Well executed photo, but really, this is children's fashion? It looks like she's wearing just a feather boa and sitting on a bed. It creeps me out when kids are made up like adults; things like this and the kiddie beauty pageants, etc.
I agree, but the whole thing was her idea, I would never plan this kind of shot with a kid! As I stated, it was done "in between", she knows I do glamour as well, and wanted something like that. Since her mother was present and agreed, we took the shot!
That's all, just for the fun of it.. I told Valerie that for that kind of shoot she need to wait at least 3 more years !!
Well my two cents is if your shooting a child this young looking this old you need to show some sort of other clothing. This is way to implied for my taste. It actually makes me feel alittle uncomfertable, and with the bed in the back ground even more so.
kays wrote:
Well my two cents is if your shooting a child this young looking this old you need to show some sort of other clothing. This is way to implied for my taste. It actually makes me feel alittle uncomfertable, and with the bed in the back ground even more so.
I understand the situation around the shoot.....but, I have to totally agree. I feel creepy for looking at it. Technically it's not a bad shot though. The feathers seem a bit hot for my tasts.......
Nice shot of a cute kid, but the facial angle which makes her face look like a smooth oval (no cheekbones) and the and dark distracting nose shadow don't flatter as much as a more oblique angle with some fill would. It would also be better cropped tighter to put more emphasis on the face and less on the chest and armpit.
The fact she dressed in a way which is provocative and sitting on a bed and her hair is out of place sends a message which really isn't age appropriate for a child, but OTOH its rather difficult to guess from that shot exactly how old she is either.
In my opinion, for what that's worth, I think the lighting is great and her eyes really pop in this. I think the railing behind her on the right of the photo is a little distracting, but not that major.
16? She looks much younger. I would have guessed 10 or 12 at the oldest. Perhaps she is just a young looking 16. Maybe the style of makeup makes her seem younger as it's the type used when trying to make girls look older.
Anyway, I'm glad her mother was present and agreed to the shoot, but I stand by my earlier comments. I'm also glad that you see it with the same perspective.
THAT really freaks me out. This is a grand picture but probably not for the intended reasons...Reminds me of "LA petite" a film by Louis Malle. Brooke Shields first role... Anyway, congrats
I agree as well with everyone else. Children need to remain and look like children. Dress them up in a tiger outfit or something, not in a feather boa. Nice photography, poor timing.. too young!
Sorry, I don't get that, please understand that my native language is not English so I don't get certain expressions. So, what does it mean?
I was adding my agreement to the posters, vealski and kays. A child, dressed and made-up like a caricature prostitute, with a bed clearly in the BG is grossly creepy.
its amazing that at 18+1 day it suddenly doesnt feel dirty looking at girls. Sigh. her being 16 shouldnt be the focus of the comments. However it is highly implied for her age (mostly because of the noticeable lack of a shirt/bra/?) but thats due to the age of consent here in the States.
Beautiful shot and work on face. Subtle and not over PSed like many seem to do. However there doesnt seem to be enough contrast for facial definition for my taste... and the shadow on her nose falls toward the camera instead of away (my taste again).
The bedframe int the backround is good for context but the pole is a little too close to her head.
And while I personally believe she has great bed-head meg ryan hair... theres a big lump on the camera right side that oddly shapes her head. No comment on chopping off the top part.
All in all, I think you should keep close tabs on this girl because she should make a pretty darling model as she gets older. This totally matches the style on your site. Good work!
I agree with everyone..its leaning on the side of implied, but we are the ones making the implications. If it was anything else id say get over it, but when child are involved you gotta be careful, without the bed there really would be no problem.
As for the photo technically, exposure looks right on, but the lighting is just ok, simple and nice. The pose and expression are bland though and her hair/outfit makes me think of a bad early 90's portrait studio...not fashion.
Im curious to see what others think of the bed in the frame.
I think maybe the title should be changed to "teenage fashion model"...the girl is 16, which really is not a "child" - ask any teenager . Seriously, though...she does look really young - and with that title, it makes the photo definitely seem kind of squicky and kind of Jon Benet Ramsey-ish.
I don't get the feeling that she's wearing only a boa - to my eyes, there's no implied nudity, but the Jon Beney-Ramsey look does bother me, although I suppose if she really is 16, it's not so bad. The problem is that she looks like a much younger girl, 10-13 years old, who is made up to look older and that's the part that's creepy.
She is a beautiful girl and assuming you didn't make her eyes bigger in post-processing, she's got a great look which you might consider photographing in more natural circumstances.
Not thread hijack.
Check out Lauren. I did NOT shoot any of her pictures, but she's been in the industry underage and also been doing fashion for years. http://www.modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=137248
?
. Seriously, though...she does look really young - and with that title, it makes the photo definitely seem kind of squicky and kind of Jon Benet Ramsey-ish.