An iconographer friend has kindly sent me a link to the site of an "iconographer" holding classes in Southern California (PM me for the link).
This woman claims to have studied "the Byzantine Greek (Cretan, Cypriot and Macedonian) and Byzantine Russian (Yaroslavl, Moscow and Prosopon) Iconography schools."
There is no such iconographic style as "Byzantine Russian", and the labels she gives on her work which claim to be in this or that style are patently wrong. For instance, those she's labeled as "Cretan School" bear no resemblance at all with it, either in form, coloration, or facial and garment modeling. She also paints in a style she calls "Sentimental", which is rightly named - rarely have I seen more sickly-sweet imagery masquerading as iconography.
Her so-called "Cretan style":
Actual Cretan style:
The colors she uses for skin tones are alarming, the gray and pink making the figures look like corpses. Here's her St Mary Magdalene:
Ah, Mary Magdalene of the Sign! Behold, the Magdalene will conceive, and bear an egg ....
And this Virgin and Child:
Iconographers have long used browns, umbers, and bronze tones for facial and skin tones, but the figure still looks warm and alive.
There seems to be an attempt to replicate the "softer" look of the icons of Simon Ushakov, a 17th century iconographer, but her version of the Mandylion makes Christ look stoned. Or in dire need of some sleep.