Hi, Ana. Thanks for your comment. I knew you would notice that this had been posted before, inverted from what you see here:

http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/dramatic-light/response/132/

What I think is unusual about this photo, perspective-wise, is that this is right side up. The featured version is actually upside down, but lit and photographed to look right side up.

To me, this image looks upside down, but it is not. The model is sitting on a stool (with weights on her feet) and is simply doing a backbend toward the camera.

Because the main lighting is coming from the floor and the background goes from dark to light (as opposed to the usual light to dark), it was intended to fool the eye.

Thanks, George. I have a shot in mind for this theme that you will love, if I can find some agreeable models.

Most of the featured images, while strikingly beautiful, haven't illustrated so much "unusual" perspectives, but extreme perspectives. There are notable exceptions, of course.

The perspective on this is actually perfectly normal. It is the model's pose and the lighting that make it appear to be unusual.

Thanks for your comment and the high marks.

Now I never would have figured this as being someone sitting down, and honestly, I certainly didn't figure this for a woman....

Great shot, all the same. :)

King, I hope you can find some models. If Mark was around you know he'd be agreeable.

Photoshopped then. Another King classic.

duncmc...No! Not Photoshopped. This was shot in around 1988 and is a straight photograph, other than dodging burning, etc.

The biggest problem was the delicate combination of lighting and burning in to get her back to fade to dead black where it meets her black leotard (which was pulled down to her hips), to get the leotard to disappear into the black velvet that was draped across the stool, and to blend that with the black background.

@photoaddiction...It was intended to be shown inverted, where the shape reminds me of gull wings.

@dunmc...thanks!

@!ArneG...thanks. Do you prefer this version (right side up) or the other version (upside down)?

Masterfully done King. Perhaps I should have said "post processed" rather than Photoshopped. All the more impressive knowing this was processed "conventionally".

* knew it ;)

Congrats King! A well deserved feature.

Great technique. Sitting down you say, I would love to meet her.

It just messes with your head trying to work it out.

mooch,

She's dancing on Broadway and making films now. Her name is Dee Dee Weathers. You can find her on the International Movie Database:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0915770/

@mooch...forgot to say thanks. What you see here is pretty much what you'd see if you were sitting next to the camera, except that you'd clearly be able to see her leotard, the stool she's sitting on and most of the set. This was shot with a Hasselblad (square negative), so there was more on the negative than I needed for this horizontal crop.

@George...thanks! I haven't found your entry in this theme yet. I've been extremely busy and didn't start participating until this morning, so haven't rated all the images yet.

Amazing film photography work; yeah, dodging and burning in Photoshop is never quite as perfect as in the dark room. I'm still wondering where you standing while taking this shot :-).

speachless

@unikidd...thank you!

@Haiete...the camera is perfectly horizontal and level, exactly at the eye level of the subject. This was shot in my living room after I closed my photography studio and went back to school, so there wasn't much room to get fancy with the perspective. Had to do it with lights.

I'm miore than happy to see this shot with this theme, because it was one of the images that were on my mind when I submitted this theme as a request.

I still love it.

@bioLarzen,
Your theme as stimulated a lot of interest and some *great* :>) photographs.

What a compliment. Thank you! I'm also pleased that you don't seem to mind my submitting the same photograph twice, only right-side up this time.

Why should I? It's a great photo and I'm happy to see it more than once.

Plus, it's not at all against any of the rules, right?