Staphanie

[Chataignier]

Taken in a local chateau, lit by a gap in the shutters.

[Geoff F]

A rather dark and 'moody' portrait but I like it. What do our portrait experts think about this image?

[AntonioCorreia]

I, without being an expert in portrait analysis, believe this is a beautiful portrait, an image defined by a very interesting and well-crafted use of light.

Even so, it seems to me that the chest area is excessively illuminated, an excess of light that resonates with some visual disturbance on the left side of the image. The placement of the hand, a simple yet effective gesture, contributes positively to the composition and helps to balance the overall image.
In the end, it remains a very accomplished portrait, a carefully considered image where even the catch lights appear in a discreet and elegant way.

[Manfred M]

David - Let me make some comments from a portrait photography standpoint,

First of all, this is an effective, dramatic image, I works well.

I'm going to look at the image in detail so some of my comments are going to be about the nuances we see here.

This images uses a short light approach where the camera was pointed at the side of the face away from the key (main) light.. The actual lighting is somewhere between butterfly lighting (the way the shadow falls beneath the model's nose) and loop lighting, which creates a shadow that is cast by the nose. Both are used in beauty photography and are appropriate here. The lighting nicely sculpts the model's bone structure; look at the shadow cast by the cheek bone as well as the shadow cast by the collarbone.

In portraiture we usually try to not have the nose touch or cross the cheekbone as that often results in the back eye to look a little bit strange. That doesn't really happen here, so this is successful.

Let me get into some things that don't quite work that well for me. As Antonio has already stated, the chest is quite bright and competes with the face. Flagging the light to reduce the amount of light hitting the chest is usually the way this is handled. With the dark background, which is used to add drama on a model with dark hair and a dark dress results in those areas merging with the background. This is a place where we would normally use a rim light and possibly a hair light as well to create that separation. I also find that there is a strange orange colour cast on the forehead and especially on the neck.

The hand looks a bit strange as well. It is closer to the light source than the rest of the model and that doesn't really make any sense visually. A different pose with the hand out of frame would have been something worth considering.

Geoff - is this what you were looking for in your comment?

[Chataignier]

First of all, apologies to Stephanie, I managed to miss the typo in the title.
Thanks for the comments.
I agree with both Manfred and Antonio. Much could have been done to improve the lighting. However, this was not a planned shoot, we were just walking around the chateau looking for locations to shoot later in the day. Steph opened the shutters a little and I saw the opportunity and pressed the button. A grab shot.
Regarding the mod to tone down her chest - I see why you did it, but I dont really like the result. I'll think about it !
As for the hand, it was flagged by the left hand shutter. I quite liked the effect, but it was not planned.
Steph is one of my favourite amateur models, striking appearance, great figure and fun to work with. Sadly I cant publish many of the more revealing photos as she is a senior medical professional and has to consider what her patients might think. Damn !

[Geoff F]

That is basically what I was thinking, Manfred, but I knew you could explain it better than me.

My only additional thoughts are that her forehead has a rather bright area compared with the rest of her face.

I like the way her hair jewellery and ear rings produce a balancing effect between the brighter areas and dark hair/background.

Sometimes a quick shot works well.

[AntonioCorreia]

There is an aspect here that seems particularly interesting to me and that might be worth exploring further and that is this almost contemporary obsession with the impeccable image, the right image, clean, well lit according to the rules and composed with almost mathematical rigour, a kind of normative ideal that often imposes itself even before the act of looking.

However, there are also images that do not faithfully comply with these rules and that still, or perhaps precisely because of that, prove to be deeply impactful, imperfect yet alive images with their own plastic value, unexpected and at times innovative, capable of generating tension, emotion and thought.

The presence of the hand feels meaningful because the body posture suggests a pause, a moment of stillness, as if the figure had stopped to observe something emerging from the direction of the light.

It reads as an instinctive gesture, almost surprised, the hand acting as a natural support, a quiet point of contact with the surface that was simply there at that moment.

[Manfred M]

First of all, apologies to Stephanie, I managed to miss the typo in the title.
Thanks for the comments.
I agree with both Manfred and Antonio. Much could have been done to improve the lighting. However, this was not a planned shoot, we were just walking around the chateau looking for locations to shoot later in the day. Steph opened the shutters a little and I saw the opportunity and pressed the button. A grab shot.
Regarding the mod to tone down her chest - I see why you did it, but I dont really like the result. I'll think about it !
As for the hand, it was flagged by the left hand shutter. I quite liked the effect, but it was not planned.
Steph is one of my favourite amateur models, striking appearance, great figure and fun to work with. Sadly I cant publish many of the more revealing photos as she is a senior medical professional and has to consider what her patients might think. Damn !

Thanks for the additional information about this image. Many of your previous portraits were done in a studio with good lighting setups and I had assumed that this image was similar to those.

Regardless, my comments still apply.

[Manfred M]

There is an aspect here that seems particularly interesting to me and that might be worth exploring further and that is this almost contemporary obsession with the impeccable image, the right image, clean, well lit according to the rules and composed with almost mathematical rigour, a kind of normative ideal that often imposes itself even before the act of looking.

However, there are also images that do not faithfully comply with these rules and that still, or perhaps precisely because of that, prove to be deeply impactful, imperfect yet alive images with their own plastic value, unexpected and at times innovative, capable of generating tension, emotion and thought.

The presence of the hand feels meaningful because the body posture suggests a pause, a moment of stillness, as if the figure had stopped to observe something emerging from the direction of the light.

It reads as an instinctive gesture, almost surprised, the hand acting as a natural support, a quiet point of contact with the surface that was simply there at that moment.

Antonio - I don't follow a formulistic approach when I look at images, but rather I look at what works well and what works less well in terms of the image having a strong impact on the viewer.

Creating a dramatic look has many components that have to be controlled. The model, the pose, the outfite, background and especially the lighting. Anything that has a positive impact on the image needs to be identified so that people reading the posts gain understanding. The same thing goes for things that have not worked out as well.

There are many lighting techniques that can be used to add drama to a scene. Some work well when the subjects are athletes (of either gender), while others work better with a more feminine model (which we see here given the outfit, makeup and jewellry).

The most important aspect of any portrait is the representation of the model and when the model blends into the background, some of this impact is lost.

[Round Tuit]

I would tend to agree with Antonio here. Sometimes, getting the maximum impact results in loosing "the moment". I see this too often in photo club competitions where a judge will completely miss the intend of the photographer and quote some "good practise" to give a low rating to an exceptional photo. The first question we should ask ourselves when evaluating a photo is "What was the photographer trying to show us". Then we can comment on how well he or she did and perhaps suggest improvements.

[AntonioCorreia]

It is quite curious how André aligns in some way with my perspective by recognising that the power of an image lies in its emotional impact rather than just the application of predefined formulas.
This agreement reminds us that an entire universe exists beyond technical mastery and blind obedience to the canons of traditional photography where an image that is overly governed and "proper" runs the risk of becoming sterile.

By accepting the hand in the shadows or the lack of rim lighting we allow the photograph to breathe and communicate a deeper and less filtered truth, one that is more spontaneous as noted by the fact that this was not a planned shoot but rather a moment of discovery while wandering through the chateau.

These departures from what is considered ideal are precisely what lend plasticity and character to an original project transforming the absence of norms into a conscious gesture that invites reflection and the celebration of the immediate moment.

[Round Tuit]

Antonio,

As far as I have observed, at least with the "regular" contributors to this site, everybody recognises that the power of an image lies with its emotional impact. When we comment on a photo we strive to see what the photographer's intent was and suggest ways that we feel would make his or her photo better depict that intent. There are no formula to do that. Sometimes we may feel that sharp is better than soft, sometimes its the other way around.

Just as you suggested that the chest area was too bright, we suggest what we feel would improve David's photo. He is free to give consideration to our suggestions or ignore them. I don't understand where you got the impression that we are trying to enforce some kind of rule. Photography is much like cooking; there are no rules but some best practice exist in both domain. I doubt that adding garlic to an apple pie would work well. Cinnamon on the other hand is pretty well garanteed to be w**ell received.

Manfred usually goes one step further than simply suggesting some improvement and freely shares his knowledge and experience to show how different technique can be used to better convey certain feelings. I, for one, appreciate this gift.

[AntonioCorreia]

André,
It is quite curious how André aligns in some way with my perspective by recognising that the power of an image lies in its emotional impact rather than just the application of predefined formulas.
I would like to clarify that I immensely value the comments and the knowledge that Manfred shares here, as they are lessons of incalculable generosity and worth.

If my way of expressing myself seemed, in any way, an attempt to impose a criticism or undervalue the rules, I apologise for the misunderstanding, as my intention is precisely the opposite.
What I seek is simply to share a way of looking that is perhaps less focused on technique and more attentive to the spontaneity of the moment, much like what happened during this walk through the chateau where discovery took precedence over planning.

By accepting the hand in the shadows or the lack of rim lighting, we are not denying best practices, but rather making room for a rawer and more immediate truth. These small imperfections are, for me, a way of celebrating life as it presents itself, while maintaining full respect for the mastery and rigour that André and Manfred represent so well.

[Round Tuit]

André,
It is quite curious how André aligns in some way with my perspective by recognising that the power of an image lies in its emotional impact rather than just the application of predefined formulas.
I would like to clarify that I immensely value the comments and the knowledge that Manfred shares here, as they are lessons of incalculable generosity and worth.

If my way of expressing myself seemed, in any way, an attempt to impose a criticism or undervalue the rules, I apologise for the misunderstanding, as my intention is precisely the opposite.
What I seek is simply to share a way of looking that is perhaps less focused on technique and more attentive to the spontaneity of the moment, much like what happened during this walk through the chateau where discovery took precedence over planning.

By accepting the hand in the shadows or the lack of rim lighting, we are not denying best practices, but rather making room for a rawer and more immediate truth. These small imperfections are, for me, a way of celebrating life as it presents itself, while maintaining full respect for the mastery and rigour that André and Manfred represent so well.

Antonio,
You are probably right that we are misunderstanding each other while at the same time being quite in agreement.

I don't consider that the hand in the shadow or the lack of rim lighting are small imperfections that need to be corrected and I don't think that Manfred does so either. The alternative that we offer are for the photographer and the viewers to consider. The purpose of the exercise is to provide a learning experience and broaden up our collective horizon. None of us ever has to accept any of the suggestions made by anybody but giving them due consideration will enrich our photographic experience.

[Manfred M]

André,
It is quite curious how André aligns in some way with my perspective by recognising that the power of an image lies in its emotional impact rather than just the application of predefined formulas.
I would like to clarify that I immensely value the comments and the knowledge that Manfred shares here, as they are lessons of incalculable generosity and worth.

If my way of expressing myself seemed, in any way, an attempt to impose a criticism or undervalue the rules, I apologise for the misunderstanding, as my intention is precisely the opposite.
What I seek is simply to share a way of looking that is perhaps less focused on technique and more attentive to the spontaneity of the moment, much like what happened during this walk through the chateau where discovery took precedence over planning.

By accepting the hand in the shadows or the lack of rim lighting, we are not denying best practices, but rather making room for a rawer and more immediate truth. These small imperfections are, for me, a way of celebrating life as it presents itself, while maintaining full respect for the mastery and rigour that André and Manfred represent so well.

I understand where you are coming from, Antonio. When I critique an image I generally try to tell people what is working well and what is not working as well from the standpoint of the impact the image makes on the viewer. I tend to not talk about rules per se, but rather items that create strong impact and explain why this works. I also spend time explaining when something the maker has done does not work as well as it could. Things that have little or no impact on the final image don't need to be part of the critique.

In my view, the lack of separation between the subject and the background reduces the impact of this image. Everything about what David appears to be trying to accomplish is to accentuate his striking model. Striking, dramatic models don't fade into the background. They pop off the screen. That is not happening here, in my view.

The one thing I do have to remind people of that what I am doing is stating my own opinion. The opinion of others is equally valid. The important thing is that the readers understand the various opinions and understand what the various writers are saying. There is no right answer here, but rather different views on the effectiveness of the posted shot.