D
That's the one. It is really superb seen in the flesh.
I thought it was a pair of really big knickers at first glance!
keep up the good work, much better than the plastic bag on the head (fine art portraiture...pffft).
second comment here....i think number 2 here is fantastic, only comment is the 2 catchlights in eyes, but both very good examples of portraiture, right up my street....keep up the good work, much better than the plastic bag on the head (fine art portraiture...pffft).
By definition, it tends to lack the more candid, high key or usual smiley expressions that you'd expect from a young person's portrait.
Not sure I agree with that comment and how it relates to what I've done here. Approach and the meaning?? I think you're getting too deep there... But each to his own.
I'm not going to get into a sparring match about what my approach, meaning and what I was trying to achieve with primarily my first photo... I don't entirely agree with what you're saying. I'm not a professional photographer... But I do consider myself an artist.
I posted this in a critique section so I expect to hear crit about what I've done. Doesn't mean I have to agree with you, James.
Someone, bring back the woman in the big knickers??
I'm not going to get into a sparring match about what my approach, meaning and what I was trying to achieve with primarily my first photo... I don't entirely agree with what you're saying. I'm not a professional photographer... But I do consider myself an artist.
I posted this in a critique section so I expect to hear crit about what I've done. Doesn't mean I have to agree with you, James.
Someone, bring back the woman in the big knickers??
James, do you think you can't be commissioned to produce 'fine art' work
It is a subtle nuance and not helped by the myriad of (American) photographic 'superstars' who have claimed the phrase 'fine art portraiture' as their own as a way of saying 'look at me, I'm creative!'.
But essentially it is like comparing a Gucci advert to an image from the Red Cross' work in Syria. They might both feature young women and clothes, they might both be planned shots, but they don't have the same meaning or message.
ETA: I do think the portraits in this thread are great though. Really lovely. I just don't agree that they're 'fine art'.
The winner, a female jockey, brilliant but I am not sure of the 'deep' meaning, however it does have a point and it is trying to say something emotionally.
I posted on this a while ago. To me the picture was meaningful because it showed the everyday face of a woman in a sport dominated by men. A sport where women and men can compete as equals - there aren't many sports where you can do that. Off the top of my head perhaps just motorsports and equine sports? To me it was also making a point about how female sports stars don't need to be dressed up in evening gowns, fancy hair cut and precision make up in order to be considered worthy for public display. Something particularly relevant in our post-Olympic phase, where we've seen male commentators having to apologise for comments they've made about the appearance of female sports stars. The wearyness, the dirt, the crumpled silks, it all adds up to a fantastic portrait of a female sports star - as they should be portrayed - in a way that respects their achievements.
And that was before I read the card.
(Before I get jumped on - I should add that my particular interests in art lie around outsider/queer/feminist interpretations which is why I 'saw' this reading without prompting.)
Don't suppose you care to share how you lit these?