Silena1

• 

  Drew B.

• Nov 30, 2007

I hope this was done on one of our most recent warmer days....but the backlighting seemed to work perfectly here.

 

• 

  Gustavo_Castilla

• Nov 30, 2007

it is here so here it goes
ask your self what is the point of this image? why will I show it ?
the light is bad hot spots all over the place and the tree is gone to black ,terrible pose snap shot like there is no focus wjat are you trying to communicate?

 

• 

  Ed Sukach

• Dec 1, 2007

*Interesting* critique, Gustavo. I can only wonder at the intensity of your reaction...
I'll answer: "Hot spots" occur in nature ... sunlight reflected from water, street lamps after dark. I *CHOOSE* to have them here - to express the brilliance of the light. Everything in this world is not expressed as muted shades of pastels.
Wajt am I trying to "communicate"? - The joie de vivre, the sense of freedom - the emotional state of the model - and me, too.
I sense that this does not satisfy YOUR criteria for "excellence". All well and good - this image DOES satisfy MINE.

 

• 

  Mick Fagan

• Dec 1, 2007

Ed, I think the picture works better for me with the top 10mm or 12mm removed. With that bright section gone, the beautiful back light hitting the model, lifts her.

Mick.

 

• 

  Gustavo_Castilla

• Dec 1, 2007

I did not wanted to come across as mean and nasty , you listed it on the critic gallery
and I just wanted you to know my opinion , I just find the hot spots distracting ( too much negative space in the foreground )

 

• 

  Ed Sukach

• Dec 1, 2007

Nor did I, Gustavo.
I appreciate your honesty - although I disagree with your evaluations. You proposed a few "questions" - and I answered them. Our styles are quite different - but that does not prove that either is "superior" ... or "terrible" ... only that they are different.

 

• Dave Wooten

• Dec 1, 2007

ditto what Mick said, and it helps the shadow enhance the comp and the leading line to and through the length of the figure adds (to me) visual strength.

 

• 

  JohnArs

• Dec 1, 2007

I fully disagre with all the critic already done!
My only critic is, it is to small to view for really make a good critic!
There was an very old rule from 2 or 3 photogs generations ago that a picture has to be at least 10x15 cm large to give an impact, so the old postcard size was born!
On my 96 pixel hyresolution monitor the picture is much to small, to get an impact at all! The face looks also not so sharp on my monitor, but still it is to small to see if its really not sharp.
My two cents at all, Armin
For me the composition and light looks quite okay!

 

• pentaxuser

• Dec 2, 2007

If I had to sum up my reaction here in two words It is innocence and wholesomeness. It might sound crazy but if I met her here while walking the dog, I'd have a pleasant "good morning" sort of conversation with her. By any normal standard she is out of place in the sense that you'd never see such a person undressed in the woods but her state of undress isn't what impacts on me as being out of place. The vibrations emanating here have little or nothing to do with her nudity.

It is not an unusual picture but creates in me an unexpected reaction.

pentaxuser

 

• 

  jd callow

• Dec 2, 2007

Theres a naked woman standing in the woods with a grin and pose that might suggest that she is seeing a long lost friend. Works for me.