Help! Is this portrait that good?

I wish my passport photo was this engaging.

I think with images like this it's more to do with the viewer than the image itself.

She doesn't look utterly weary to me, and I don't necessarily see great depth of emotion either, but I'm not saying anyone's wrong if they do see that.

What I do think, though, is that

... is totally emperors-new-clothes eyewash.

However, there would have been lots of theatrical mystique going on setting up a shot with a large format film camera, so I expect that contributed to her expression.

I think it's wrong to discount the "how the gear makes you look" effect.

I think it is stunningly good.

I know ChrisA and I occassionally joust on things like B+W but I dont think this is 'eyewash', although often these kind of statements are, you will have to see this on a gallery wall and not on a computer screen to really appreciate what it is about.

Since it's you wot says this, Ken, I'm pricking my ears up a little.

Could you elaborate a bit on how large format film could give such an image "depth and timelessness" that digital couldn't achieve? Even on a gallery wall?

I mean, granted, the bigger the sensor (or neg), the bigger the print you can make, but, erm... you don't pixel peep a big print on a wall from four inches away.

... and what is this depth and timelessness anyway that comes from such things? Would you have known it was taken on film if he hadn't said?

Happy to be de-luddited.

Sadly with the arrival of Digital people seem to have lost
"The Eye" for what is a good photograph/portrait and what is
just junk It's more about what ISO was it taken at
or was it FF or APS-C. Is the AF fast?

To see what good portrait photography of people with dirty
faces is just enter "Bill Brandt images" into GOOGLE and
click the item showing images.

--

My first thought, and echoed a little by Gwyn's comments, is that this had a bias because of the subject . It's a picture of a woman competing in, what has predominantly been, a mans role.

Yes it's a subjective field but can't help but think it was chosen for the above reasons.

Good picture but I've seen some stunners and this ain't one of them.

This should have won!

http://portraitsalon.co.uk/uploads/ad62901fd24a328cb8b9d2d992df3336_small.jpg




--

A fine self portrait there Algi .

Also makes a nice change for them not to pick a picture of a wistful young redhead.

Though personally i am quite partial to ginger.

Thing with these competitions is you never get to see how many people entered or what the standard is. I've registered for entry next year. Nothing ventured nothing gained...

It looks distinctly average to me, and the fact that people are commenting on the fact that it's a woman and she doesn't have make-up on and looks dishevelled says more to me about society than it does about photography. If it had been a picture of a male jockey it would't get a second glance. The fact that it is of a woman does not turn it from an average shot into a prize-winning one imo. Her expression is certainly interesting but that's the only thing this shot has going for it. It has burned-out highlights below her left eye and on her forehead, is badly composed, and the background, while not competing for attention, does nothing except introduce the rule of thirds into the equation. I see better portraits than this every day on Flickr.

I can't help wondering what people would have said about it if a new member had posted it here for critique?