These look great!
And I for one am totally convinced that they’re not photomanipulations…
Ailill And Roksana, Linda Bergkvist (2D)
peachysticks
#82
:o
You know, more than a year ago when I first saw your art, I thought someone this good couldn’t possibly improve anymore. But here you are taking your skills up to a whole new level–the realism in these portraits are through the roof! It seems like you’ve found a new way to use textures (Painter I guess?) to achieve such effects, the facial features are also more “human” than in your older work, but still beautiful 
I see quite a few people are saying you used photos for these >_< while I don’t doubt your artistic integrity, I kinda prefer when your paintings look painted. The two head portraits are just way too photo realistic, maybe it’s personal preference but I feel they’re starting to lack the charm of your other images… the one you didn’t post, I really like as well, it’s like modern Bouguereau with blood 
Oh and you should put the little skintone tut you made a while ago into your tutorials section on your site (and can we have a texture tutorial too? Pretty please?)
Grugi
#85
Great work. I love the first one. Something strange is going on the second pic… her right eye seems to be off … way too far away from the nose or maybe its her left eye which is too near to the nose. It looks strange. Other than that great use of colours, the skin in the first pic is very lifelike.
The_Gunslinger
#87
Wow, Linda, that’s some amazing work 
As for those that are saying your paintings are (or probably are) photo touch-ups, I’d like to give my two cents and say that it looks unlikely… the hair in the first one doesn’t look real enough to be from a photo (mainly the blur and highlights) and the second one… just looks too original. Although, both portraits look like girls that I’ve had crushes on, too 
(but in real life…and you’d be hard pressed to find photos on the net of them… that I know of).
Good stuff, and I really like the deviation from your other paintings. It’s always nice to see new stuff and what artists can really do.
r6502
#90
Excellent and enchanting work is all that there really is to say. The suggestion of photomanip seems dubious under technical scrutiny; there are glaring ‘flaws’ if one even bothers to look before making such bold claims. References couldn’t be ruled out, but many a great artist have used refs throughout art history, this doesn’t speak any less of the work or the talent behind the author. I’d say the pitchfork-wielding serves to highlight the insecurity some people seem to have in the face of a notable piece of art. Whatever the case may be, enjoy it for what it is and what it invokes or inspires.
I hope and expect to see more captivating work like this, it was a pleasure to watch, and thank you, Lynda, for sharing it with us. 
noelt
#92
Don’t take this wrongly, but, when i look at these pictures i see a photo, which was messed with in photoshop/painter, i don’t see any art, the depth on the hair/face is creative but that’s it. I don’t see anything creative at all besides the depth on the hair/face. Why can’t anyone say this is a photo?? I’m not player-hating, really, i just want real stuff, i’m not gonna comment so much on this site anymore because i’m feeling like a jerk just writing these words, am i being impolite? You know how hard it is to draw/paint eyes like those, only nature can do that, this is how i can tell…the eyes are not so easy to get. Am i wrong is this lady this good or is this a photo tweeked in the computer? I want to be wrong i really do. Sorry to be so difficult
The_Gunslinger
#93
…You’re wrong. I’m fairly sure of it. People can paint eyes that well… I’ll bet I could paint eyes that were almost as good looking as those (though in a much longer period of time…), but probably not as good for some reason. I’m positive that she did this 100%, but perhaps with refs (but not intermingled with the painting).
jdsb
#94
mate are you sure of what you are saying,please check the artists profile first i :argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::banghead:
Leviron
#95
Linda is just sharing some of her work with us… no need to get nasty.
I really like them, great use of colour, texture, use of softness and sharpness for emphasis and so on. I find them very appealing and a pleasure to see… and I think you did raise the bar for this place again.
However, I consider these as illustration more than “art” art of today.
Another thing is… what is wrong with using references? I think it is how they are used that matters. My illustration lecturer tells me that using references is good because it gives your illustrations more depth as you have a better idea of what kind of detail is needed to make it better… and less “I think this is what it looks like” when it looks nothing like that.
The_Gunslinger
#96
No, that’s not the problem, people are accusing her of doing paint-overs of photos and photo touch-ups.
The_Gunslinger
#98
If the back had the blurry jpeg look, the front would as well. It’s too cohesive to be from two different photos, and there’s no way she could have touched-up the front to make it look fine and then wouldn’t have touched-up the back. …Perhaps that’s my only crit, is that the hair is too blurry in the back still.
However, this is all rather silly. One has to attempt to not make something look too real now-a-days? :rolleyes:
jdsb
#99
who do you say this in reference to ,the authors artwork,or people who like this artwork(for eg. me). In either case,my response is …:banghead:…and again please weigh your words before you lash out with your rather rude opinions
Nehym
#100
You always get better and better Linda… You never cease to amaze me. Each and every new piece you share always is even more realistic than the last. I saw in a comment on your site that you have been practicing skintones and even though i am not sure if you really needed it (though there is always place for improvement in each and every thing :p), you achieved such nice skintones… And i must say the the eyes of those two are mesmerizing…
Can’t wait to have a peek at your book.