Benttree Loc: GA.

Monochromatic artistic study on female figuration.
Canon 5D M III, 24-70mm single flash with silver reflector.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Now that's artsy, in my book. That could hang on a wall in my house and probably not offend any of my friends. Well, maybe one or two... but not many. Well done.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

Excellent, remarkable !!

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

I like it, lets get it printed and framed an in a gallery.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

I rarely print things today, so I have to ask: What photo paper would do justice to this fine image ?

Benttree Loc: GA.

travelwp,
Thank you from your interest on my art.
-Question, What photopaper use on printing image as this ?
I think it is a bit on personal taste.
I would use, " Red River Aurora Natural Art" Paper.
This paper is made from cotton rag content and it has a very fine texture as well in the printer setting on,>Premium Matte<.

travelwp Loc: New Jersey

WOW, I'm in the dark ages on paper. I never heard of this paper.
Let me ask another question that will show my limited knowledge:

Is there a commercial printer, who you would trust, to recommend a paper that would make your print the best. Could you send the printer the JPG and say "please pick the paper you think would make the best final print".

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

This is the image I wrote about in another post! Why on earth would someone hang this on his wall? I'm sorry, photographer, but it's awful. The composition is terrible: there's no logic in having the body running parallel to the long side of the frame and dead in the middle; that's boring and uninteresting; the cropping of the human might appeal to a butcher's apprentice, but it eliminates any inherent beauty that might reside in the model; the cloud or haze that surrounds the image only intensifies the ambiguity of the subject. For the life of me, I don't know why anyone would post an image that, rather than celebrating the beauty of the human form, dismembers that form and places it very deliberately in a non-context.

My apologies to the photographer. I'm sure you tried, but I urge you to try landscape photography. For those who praised the image, I'd like to tell you about a bridge I'm trying to sell...

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

To rdgreenwood: Art/beauty is the in the eye of the beholder, but then I am sure you know that.

I once saw a piece of "art" in a gallery. It was a plain grey canvass about 3 x 4 feet is size. The description by the artist emphasized that it took him 17 layers of paint to get the exact shade he was looking for, and all sub-layers were part of that final look. I, on the other hand, expect that when I buy a can of paint at Home Depot one coat will hide everything underneath. So why would a gallery purchase such crap for some exorbitant sum and display it prominently on a huge wall? Art, I suppose. By comparison, Jackson Pollack's #5 intrigues me. Much as I believe anyone can dribble paint on fibreboard, I am sure my dribblings would never sell for $140 million, and I would never spend that much on ANY piece of art (luckily my meagre personal wealth amply protects me from such frivolity).

Regarding the photo in this thread, I said I could see that hanging on my wall, and travelwp obviously feels even more inclined to put it on his wall. I am also quite certain that an art critic could explain to you what makes the image appealing to some of us, but I don't have the vocabulary. In a similar manner, I can tell you if I like a certain wine, but don't ask me to explain it's bouquet, smoothness, fruitiness, finish, etc. I either like it, or I don't, and it matters not if an expert evaluates the bottle as worth $15 or $1500, because from my perspective it ends up in the same place the next day. To each his own.

And good luck selling that bridge...