Young lady portrait (Page 2): Different photo, almost entirely, for me. Interesting in a different way.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

steve DeMott wrote:

Thanks Erich br Glad you agree with me on the colo... (show quote)

Different photo, almost entirely, for me. Interesting in a different way.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

steve DeMott wrote:

If you took away the face, would the silhouette & black area be the subject or the graduated background to the black area. Would the photo still be as interesting?

For me, this version is the most interesting one yet. Leave it to our imaginations as to who the figure is (what he/she looks like), and what is being observed as the figure now appears to be turned away from the camera. The subject is the figure, but the story is much bigger than that. And absolutely dependent on the contrasts of light and shadow.

MattPhox Loc: Rhode Island

steve DeMott wrote:

Thanks Erich br Glad you agree with me on the colo... (show quote)

I still like it better with the young ladie's face visible. I think the human interaction of her looking at you is a plus.

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

Linda From Maine wrote:

For me, this version is the most interesting one yet. Leave it to our imaginations as to who the figure is (what he/she looks like), and what is being observed as the figure now appears to be turned away from the camera. The subject is the figure, but the story is much bigger than that. And absolutely dependent on the contrasts of light and shadow.

Thanks Linda. Amazing how a little change can make a complete different perspective on how we look and think about a photo.

Steve

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

MattPhox wrote:

I still like it better with the young ladie's face visible. I think the human interaction of her looking at you is a plus.

Thanks Matt
I still like the first photo with the visible face. Then Erich got me thinking about other changes and how it would look without the face and if it would improve the photo or not.

Steve

StevenG Loc: Long Island, NY

steve DeMott wrote:

Thanks for your comment dpullum
I went back and forth whether to leave all the upper. In the end I felt that it gave the image a little more mystical mood.

Here's the same photo with the upper cropped.

I like this one much better.
Steve

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

dpullum wrote:

I see the left-right being well balanced, the gradient shadow excellent. You are right, this is a B/W photo and color would only diminish its excellence.

IMO, way too much upper, bring down to a 8x10 landscape would focus my eyes and I would stop looking for some story in the vast upper. In cropping do not lose any of the left or right side they are el'perfectO.

I agree.

artBob Loc: Near Chicago

dpullum wrote:

I see the left-right being well balanced, the gradient shadow excellent. You are right, this is a B/W photo and color would only diminish its excellence.

IMO, way too much upper, bring down to a 8x10 landscape would focus my eyes and I would stop looking for some story in the vast upper. In cropping do not lose any of the left or right side they are el'perfectO.

We seem to be having a discussion that reveals where "the eye of the beholder" or "it's a matter of taste" fit in comments or a critique. In such discussions, the principles of composition and technique are not up for grabs ("whatever you like is fine, don't pay any attention to the "rules'), but how to apply them and which take precedence in the viewer's emotional and mental makeup.

Yes. a crop would have caused the viewer to "stop looking for some story in the vast upper." The composition and technique would remain fine. However, some of us, aware of the principle to avoid useless space, see the space as essential to the intent of th photograph, the unknown emptiness, perhaps fear, loneliness, or some other, that is causing the figure to feel small.

The "eye of the beholder" is not about essentials here as I see it, but about what is important to the viewer emotionally or mentally.

Wasabi

without the face it is even more etherial and mysterious. Can you highlight one eye in the dark version?

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

Wasabi wrote:

without the face it is even more etherial and mysterious. Can you highlight one eye in the dark version?

Yes. Gotta go to work right now. I'll post later tonight or tomorrow

NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

I am going to sound like I can’t make a decision. I actually like all three versions. The first one for the B/W the yin yang of the lighting. Along with all the extra space above the model. The second for its subtle color. And finally the last one for its mysterious look.

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

I like it, but think too much “stuff” above her head.

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

Wasabi wrote:

without the face it is even more etherial and mysterious. Can you highlight one eye in the dark version?

Tried several different ideas with highlighting 1 eye. Sorry to say it didn't work out well. If you would like to try I would like to see what you had in mind.

Steve

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Steve,
I think this a strong, indeed, a powerful image, all the more so by inclusion of the space above the subject.
The “space above” reinforces awareness of the subject’s tentative entry into a slim slice of luminance between two somber, dark zones. In fact, I suggest cropping from the right about half of the dead black zone from which she is emerging to further enhance her isolation, perhaps tenuous, between the two, similarly ominous and prevailing dark realms.

Dave

Wasabi

steve DeMott wrote:

Tried several different ideas with highlighting 1 eye. Sorry to say it didn't work out well. If you would like to try I would like to see what you had in mind.

Steve

Am a 'stranger in a strange land' with PP. Will venture forth later and if anything gets close will let you know.