• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Critique Requested What is wrong with this photo?

Will Thompson

Well-known member
1832
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
Have I seen that image before?
She looks familiar.
Certainly nothing wrong with it that I can see. Not that I know what you specifically had in mind. Nice and relaxed pose, technically OK.
If you were taking a photograph of an Apple I’d say you have the wrong subject matter.
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
That is a puzzling question to ask. But since you ask it, I would say quite a few things are unsettling in this image, starting with the missing chair rear legs.

It is an interesting image, though.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Will,

You are so nuts, my friend, at least in your sudden identification of a substantial “flaw” in this, my favorite, of your vintage pictures we had on the original landing-page of OPF!

There is nothing “wrong” with this picture, because that was how you the artist made it. I can stand folk demanded that art meet their own set ideas. One is free to like it or not:
  • a steel rod seeming to line up with the back of a subjects head
  • or arms not completely in the picture
  • Cropped tight
  • Not cropped at all
  • Whatever!
are all fine by me, as long as the image:

  • serves to document something significant
  • or else evokes some reaction.
In this picture there’s a beautiful awfully under-age young woman, posed almost provocatively, who has not mastered grooming for adult fashion!

1844


The posing stool has the back legs covered. But bad on you, Will, here brown eyes can’t be seen because of dark shadows. That is the only technical point that rises to a flaw in an otherwise perfect study of a young girl posing as a would-be, wanna-be actress with a dream!

Thanks for sharing this wonderful picture again! I really find is adorable, faults and all!


Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Will,

My good friend, allow me to go further and take you to task.

[First to those who may not know, Will is totally at home with any lighting system and could light any dark church scene or mid day beach wedding....

.......even fully loaded!]


To me, it’s disappointing to release otherwise fabulous portraits with eyes unintentionally hard to identify! That’s the only fault and it still doesn’t ruin or negate the charm of the picture. It just makes you as human as the rest of us!

What you might think is “the” fault in the picture has escaped me, so it must be very, very obvious: hidden in plain sight!

Asher
 

Tom dinning

Registrant*
I’m reminded of my own daughter arriving home from her first day of work, collapsing on the hall chair and contemplating another day like the one she just had.
“Dad, if that’s work I’m over it. And these clothes don’t do me justice either”
The somber eyes suit her.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Will,

I think what's wrong with this is that there is no locomotive in it.

I myself am not concerned about the rear legs of the posing stool, but à chacum son égout. Rear legs are very likely important to some people. Why, I knew a follow once . . . Well, never mind.

All kidding aside, I think it is a precious image. As is.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Jim Galli

Member
I was all in until I got the her legs. Doesn't make any sense. They don't add anything but questions. But . . . I'm completely untrained, so, there's that. I put her in photo shop so I could see the whole image at the same time (didn't fit in my monitor) and that didn't help me. If I crop up from the bottom so all flesh from legs is gone and in from the left for balance, it starts to make more sense, in fact I quite like it. Totally FWIW, but you asked.
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
chacum son égout.
Hi Doug,
I love and am pleased for the French idioms you use from time to time, but this one, unless it is a pun, is a bit wrong:

An "égout" is a sewer…
The right idiom is "A chacun son goût" (and in that case suits well your side comment): "goût" = taste

But please do continue using French!
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Nicolas,
Hi Doug,
I love and am pleased for the French idioms you use from time to time, but this one, unless it is a pun, is a bit wrong:
No, I meant just what I said!

An "égout" is a sewer…
Indeed.

The right idiom is "A chacun son goût" (and in that case suits well your side comment): "goût" = taste

Indeed that is a common expression.

But please do continue using French!
Merci, mon ami!

Best regards,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Mes amis, écoutez bien!

So, have you all looked very, carefully, (I mean meticulously), at Will Thompson’s picture to discover what was wrong with the picture even at the moment of capture!

Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Mes amis, écoutez bien!

So, have you all looked very, carefully, (I mean meticulously), at Will Thompson’s picture to discover what was wrong with the picture even at the moment of capture!

Asher
I did!
repost here for comparison(crop on right to accentuate the feeling of her mood):

3663
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
For sure, Nicolas, you improved on the presentation, which was insufficiently made, perhaps. But there is still a definite fault in a formal Portrait of a Woman!

Look even much more closely, like the Belgian Francophile, detective, Hercule Poirrot!

Asher
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
I saw from the beginning the lack of varnish on the nail of her left little finger, but that's part of the portrait!
Was this the "default" your'e talking about?
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I saw from the beginning the lack of varnish on the nail of her left little finger, but that's part of the portrait!
Was this the "default" your'e talking about?
That was Will Thompson’s clever idea! To him, “The Portrait” was ruined.

If one could notice it immediately, today it would be considered witty!

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
There is no varnish on one nail and, as was already noted, no locomotive either. So what? If this were a "formal portrait of a woman", whatever that means, we would also correct the varnish on her other fingers, the lack of makeup, the blemishes on her legs, the harsh front light, weird perspective and then probably the clothes and pose as well. Then it would be a completely different picture and, I think, not necessarily a better one. That particular picture is quite engaging, because it is not a "formal portrait" but shows what is objectively a young attractive woman in an unusual way.

Anyone can take a "formal portrait" but not anyone can take an interesting portrait.
 
Last edited:

James Lemon

Well-known member
The light is from the top producing dull eyes. As for the pose the limp arm, her legs and chair are unnecessary.Try this same pose with some better light and eliminating the unnecessary elements will produce a much stronger image.Lighting the eyes is essential for any portrait.
3665
 
Last edited:
Top