Stills

The head and gaze are well positioned and seem to indicate a Rodin-like mood. I would have been tempted to tone down the light on the forehead just the tiniest bit even though there is nothing wrong with it as it stands. The hand coming in from the edge of the picture is a bold move: we all make assumptions and it is natural that we think that this is her hand but it could quite easily be someone else's. So that introduces ambiguity, which probably helps give the portrait an added dimension. The head and cropped shoulder capture and the careful control of background are very good.
 

I've been looking at how bright you've been presenting skin tones a lot recently. I think it works here, but you like walking a fine line.

There is something about Kate's gaze and focus that suggest that the hand does belong to somebody else.

You've managed the glasses really well. An beautiful result all round.
 

Colin, I'd not disagree with you regarding the fine line, but for the sake of knowing where others think that line lies, could you pick out one of mine that's crossed it? I'm trying to accurately represent exactly how pale Kate is. It be good to know when I'm going to far. I could chalk a lot of this up to differences in monitors, but I'm not sure that covers all of it.

If anyone else in the group can comment on this, I'd appreciate it.
 

This is beautifully done IMO, the smallest details are there --even across the forehead on my Cinema HD monitor. I love the fine hairs in the light, the shining earring and, as Colin said, the glasses are handled really well. A presumably white tank top shows very well just how pale the skin is.

Now the hand -- I like it in one way, but then I don't. It might not be her hand -- but I think it is. She looks so serene and beautifully natural, yet the hand there seems somewhat contrived since her arm is up in what, to my mind, seems like an uncomfortable position. It is not ruining the picture for me since everything else is so perfect, but I don't think I'd miss it if it were not there.
 

I don't want to over-emphasize the roll of the monitor. It's important, but I suspect that some of my prints walk the same too-bright skintones line. It's a critique that has come up before, and I'm always interested on hearing further opinions on it.

Before posting this, I dragged down the highlights quite a bit, to the point that this almost looks a bit flat to me. In this case, it could be a case of poor choice of lighting. Perhaps I should dropped the blinds a bit to control the light on her forehead.

I'll return to the questions about the hand a bit later.
 

If I saw this in an exhibition I wouldn't necessarily say that it is too light on the forehead (indeed it would depend on what the print looked like). But on my monitor (back to that) the detail on the forehead is struggling a bit and for a posed portrait maybe something like a blind as filter would help but then I'm not sure that the objective of emphasising the lightness of her skin is of such importance or, at least, can not be allowed to define itself naturally, ie, without forcing the highlights. It would be interesting to see a picture in colour!
 

Matt,

The middle shot in 'one, two, three':

http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/one-two-three/

and,

the companion shot to this Stills choice in 'delta 100'

http://www.1point4photography.com/blog/delta-100-a-few-thoughts/

That second one is interesting as, to my view, it indicates that it isn't just the absolute value of the tone, but where it is and how large it is.
 

On second look, I'd probably give the second and the third from One, Two, Three.

In the companion to the one posted here, is it the light on the shoulder that's the problem? I agree that it can't be just the absolute tonal value, as the tonal value by the numbers isn't out of line.
 

I've uploaded some modified versions here.

About the hand, I wondered about it too, but the expression on this shot was just so right, that I decided people would take the time to make sense of the hand. I hadn't thought about the mystery element that John mentions, but it's an interesting observation.
 

In the companion to the one posted here

I think it is the area around the neck that I find too white. In the version here, that part of the neck is hidden, but in the companion shot there is a bright white L that becomes the centre of (my) attention, so I end up looking over Kate's shoulder. And apart from being not the subject, there isn't enough detail to merit that amount of attention.
 

I've taken a while to comment on this image, as I am not a people photographer, but I find that this image seems to provide a lot of character about the person being photographed. As to the hand, I find that it appears to be a natural extension of the shoulder and part of image. But as photographers and familiar with professional advertising practices, we read into this the possibility of a "hand" model, but I don't think that many others would think of that. Very nice, especially the textures in the shirt and I don't have an issue with losing a forehead highlight.
 

I am at a bit of a loss trying to uderstand the discussion about Kate's forehead.

I do not find it distracting as the brightness fits in with my mind's eye picture of the illumination in the room.

Kate's forehead is not the 'whitest' object in the image and on my monitor detail/texture is easily visible across the whole of her forehead.

The histogram shows very little at peak white (Highlights on glasses & Cheek)and Kate's hair is at abs black. Technically this looks perfectly exposed to me.

What are you lot on?

:-)
 

Fair question Rex - although the answer is nothing! Matt's new attempt at his link doesn't quite work (the rework of the one here tends to leave a look of suntan). My initial comment "...there is nothing wrong with it as it stands..." seems plain enough; without the raw material to hand I cannot say how I would "...tone down the light on the forehead just the tiniest bit...". I would go along with you about imagining the illumination but maybe I expect (imagine?) some more shadow on, say, the right-hand shoulder. Better to stay with this than go as far as the reworking at the link.
 

"What are you lot on?"


A cruel, unsatisfying drug?

I think there is something to Colin's observation that it isn't the absolute value of the tones, but the way that their relationship with other tones causes your eye to wander afield from the subject.

This is nitpicking, but these nits have been bothering me for a while, so I'm thankful to have Colin poke me about them a bit. I'm also happy that the rest of the group thinks we are a bit nuts, since that means it can't be that important.

Does any of that make sense? Or do I need to finish my morning coffee before trying to write.
 

It is getting difficult now because of the history of comments and muliple peers/looks but the centre of interest for my eyes is Kate's forehead/eyebrows/glasses/eyes and my eyes move down her face and then across her hand. I think my attention seems to be more on the right of the image than the left.

Your images do have a feel or characteristic tonal range/balance which I guess comes from your work flow and or from choice. If you are happy with it then I would suggest that you stick with it. As they say you cannot please all the people all of the time!
 

Matt, I think I finally understand the "issue" being discussed with Colin about the highlighted areas, and it was instructional for me as well.

I am reminded of the lessons of painting -- the area that the light hits is where it it is good to build up the paint and add the most detail, because it is where the eye goes -- the shadows were kept "thin" and more transparent. The highest highlights are restricted to only a few places. If you have large "flat" areas of bright light, there is no interest there and the painting is not successful.

This is not the case in this image, but from his examples, I now get why Colin felt you were "walking a fine line". Thanks to both of you.
 

A good portrait. The tones work for me and the highlights increase the effect of the single hair strands very well.

As I look more and more at art I look more and more at the content and form rather than the delivery. i.e. shape, texture and meaning far outweigh any alledged blown highlights or slightly off colours or lack of sharpness. If the image has little of the former (shape, texture, meaning) then these blown bits, lack of sharpness, colour balance issues compound an already poor image.

The hand troubles me though (as they have many artists). Without it the balance of the picture would change quite dramatically from one of calm serenity to one of empty gazing. If the palm was cupping her cheek you'd probably then get in to the realms of boredom?