Hi YD - I can hardly believe that's really your name!
I give this long comment because I'm tired of the brief couple of words that are all we ever see on this site. I don't want to be told that sort of thing, and I think other people doin't want to either.
So, now you draw me back to look again at the lighting. I did notice the first time the soft reflected light on the left side of the face, and it is nice. I still feel that the transition from that soft light to the harsh light on the tip of the nose and the right cheek/forehead is too abrupt and harsh, but it's a matter of opinion, ultimately.
And yes, his expression is a little unusual - the lips open like that, as if he's about to speak (I wonder what he would say?).
Outdoor photography has its own set of restrictions - a major one being that one cannot chose the light. Or at least, not much. Early morning/late afternoon are best, when the light is not so harsh and has nice tones of yellow and gold. Around the middle of the day, reeflected light in shaded places can give surprisingly good results - especially with a digital camera, which can reach into the shadows better than a film camera.
Thank you for not taking offence - unfortunately, many people take photos with their egos instead of their cameras. :-).
Wow!...what a comment! Thank you very much for your advices and for the time spent in writing them so clearly.
You're absolutely right about everything but there are just two thing I don't agree with: 1) The light: yes, it's sharp but only in the right part of his face (being taken in the first afternoon and in semi-backlighting) and, in my opinon, it doesn't spoil his face but adds a bit of dynamic, together with the corona given by backlighting. 2) I liked his expression, his look and his face, that was what I wanted to catch and the result its not so far away from my personal expectations; that's the reason of my "About:" field content. So, "some photos are best not taken at all" but I think that this was worth while.
I have never thought for a second that your comment was an attack and I will keep in mind for the future all of your useful advices and I hope to receive other from you.
Sorry, it just doesn't work. The lighting, for a start, is anything but 'perfect' - it's harsh and contrasty, and doesn't model the child's face at all (look at the fall of sunlight and the placing of the shadows - we have to more or less guess at what those parts of his face that are shadow look like, and the contrast between his sunlit nose and cheek and the rest of the face is extreme).
Then there's the more fundamental question of why you took the portrait - what were you trying to capture? His youthfulness? In that case, the contrasty harsh lighting is acting afgainst you. His Nubian-ness (sorry, can't think of a better term, but there's nothing wrong with wanting to photograph people because they represent an exotic culture)? But this is a close-up portrait, with no sign of his country of origin outside your title - he could just as easily be in a backyard in LA (Incidentally, his robe looks more interesting than he does - I think you could have exploited it more). His character? Children have very little character to capture anyway, and there's nothing characteristic (!) about him - just a slightly cheeky look.
So, overall, I think this portrait would be much improved by being taken at a very different time of day, in much better light (and if this was the light at the time and you couldn't hang around, then, I'm afraid, some photos are best not taken at all), and by getting something a little more out of the ordinary in the way of costume, expression, etc etc.
This comment is meant to be constructive, not an attack on you or your photogrpahy - feel free to ignore it if you wish, it's only my personal opinion after all. (No ratings - I think they're stupid).
0 
