Critique Style Requested: Standard
The photographer is looking for generalized feedback about the aesthetic and technical qualities of their image.
Description
Last month I posted a portrait of La Calavera Catrina – the Woman of Elegant Skulls – that I’d made when attending a Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead) celebration here in my hometown of Toronto. This, then, is the second in the series of Catrina portraits. These portraits were made on the fly as I moved about the dimly lit venue, using what interior light I could find to best effect. In this one, I remembered something I’d picked up reading a commentary on DaVinci’s Mona Lisa. It noted in the commentary that she is not facing the painter square on, but that her shoulders are turned slightly away so that she had to turn her head and shift her eyes to look at the artist. It is that gesture, at least in part, that gives the painting so much of its allure. I tried to do something similar here. Not quite the Mona Lisa but I have always felt that if I’m going to steal, I might as well steal from the best. In the same vein, I was delighted that this Catrina’s smile also has an enigmatic quality but unlike in DaVinci’s painting, which was based on his vision and skill, mine was pretty much luck.
Specific Feedback
I would be very interested to hear your impressions on seeing this portrait. Do you feel drawn to lean in to know her? Does she feel alluring or intimidating (or both)? Do you feel this portrait tells you something about this woman over and above the makeup and regalia? Please don’t hesitate to be candid. With much appreciation.
Technical Details
Critique Template
Use of the template is optional, but it can help spark ideas.
- Vision and Purpose:
- Conceptual:
- Emotional Impact and Mood:
- Composition:
- Balance and Visual Weight:
- Depth and Dimension:
- Color:
- Lighting:
- Processing:
- Technical:
Hi Kerry,
Always great to see your work. This is definitely a captivating image. It is partly the makeup, but it’s also her facial expression and angle of her head. She is looking downward with her head tilted upward. To me, that is an attitude of defiance, which is consistent with her face-paint. But there’s more to it than that. There is a warmth in her look. I don’t know what words might describe warm defiance, but it’s like a welcome dare.
It might be truly her thinking here: I dare you to take my picture. You nailed it, if that was the goal or attitude you now want to convey with this.
My only nit, and I’m not sure it’s resolvable, probably is with PS, is the amount of glare off the forehead. If that can be toned down, I think the image would have feel more artistic and perhaps add depth to the emotional impact.
ML
1 Like
I think this works, Kerry. There is an allure contrasting with the dangerous feeling created by the death mask. I think the shininess that Marylynne noted is due to the lighting and face paint. There might be a technique that the portrait folks have developed to handle that, but I certainly don’t know it. To me the woman under the mask comes through very well in this portrait. My personal preference has always been to try to get people to turn their heads a little when being photographed (usually just my wife and I and she doesn’t cooperate).
1 Like
I think this portrait works very well at depicting both the makeup and the mood. I agree with your assessment on the shoulder turn and smile.
Who says the 50mm focal length is boring?
1 Like
@Marylynne_Diggs , @Dennis_Plank , @Jim_Erhardt - thank you all for taking the time to comment, much appreciated. Regarding the glare on her forehead: I did tone it down considerably but, keeping in mind that this is a street not a studio portrait, I felt that taking it down even more started looking weird considering where the light is coming from and how it plays, not only on her forehead but her nose, upper lip etc.
My late father-in-law was a renowned photographer here in Canada. He shot everything hand held, verite regardless of whether he was shooting “art”, photojournalism, or advertising. And I look at his work (we are fortunate to have many of his photographs hanging in our home) and it feels to me that if people, photographers in particular, now in the digital age of photography were to look at his work there would be so many complaints about “crushed” blacks and “blown out” highlights to the extent that the essence of the photograph, what made it worth being, would be completely lost. But these photographs are great not because they are technically perfect but because they have heart and soul. I think with the advent of digital photography we have become obsessed with technical perfection and our tendency to remove anything that might “draw the eye”, a term I’m finding increasingly annoying. It can be a concern, for sure, but man, we, as photographers, get so picky that we lose sight of what we’re even looking at. The human eye/brain is quite capable of making adjustments. It is the difference between “seeing” and “perceiving”. Please forgive the rant. I do appreciate the chance to blow off some steam.
Kerry, without quoting your entire point, I have to whole heartedly agree with all of it!
Photographs are recorded by photographers, illustrations are created by graphic designers. The world of digital photography continues to blur the line between the two with each new advance in digital hardware and processing software.
At what point does a photograph become an illustration? Now there’s a rabbit hole to explore…
1 Like
