Enlightened

[rabanito]

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility to think that some photographers (or even painters?) cram into their pictures too many competing points of interest simply because of the scale on which they execute the creative work: they can't see it all in one look. Or don't believe in negative space.

Well I am aware that people looking at pictures I publish are looking at a picture of the picture.
Say, like looking at it on a catalogue and not the real thing

I assume that the pictures are going to be looked at in a calibrated monitor. The dimensions are given
I know that this is not realistic, many people use their phones or some alleatory profile, impossible to know.
The real thing is the print, IMveryHO. Seen under proper light.
What we see here is just a good approximation   

[Ivo_B]

Actually, you're touching on something else, too, beyond this specific shot.

I find that when I have to decide which of my pix are worth spending my time working on, the viewing size on the monitor plays a really major rôle, both in forming that decision, as in when doing the Photoshopping work later on. I find an image that's too large on the monitor defeats my ability to be critical of it because I see too much at once and have to scan, losing the overall emotional interest that resides in the whole.

That's also why I feel frustrated by those pictures that are published on LuLa that require me to alter their magnification by hand: they start with one strike against them.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility to think that some photographers (or even painters?) cram into their pictures too many competing points of interest simply because of the scale on which they execute the creative work: they can't see it all in one look. Or don't believe in negative space.

Observation distance seems a forgotten concept.

[KLaban]

Observation distance seems a forgotten concept.

Sadly, for many, along with the print.

[KLaban]

Actually, you're touching on something else, too, beyond this specific shot.

I find that when I have to decide which of my pix are worth spending my time working on, the viewing size on the monitor plays a really major rôle, both in forming that decision, as in when doing the Photoshopping work later on. I find an image that's too large on the monitor defeats my ability to be critical of it because I see too much at once and have to scan, losing the overall emotional interest that resides in the whole.

That's also why I feel frustrated by those pictures that are published on LuLa that require me to alter their magnification by hand: they start with one strike against them.

It's not beyond the bounds of possibility to think that some photographers (or even painters?) cram into their pictures too many competing points of interest simply because of the scale on which they execute the creative work: they can't see it all in one look. Or don't believe in negative space.

Whaddya gonna do?

Are we meant to size our images to suit the resolution of Rob C's choice of viewing device or perhaps our own? I size my web images posted to LuLa to suit my own calibrated and profiled monitor, when viewed at 100%. At the very least this enables me to view my own images as the creator - that's me, not God - intended.

;-)

[Rob C]

Found this Roversi photo which reminded me strongly of Enlightened.

Natalia Vodianova.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Nice. And not too much lip liner.

[KLaban]

Found this Roversi photo which reminded me strongly of Enlightened.

Natalia Vodianova.

This is lovely.

[RSL]

+1

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The latest iteration of LR Mobile finally provided the option to choose the size for saving a file, so here it is, at 600 px:

[Ivo_B]

Found this Roversi photo which reminded me strongly of Enlightened.

Natalia Vodianova.

You are not comparing the Roversi shot with the iPhone contraption, are you?

[Ivo_B]

The latest iteration of LR Mobile finally provided the option to choose the size for saving a file, so here it is, at 600 px:

 

Yeah, 🙂🙂

[Rob C]

You are not comparing the Roversi shot with the iPhone contraption, are you?

The operative word was reminds.

Which it obviously did.

Off to my 8:26 appointment with the local Dracula! I hope they leave some in my arm.

;-)

[rabanito]

You are not comparing the Roversi shot with the iPhone contraption, are you?

I like both almost the same.
The Slobodan one looks more natural, more "street", the title is well thought.
More human.
The Roversi one is excellent but just one more  of those of which we are more than used to see from mode photographers. More "studio"
Just my veeeery humble opinion   

I admit that I had do google "roversi". First I thought it was a camera or photographic technique.
Now i am a little wiser 

[Rob C]

All said, I think that in both shots it's not so much lipliner as lip shadow from low light. Nature and/or Botox work wonders as they also work disasters.

Also, in both these specific cases, I think Jerry Lee and I would be quite prepared to make idiots of ourselves; it's a boy thing, you know... and nobody can count past thirty-nine unless they work in a bank.

;-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Speaking of reminding... this one reminds me of the Roversi shot:

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Gee, and I thought "Roversi" was Italian for "Reversal," you know, like from Negative to Positive, like.   

[Rob C]

Speaking of reminding... this one reminds me of the Roversi shot:

And of something else much more important!

;-(

[rabanito]

Gee, and I thought "Roversi" was Italian for "Reversal," you know, like from Negative to Positive, like.   

I went that way too 

[Rob C]

Guys, guys, back to school!

;-)

[Ivo_B]

Guys, guys, back to school!

;-)

Nudi is a reference work. I was lucky to get a copy for not to much.