HOME | DD
demony β Diva
Published: 2006-05-01 14:19:49 +0000 UTC; Views: 2592; Favourites: 63; Downloads: 155
Redirect to original
Description
I see her here as some jazz diva...I can imagine her singing like somebody between Patsy Cline and Erykah Badu...
Eventhoug there's no smoke nor smokey eyes... I can feel that smoke coming from a jazzy night.
I hope you can too.
Model: Darja
wearing a real-hair wig
β’ Mony β’
thanks a lot for your feedback
Related content
Comments: 54
She's beautiful. The shadows/lightning in the picture are just fine, good work on this one.
π: 0 β©: 0
I like this one because it seems to be one of your more dark themed pieces. There is something strict and enigmatic in her expression.
π: 0 β©: 1
i never perceived that way.. as dark.
but now that you pointed it out...
yup... quite dark.
π: 0 β©: 0
Malo prejak kontrast, no izvanredan kadar i poza
π: 0 β©: 1
jos uvijek si razmisljam jesam li taj "starinski dimni" feeling mogla stvoriti drugacije...
π: 0 β©: 0
Svidja mi se prica ali kao da nedostaje nesto, mozda dio koji daje osjecaj da je ona ipak okruzena gomilom ljudi koji su je dosli vidjeti tu vecer, znaci neka dinamika u njenom izrazu.
Izvedba mi je stvarno odlicna jedino da nisi koristila to bijelo perje (mozda crno) nekako mi odvlaci paznju sa fenomenalne rasvjete.
π: 0 β©: 1
mozda... ima tu prostora za igranje, naravno...
rado slusam savjete i ideje...
sto sw tice crnog perja - imala sam i tamnoljubicasto.. ali nije ni upola efektno kao ovo.
π: 0 β©: 0
i feel very differently. then it would be ordinary.
this was it's kinda mystic... 
π: 0 β©: 1
Focused is hardly ordinary, my friend. I'm a huge proponant on moments before status quo, but you have to understand that, as a photographer, I see you shot at f/8 and 1/20, so the movement you see is camera blur. Not everyone will know this, but those savvy in the art of photography will quickly put two and two together.
So looking at the image and seeing the lack of focus makes me think automatically think "amateur", even if you aren't.
Don't get me wrong; it's fine to have blurry images. That's okay. Especially if it's subject blur because that's the moment. Look at the images of Mario Testino. He has tons of blurry crap, but they're good. And you can look at them and see past it.
Whereas here, I cannot. The EXIF and my knowledge of photography won't allow me to. There isn't anything mystical about this photograph, only it could've been shot better. Even if you had a 3.5 lens, you could've shot this at 3.5 and 1/60 and achieved the same result. Maybe even had asked your subject to tilt back and forth to make the blur actual and not a fault on your part.
And that's my honest opinion. To which I'm entitled. After all, you posted this on dA, where people can comment back with their opinions, so I suspect you had a slight inkling that someone might say something.
Cheers and good luck next time.
π: 0 β©: 1
maybe it's just the "terminology" problem here.
not-focused-in-the-neat-way (by lens) or long exposition - those two methods give you blurry images, right?
not completely the same type of blur, but you see the point.
it's not sharp on purpose.
(please, correct me if i'm wrong in any of this...)
Testino is a pro, with tons of gear and experience. And I don't care if I'm just an amateur. 
I'm definitely not a pro. ... Labor of love. By all means.
and yeah... if you have something to say about my work - bring it on, babe
i can deal with critique.
p.s. i checked your gallery, again. you're good.
π: 0 β©: 1
There's a few different types of blur, you're right.
The first is camera shake, when the photograph shoots at an aperture not suitable to the light conditions OR at an shutter speed of 1/60 or below. Which would be a "long" exposure, sorta. I kinda consider anything in the low fraction amount to be long and anything about 1/15 to be manageable. But you're right, those are some of the types. And they blur differently.
But the way I experienced this image is that it's composed nicely and set up perfect...and then it looks like you chose the wrong aperture or something because it's just out of focus.
Take a look at this photos:
This one was handheld at 1/30! [link] And you can see how it was more of a freeze of the moment because of the settings, the model, the entire image.
Now take a look at this one: [link] What if I'd blurred her just a little by using a slow shutter? It'd look sloppy. Not because I didn't intend for it to happen, but because the framing and the actual image lends itself to be focused.
That's pretty much my point. Something I had to learn the hard way with critiques from pro photographers and long discussions on blurring and such. I used to be a focus freak. Now I see the focus as a means to the end.
In this image, because it's set up like in a studio and such and looks elegant, having it blur looks sloppy, not artistic. To me, at least. Others may disagree, but others aren't working, career portrait photographers.
I'm glad you were able to respond intelligently and discuss this. I didn't want to come off like an asshole, but I always try to be honest and if that means speaking my mind and possibly offering an input you normally wouldn't receive on dA, then so much the better, yes?
Testino shoots very...interestingly. He was a waiter before he became a photographer and often uses one camera for his shoots. And I've heard he does his studio stuff by tilting the lights around until they look cool.
I've had little formal training in photography. Nearly everything I've learned is from experience, internships, jobs, and late fees at the library. I shoot on feeling, to be honest, but the technical aspect has to be respected. Not adhered to, but respected.
And thank you for the kind words; I always try my best.
π: 0 β©: 1
Glad we understand each other..
π: 0 β©: 1
very nice portrait, my favourite of your last pictures.
like the expression and the light. nice work !
your portraits are better each time, keep up the good work
π: 0 β©: 1
strong expression and soft lighting... very elegant i think... all
π: 0 β©: 0
I like how the dark frames her face and her "knowing" gaze.
π: 0 β©: 1
yeah, she really knows something. some smart secrect.
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
dabome diva
ima divne crte lica ovdje, kosa i boa savrΕ‘eno paΕ‘u a jedino na Ε‘to imam primjedbu je da je majica van jazz Ε‘tiha, nekako mi odudara previΕ‘e stilski.
π: 0 β©: 1
meni niti odudara niti pase.
ali razumijem i tebe.
thanks
π: 0 β©: 0
the atmosphere in this hit me like a brick when i saw the picture! this is a completely different feeling and emotion from the other recent 'sweetheart' picture, and since i just got done viewing it, this was a total change of direction! she doesn't even look like the same person anymore!
this is probably my favorite time in history, maybe besides WWII, the Jazz Era is just so full of life.
great job on capturing such emotion, very sensual portrait
π: 0 β©: 1
even so many years after... I still love to read your comments.
thank you.
so so much.
π: 0 β©: 0
pozornica, sotro svijetlo, i bend koji pocinje svirati na klaviru, saksofonu i trubi
neznam ako bi vise pasalo da su ostri rubovi ili ovako lagano zamuceno... ovako ipak podsjeca na neku stariju sliku...
π: 0 β©: 0
predobra slika... malo blurry ali nesmeta Δak i dobro doΔe to umjesto dima.. vrlo ljepa cura... stoji joj to sve jako stylish i pogotovo ovo perje
π: 0 β©: 1
bas to... blur kao da navuce neku koprenu...
π: 0 β©: 0
wow. A wonderful photograph, and a wonderful diva
π: 0 β©: 1
thank you....
btw i like your sig. how smart!
π: 0 β©: 0
da, teΕ‘ko je reΔi iΕ‘ta drugo za nju...
π: 0 β©: 0
the 1920s or 30s (i don't know which decade) 
π: 0 β©: 1
Awsome. [I'd like to say more but i cannot find words to describe my impression]
Fav, of course x]
π: 0 β©: 1
She has a bone structure very much like that of Keira Knightly's. She looks very elegant, very knowing. I agree with the jazz-y feel. Positively love this.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>