not once, I have I gotten a photo as low contrast and grainy as this. (Not that it's bad of course, because I actually like those features on this particular photo). It looks like Tri-X was used.

Overall, great job and congratulations on POW~!

of course the model is quite lovely (distinguished sharp nose is nice) but what really works for me in this shot, is the delicate posture of her hand.... fingers can often be more expressive than facial features.... excellent job :-)

Really good job...i like it.

Excellent! Excellent! Now that you have added the blue jeans in the other picture

At first I saw a Egyptian princess surveying her kingdom the headpiece looked more like a ornamental crown of some sort. Very regal appearance.On second study it appeared like a Airman's hat - a woman wearing her lovers hat from WWII . It looks different each time I come back to it?. Times , places an eras how did you achieve it?. Serenity an confidence . Happy where she is , but still looking down the highway. Tech wise I have no real knocks against it - something Id hang on my wall.