From: Irwell on
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:19 +0100, Bruce wrote:

>
>
> I agree. It is an extremely unflattering portrait of an interesting
> woman who deserves much better. Very much better.

She/he can always try changing the contact lens.
From: Bruce on
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:13:18 -0700, Irwell <hook(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:19 +0100, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> I agree. It is an extremely unflattering portrait of an interesting
>> woman who deserves much better. Very much better.
>
>She/he can always try changing the contact lens.


Maybe she should choose a competent photographer.

From: Savageduck on
On 2010-04-05 08:41:41 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:

> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:13:18 -0700, Irwell <hook(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:19 +0100, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree. It is an extremely unflattering portrait of an interesting
>>> woman who deserves much better. Very much better.
>>
>> She/he can always try changing the contact lens.
>
>
> Maybe she should choose a competent photographer.

The photographer was probably quite competent. She manages her "look"
all by herself.

I suspect this was a proof sheet reject, and a NY Times editor, having
Alan in mind, thought it was "quirky" and dumped the ...er "good"
shots for the one we are discussing.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Bruce on
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:52:23 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2010-04-05 08:41:41 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:13:18 -0700, Irwell <hook(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:19 +0100, Bruce wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree. It is an extremely unflattering portrait of an interesting
>>>> woman who deserves much better. Very much better.
>>>
>>> She/he can always try changing the contact lens.
>>
>>
>> Maybe she should choose a competent photographer.
>
>The photographer was probably quite competent.


If so, he/she would have deleted that shot. Or at least made sure it
never reached the public domain. It's horrible.

From: Savageduck on
On 2010-04-05 11:35:03 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:

> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:52:23 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-04-05 08:41:41 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:13:18 -0700, Irwell <hook(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:19 +0100, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. It is an extremely unflattering portrait of an interesting
>>>>> woman who deserves much better. Very much better.
>>>>
>>>> She/he can always try changing the contact lens.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe she should choose a competent photographer.
>>
>> The photographer was probably quite competent.
>
>
> If so, he/she would have deleted that shot. Or at least made sure it
> never reached the public domain. It's horrible.

Another frightening thought is, this might have been the best from the
shoot, and the photog had no choice other than submitting the "eye"
shot to the editorial staff. There might be some truly bad Ellen images
out there.
....and this was in the NY Times of all places.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres
Next: iPad practical jokes