Portrait

• 

  c6h6o3

• Jan 21, 2005

Lovely. Nice photograph, too. On my monitor, however, the hair on her right temple comes across as a plugged shadow. Is there detail in the negative?

 

• FrankB

• Jan 23, 2005

Stunning. Absolutely gorgeous.

The shot is very good too!

 

• ivanakusman

• Jan 23, 2005

Excellent!

 

• Piotr Niewierowicz

• Jan 23, 2005

Beautiful work, regards

 

• 

  SchwinnParamount

• Jan 25, 2005

Can you please print this with the full frame including frame numbers? I suspect we've been had & you can show I'm wrong by demonstrating that this in fact film.

 

• 

  arigram

• Jan 26, 2005

I like it too!
Yes, the square is the best!

 

• pscl

• Jan 26, 2005

Thanks! You can look at the film here:
http://cjoint.com/data/bAkj5Rik6R.htm

 

• 

  Silverpixels5

• Jan 26, 2005

Excellent image. Wonderful lighting. Why was it necessary for him to prove its film? A bit uncalled for I think.

 

• 

  NikoSperi

• Jan 26, 2005

Remarquable, dans tous les sens du terme. This is IMO the quintessential reason for the existance of the square format: head & shoulders shots when they're done like this... *sigh*

 

• Bill Mitchell

• Jan 26, 2005

There are (so far) over 20 comments about what a beautiful picture this is. I don't understand the attraction. To me it's just another ordinary portrait of a not particularly pretty, but young woman, which could have been made at any of a thousand of commercial portrait studios, including Olan Mills. What is the big deal?