IvetII

Her eyes penetrate. Beautiful image. Stunning capture.

Kudos Ivet!

There's much to like in this portrait, and I won't repeat what has already been said by

others. But at the same time, the subject has the look of buffed plastic, which is clearly a

digital effect. If this is the look that the artist wanted, then she should be pleased.

Would Arthur Rimbaud turned... green looking at this pic... may be not!

funny why no comment about that greenish tone relative to the serious and mature expression.

funny also why green is symbol for both youth and gloom...

despite the cool, coldish green, the atmosphere is warm, thanks to skin and reflection inhairs probably... well an interesting, troubling photo, ... like a poem...

thanks for posting and for POW

Too green and bilious. Balance it out and brighten a bit and it'll be much more pleasing.

Technically speaking it is not very good. Lots of digital artifacts (noise?) in the background. As a portrait it is almost perfect, however.

It's just the girl. Looks weary. Nothing to do in her boring life? She's probably 11 as I've read in a comment under another photo of her. Children have pretty much free time. She just has nothing to do, I think. And yes, she looks pretty and intelligent. Maybe that's the key. Waiting for something big to happen in her life.

I like this. This is a nice relective portrait with outrageous tonality that doesn't dominate skin tones. The background (not the skin tones, though) almost reminds me of that famous annie liebowitz photo of Iggy pop. Stark greens often don't work in some of the photos I see here, but it works here.

 

The pose looks like a standard table top pose that some start out with -- a bit lower and more pensive. I really like the heavy dogging and burning -- it's cool and influenced possibly by some of the other digital trend setters featured on this site (sort of dragonized, lite). The expression tonality and dodge and burn really make this. I think is a wonderful portrait and a great choice.

 

Thanks for sharing your work.

Although this is a fairly good portrait, there is nothing outstanding in this image and I find the background quit distracting.

the photo reminds of the color artistry in the film Amelie by Jean-Pierre Jeunet. The use of greens(as well as other colors) in that film were phenomenal. This photo reminds of the design and color scheme of that film.

I have seen this look before... it was then (and may be here) the gaze of a person who knows what they look like when photographed and how to present themselves to attain that "look".

If you peruse the portfolio, you will see that almost everyone imaged there has the same direct gaze, face in repose, with seriousness aforethought.

The photographer is a good coach, and Ivet a good student... t

Even if the look here

was

"requested" I don't think this is artiface nor do I think this is the type one practices for the

camera--especially not a child, nor most adults I have encountered. I think when one

photographs people, you run them through lots of emotions--at least requested--but that

serves to get the person somewhere and it is on the way that the magic happens. So, if a

portfolio is full of such expressions is it coaching or is it seeing? If someone is always

catching a revealing moment, as I feel this is, I certainly am willing to give them credit for

the

ability to see and react to it--if Tanya, or anyone else, can actually coach someone into

vulnerability,

then maybe

that isn't all bad.

 

Sometimes not saying anything confuses the model enough to get such a look--like the

lack of direction to get where you want to go--kinda sounds like a man driving the

highway or something tho,

sayiing it that way?!?

It is ok; it is not great, it is not art, but it is an above average

portrait or portfolio shot. On that basis alone, it is a wonderful picture, but I wouldn?t give

more than a B if a student handed it to me. There are some technical flaws that bother

me, ranging from the depth of field, to the hot spots on the forehead and nose, to the

blocked shadows just about everywhere. Some of the shadows are so blocked (especially

in the hair) that it is difficult to know where one thing ends and another begins - it might

as well have been colored in with a black marker. The highlight on the tip of the nose is

very distracting. The separation between the hair and the background is strange; in some

areas, hair detail is visible, but in others, it seems to be smudged. The wall detail looks

uneven and manipulated; areas above the bench are light, while areas behind the head are

dark. Tonality seems compressed. I get the distinct feeling contrast was increased to

mimic sharpness. The color balance seems manipulated.

 

These technical faults leave me with the visceral feeling that the photo is staged and

untrue. After more than 30 years of photographic experience, if I feel a photo is faked or

overtly manipulated, I listen to my instincts. I like the image, but I am not impressed.

However, I am impressed with the bulk of the photographer?s portfolio. The black and

white work is very nice, but I especially love her work with children (although I think the

Ivet stuff is a bit of a stereotype). The man and the mirror is a truly outstanding photo and

I wish I had been there to take it myself.

 

sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometimes a person just wants to take a beautiful picture

of a lovely child. Not everything

is symbolic, or an artistic enigma, or infused with deep meaning. Not even these remarks.

My impressions are that because of the perspective used, the arms look too thin and the head too big. But maybe that was the photographer's intention; if so, she accomplished what she set out to. As others have mentioned, it has an artificial look. Again, what is the photographer's intention?

 

One thing that really bothers me is the dark line between the lips. From my experience, I'd say it'd due to underexposure and subsequent excessive lightening in PS, but I don't have a lot of experience and I might be wrong. In any case it's a distraction to me.

 

Overall I don't really "like" the photo. But I can live with another photographer trying to accomplish something different than what I would try for, so that's ok. So artistically, though not according to my taste, I'd say give the photographer the benefit of the doubt. But technically there are some shortcomings.

"if Tanya, or anyone else, can actually coach someone into vulnerability, then maybe that isn't all bad. "... It would be an amazing (and intensely sought) ability, if one could coach the vulnerability out of an 11 year old girl.

" if a portfolio is full of such expressions is it coaching or is it seeing?"... it's a stylistic tendancy, which, like any other stylistic tendancy, can be overdone, diluting the effectiveness of the approach. When every picture of a person shows them with the same expression.... it can be a little too Zoolander... t

I like this picture.

 

I believe sensitive portrait photographers will surrender their ego to be a servant of their subject. A successful portrait of Ivet (or anyone), to me, is one that is so "Her", which doesn't necessarily mean an award winning shot in the traditional sense. I think Tanya has accomplished both (with this picture) - one facilitating the other.

The shot was arresting for a moment, until I looked closer and saw what had been done.

 

The purported "innocence" was taken from this girl by excessive Photoshopping...she's only an object now.

 

http://besmirched.tripod.com/eyes.html

I never thought to challenge Tanya or Ivet on her purported innocence since she's eleven. Silly me.

I'm not challenging a photographer or a girl. Neither is present in the photo, after all, though a Photoshopper is running rampant.

 

Click that link.

If the teen portrayed in the picture were slightly obese, wearing glasses, and and somewhat unattractive (as many teens are), yet given the exact same treatment of lighting and capture, nobody would be talking about this image nor raving about it.

 

I find that far more sad than any discussion about digital manipulation.

Scott, do you mean something like this one or this one?

I wonder if the envy this girl must inevitably deal with and which is even evident on this forum has anything to do with the disturbed look I see in her face. Her beauty graces us all. My sense is that she does not use it as a mask or to be superior or to garner special favors. For one so young it must be hard to endure envy for a face which was given you, in which you had no contribution but which you must walk around in. It must hurt a little to be beautiful like that.

"If the teen portrayed in the picture were slightly obese, wearing glasses, and and somewhat unattractive (as many teens are), yet given the exact same treatment of lighting and capture, nobody would be talking about this image nor raving about it." - Scott Eaton

 

Why would you use "the exact same treatment of lighting and capture" with a different model ?! I suppose you'd try to find (and use) the treatment that would fit - right ? At least I know I would. And then we'd maybe rave just as much about the resulting picture, but in a different way and for different reasons. THAT is exactly what photographing people (posed people) is all about, by the way...

BTW Scott, we were not only talking about beauty of the model but mainly about this photo because it has been selected as a POW.

The tones are so rich and attractive. Did you adjust it in PS? What was the f-stop?

There is something odd about the line of the left side of her face (her left) and it stands out to me. All this analysis of a good photograph often spoils it and I find myself influenced by what other people have said when I look at it ... I'm not sure if this is a good thing? I liked it far more before I read the critiques! Curse you experts for spoiling my enjoyment.... :-)

 

Keith Novak