Well, here it's just the woman (a very beautiful woman, at that), without some plant in the foreground forcing her blurred image back. That's why I like this one better. Also, she has those deep-pool eyes, and there's just a hint of Veronica Lake about her too.

Gosh. You mean you prefer a nice—but fairly straightforward and ordinary—photo of a very beautiful woman over an Artistic Statement in which that same woman becomes an Integrated—but blurry—Design Element in the Pictorial Gestalt? Who'da thunk? Go figure…

You're probably right though—sometimes art is at its best when it's subtle rather than blatant. Besides, she has those deep-pool eyes.

(Do I detect a member of the Nairobi Tro in your user icon?)

I may not know anything about photography, but I like to think I know something about good-looking women.

That icon is from the 1969 Westercon Masquerade, and somebody just happens to have caught David Gerrold and me in the same frame.

Indeed. Let it never be said that asimovberlioz doesn't know anything about good-looking women.

So … David Gerrold is one of the Narobi Trio? Then what about the elevator boy?

I was going to say she has a hint of Natalie Wood about her. Especially around the eyes.

Natalie Wood? I hadn't noticed but, by golly, I think you're right. Natalie Wood, eh? Hmmmm. Interesting…

Thanks for the insight!

This is a very striking portrait. The previous ... eh ... was nice enough but seemed, if you'll pardon the pun, unfocused.

Thanks!

Phui. "Unfocused" he said. ptu, ptu, ptu!

I was cautious about commenting on the first picture (maybe like the other commentators). The previous one, with the focus thing, is not conventional and is a more arty photo, which makes it tougher to go find the language to talk about art. As viewers we instinctively want to see the other human face clearly, and expect that if it were a conventional "portrait" that she would expect a clear focus, too. So this human feels automatic embarrassment and caution, just in case something was 'wrong', and I'd get in trouble for saying anything. 8)

But it's not 'wrong' -- and that's why you published the flower-focus photo. The focus is on the blossom of the photo, but we humans can't ignore the other human in the picture (she's emphatically part of the composition/layout . The foreground of the blossom is out of focus; the background of the blossom is out of focus. The image compares her to the blossom and makes her an out-of-focus part of the flower -- emphasized by the colors. The flower picture will grow on people -- like some sort of orchid flower perched on top of their memories.... 8D

Now, this picture up above is more the classical portrait. Easier to talk about. It appears deceptively casual. Very sophisticated in balance. The color and pattern of the blouse print becomes very important in the picture -- balanced by the grey in the background and the cold white light from the window. (That's the arty-analytical.)

The arty-feeling: A winter portrait of someone warm and alive. Fire in the winter room. Maybe fire behind glass? The room is still cool.

Wow! Thanks!

Interesting. Very thoughtful, very thought-provoking, very insightful. Well said. I bow.

The broken fence. Glimpses of mysteries within.

Your comment made me think of this:

 

Edited at 2008-02-29 03:08 am (UTC)

bows