a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres (link fix)
in [SLR Cameras]
|
Prev: a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres
Next: iPad practical jokes
From: Irwell on 5 Apr 2010 11:13 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 5 Apr 2010 11:41 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 5 Apr 2010 12:52 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 5 Apr 2010 14:35 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 5 Apr 2010 15:29
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 |