Isabella B.

I struggle to connect with any emotion to the subject. There's a shallow DOF but because the shot is straight on I just see a plain wall behind her and for some reason imagine she is holding a reflcetive object of some sort to assist with the light.
I think the PS work would have been better presented in monotone rather than a desaturated look although I have noticed a recent trend for 'white processing'.

Art is supposed to evoke emotion and this photo does for me - but not in a good way. It is "interesting and worthy of discussion" - the Elf criteria for POTW. But I personally find the photo depressing and disturbing and will be happy next week not to have to look at it again. I can't imagine why anyone would deliberately want to make an innocent child, a beautiful and seemingly healthy child who should be bathed in sunlight and smiling from ear to ear, look like a prison camp survivor.

"who should be bathed in sunlight and smiling from ear to ear"

Alberta, why? So it could look like every other "good" photo of a child on PN? A better snapshot? Are we after mass-produced pleasantries or something else? I don't love this photo, but I do respect what it's attempting to provide or at least search for.

As a previous poster mentioned...I too like the light fall-off from right to left. I also like the offset landscape format and the tight crop.

I do find the lighting to be a bit too "hot" though.

Fred, I don't care what else is on PhotoNet when I view this photo. In general, I look at every photo on its own merit, or try to. With respect to child photography, I'm a volunteer photographer at a home for at risk and/or unwed mothers. I spend hundreds of hours trying to get children to smile for that precious printed memory that their mothers can keep forever and ever. I dislike photos of children who are not malnourished, unhappy, or in this case seemingly deceased being made to look so. It's a personal preference. I never said the photo was technically incorrect. It is. I just really dislike this treatment of the subject matter.

A bit on the weird side. Quite attention grabbing. Good job!

I usually don't consider myself technical enough to comment on POW's. However this image really caputred me. The intensity coming out of this girl's eyes coupled with the light really intense lighting is very intruging. Disturbing even. But it captures something....the other side of the young girl that isn't so sweet and innocent?

It's almost what I would expect for a horror film preview.

I like the crop and the girl's expression. However, the lighting is unnatural and awkwardly so. It draws attention to itself too much, IMO. I would liked to see this same shot with realistic lighting such as from a window or open sky.

All the great things said about and its simplicity. It is your photo. If mine I would lower the crop so as to close out the print with the neckline of the garment. Simple, beautiful and the child deserves much of the credit. A perfect subject.

The comments are fascinating! And I know the idea is to get into a critique of the technical and artistic qualities here in POW. I hope the photographer will add his perspective... unless I missed it. Not having the technical skill that most of you have, I was not looking at the photo with a critical technical eye. And I learned a few interesting things reading those comments. To me, the child looks very natural, unpretentious, unposed, unprepared and unaware of the spotlight she finds herself in. There is nothing creepy or derogatory about the lighting in my view. It is simply the absence of pretense or added brightness or dressing up what is a beautiful child with a serene look.

Well, I would like to see the technicalities shown in the commenter work, rather than speaking technical and not knowing how to handle a camera.
Regardless on how other children looks like on phot.net, this one to me is a very well lit and composed one, it also having a different touch to it which makes it a very special one and interesting, I enjoyed this image a lot and what would a technical aspect do to my taste, perhaps nothing but this image do give me all of the good taste.
Thanks again to the elves and their superb selection.

Every aspect of this image strikes me as non-committal. The girls face is expressionless, neither happy nor sad, not deep and knowing and neither completely empty headed.  The lighting while from below and off to the side does not fully commit to being sinister yet there is no joy or happiness. The lighting could be a simple accident of opportunity or it could have been carefully orchestrated, I do not get a solid feel for which one it might have been. It seems the photographer was not even willing to commit to a camera angle taking the photograph straight on and level to the girl.
Without more context I cannot determine whether the image is a deliberate attempt to achieve a specific look or whether it is the result of not making any choices.  Whatever the circumstances,  the resulting image is interesting to ponder and to view.

Amazing picture i love the cold feel to it. the colors are mostly the same but work pefectly.

So Gordon, is it not a choice to view something straight on, at eye level? Does the light need to be sinister or joyful, those are the only options? Is not most lighting, ambient, essentially a happy accident, but one that is seized upon and exploited by those that are ready and skilled to do so?

I think the image is full of choices myself. Many of the comments here point to choices that aren't standard fare. Looking at the few images in Ararat's photostream, this is definitely a departure in his own treatment of images.

redux

This is one of the rare color photographs that one could use to teach Ansel Adams' Zone system; indeed, to teach his sense of the world of solid objects whose very existence is contingent on the play and mood of light. On that front, not only is the light extraordinarily well-handled; so is the color. They balance each other perfectly.
On the negative side, I see only a slight composition problem. The larger you make this photograph in print form the more one (I suspect) will experience a slight imbalance in it. The eyes are directly in the middle, vertically speaking, the top of the head is cut off but the chin is a fifth of the way up from the bottom boundary. I can see that there was no other way to get this much of her face without doing that way -- certainly you cannot move the face down so the chin gets closer to the bottom border -- but it's still a problem that slightly detracts from what remains a very beautiful photograph.

An exceptional photo. I would be interested to know if it was planned or serendipity.

Regardless, it is excellent.

John;

1. yes

2. no

3. probably not.

Aesthetically: She turned out hauntingly, stunningly, beautiful. Good, no scratch that, GREAT job.

Technically: Nothing wrong worth mentioning, couple of small things have already been mentioned.

Observations: The lighting has garnered most of the comments, and I find it very interesting. As it was mentioned, bottom lit portraits usually create an evil look, but this one is not as dramatic as holding a flashlight straight under and shining it up, that is really evil in effect. But still, it is from below and that is why some folks, maybe subliminally, don't connect with it.

This light source is definitely not 'the window', if there is one, as some have suggested, as it would be brighter than 'the reflector', if there was one. I noticed the reflections were not the same in both eyes and downloaded it to look and studied them a little more. The left, not hindered by the bridge of the nose, may account for some of the difference over not being exactly the same as the right eye, as they usually are.

Vaguely looks to be an open window with someone standing in front of it, with the main light source directly below (a light box looking construction of nine parts, or a division on a single large one?). The right eye shows no such window, only the light-box looking source below, brighter and sharper now by the way. It also shows a brighter part of the window than the left side, and again, as eyes usually reflect evenly, a bit odd. Thus it looks like they might have been adjusted for contrast, especially the right, as well as for sharpness. Nothing wrong with that, and might be why the eyes are so stunning, they stand out from the more muted surroundings of the bright face, just an observation.

Bottom line: I'm glad every photo of a child is not of them smiling, even if I worked in a shelter for kids and wanted them all to be (as Alberta does- good on you Alberta, keep up the good work). I'm also happy not every portrait is lit with Rembrandt lighting, or any other 'one type only' style. Our art is one of finding ways to do it differently, and of making WOWS at the same time, and this one has certainly done it.

Michael, on the lighting. I don't think there was any artificial light here. My guess, and I could be wrong, is that the glowing light(fill) it just the hard (and soft) light coming in the window bouncing around in the room. Also, I don't actually see a conflict at all in the eye catch lights. The eye on our left is seeing both the paned window(lower left catch light) which is not as bright as the area on the floor where the sunlight is hitting dead on(and we can still see the panes) that is creating the off center, hotter catch light. The eye on our right shows the same catch lights, shifted slightly to the left (which it would be by her position and also because of the shape of the eye). The far left catch light, as you suggest, is partially blocked by the nose but we still get a corner of it. We can still see where the sun through the paned window is hitting the floor full force, which causes the low light coming from the left a little more left of center in this eye.

(I think the softbox construct you refer to is just the harsh, sunlight hitting the floor as it comes through the paned window)

John, now that you mention it the pattern makes sense of a window hitting the floor. Good eyes buddy, on your part that is... well, her's too!

Not being a professional photographer, I found the discussion on this photo very interesting. For me I found this image haunting, and think a lot of it had to do with the combination of lighting and post work. From what I have read about portraiture, the crop is somewhat tight, and there is no real base to support the girl's head, but then that is based on the standard formula for portrait work. This, and the fact that the relative location of the eyes out of the upper third does not bother me as I feel the artist has done this intentionally to enhance that haunting, dramatic look that so many viewers have mentioned. I also like the shadows on the the model's left, and tend to agree that the lighting is a result of window light hitting a brightly coloured floor. Lastly, I like the framing, and the negative space on the left of the image. I know that some posters have suggested that a more centered subject would have been better, but I feel that this negative space contributes to the feeling of emptiness, and possible sadness that is trying to be evoked. The white background and the white clothing go well to support a ghostly appearance, or possibly an angelic one. A very interesting perspective, and one that makes me think a lot. The neutral expression on the model's face, I feel, enhances a sense of ambiguity. You gotta love those eyes as well! Very nice image, Ararat! Congrats.
Paul

Normally, lighting like this is considered unflattering, but being young and having flawless skin really negates that. I also find that her expression and the "emotion" of the light really go hand in hand. I don't know if that makes any sense to anyone. I'm on the fence with this. Normally I either like or dislike a photo, or art, etc..., but this sort of shot puts me in a realm that I don't usually fall into emotionally when looking at art and photography (I know, they go hand in hand, ;-) I'm usually the first to criticize when people over-saturate their photos, so I might be a little biased to the treatment of this shot. I have more respect for someone who knows how NOT to just make it black and white or so saturated that the colors bleed into each other, and this photo is a great example of how beautiful it can be when color is reduced but not removed (how beautiful I think it can be.) I would like to see a little bit more pink in her lips and a bit more blue in her eyes though. Good shot. I'm happy the druids picked this one for POW.

I also find that her expression and the "emotion" of the light really go hand in hand. I don't know if that makes any sense to anyone.

This makes sense to me, David. I'm seeing both as extremely cool and clinical - and therefore completely at odds with the expectations that I typically bring to such studies of innocence. I'm definitely surprised at how well that unexpected pivot point works for my regard of this subject. This take is stark and vaguely invasive; respectably distant and yet brutally honest.

It's a riveting combination, making me want to alternately stare and ignore. Careful preparation must have combined with inveterate patience to create this image.

Impactful!! Haunting! The direction of lighting and the undersaturation of color draws me toward her eyes. What is unusual about her eyes are the whites showing all around her irises at the bottom. Ararat appears to have intentionally used lighting to emphasize this unusual feature causing a sort of "eerie" effect. For me, the" art" is in the recognition of the unusual and in the skill it took to highlight it!
On the negative side, the lighting though strongly impactful, downplays the almost flawless beauty of his subject, "Isabella."
High regards to your skill in creating this haunting portrait, Marilyn Angelo