Jump to content

V Magazine Photoshoot ( November Edition)


judas2015
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, otcoam said:

The Bad Girl Single cover (nude in bed) and the jewel body suit that was used for SEX promo was actually shot in November 1990 in Paris by Meisel and featured in Vogue Italia February 1991.  

and I guess we're most reminded of those shots when we see the new pics, because they were done when she put collagen in her lips for a few weeks and ruined her beautiful mouth, just like nowadays...

1np4j6w9q7u21.jpg

27e403lg6.jpg

unnamed.jpg

Edited by desperateK (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, char said:

I hope it's a untouched cover I think that's why we miss outtakes I wish they didn't have Photoshop like in the 60s

They didn't have photoshop in the 1960s but photo editing has been around since at least the 1930s, probably 1920s. Photographer George Hurrell used to have photos he took of Hollywood celebrities retouched by James Sharp, who spent six hours smoothing skin, removing spots, and erasing wrinkles.  

Here's a before and after of Joan Crawford taken by George Hurrell in 1931. 

beforeafter.jpg

Edited by Luci nln (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bad girl cover session (i name it like this because it is what it's most well known for but it was actually shot for Vogue Italia) was shot at Azzedine Alaïa's showroom/home/Hotel (one bedroom only, the one in which M was shot) in rue de la Verrerie/rue Moussy in Le Marais, Paris. That's why he's featuring in some shots. The black lace dress she wore at le Boy nightclub is an Alaïa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, char said:

I didn't know that love the untouched photo. I should've known there was photo editing. Marilyn marked X's and scratched with hair pins on some of  Bert Stern's photos of her. And he actually removed the X's and hair pin scratches then published the x's  of the ones she didn't like. Which i thought was rude but still there some of the best photos we all have of monroe.  So it would've had to been photo editing. You used to be able to tell if a photo on a woman at least was touched up because all women have peach fuzz and if you don't see that then it must be touched up now since dermaplaning. you can't tell except its just a very blurry photo. 

You can still retouch and leave the peach fuzz, retouching used to be a mostly manual & artisanal craft, almost like an art but it seems photographers these days rely more and more on new software and algorithms and most human qualities are lost via these new editing methods. Herb used to have great retouching, although even Herb went too far with the retouching on a couple of his photos. So not even the greatest are exempt of fucking it up in the editing. 

In my personal experience, and I am no expert, it can take hours to manually retouch a photo when you are trying to make it look natural and as faithful as possible to the real features of the person Vs. minutes or less than an hour if you use presets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, realityisalways said:

You can still retouch and leave the peach fuzz, retouching used to be a mostly manual & artisanal craft, almost like an art but it seems photographers these days rely more and more on new software and algorithms and most human qualities are lost via these new editing methods. Herb used to have great retouching, although even Herb went too far with the retouching on a couple of his photos. So not even the greatest are exempt of fucking it up in the editing. 

In my personal experience, and I am no expert, it can take hours to manually retouch a photo when you are trying to make it look natural and as faithful as possible to the real features of the person Vs. minutes or less than an hour if you use presets.

Also, just like Madonna did plenty of times, many celebrities remove their fuzz for photoshoots and such. 
I remember reading an article from the 90s which claimed that Madonna gets regular full body waxes, including face ears, shoulders back and breasts. 
But during the Erotica era she was celebrating her facial fuzz. You can see it in many photos. 
Out of curiosity, what herb ritts images do you find to airbrushed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, thegoldencalf said:

Also, just like Madonna did plenty of times, many celebrities remove their fuzz for photoshoots and such. 
I remember reading an article from the 90s which claimed that Madonna gets regular full body waxes, including face ears, shoulders back and breasts. 
But during the Erotica era she was celebrating her facial fuzz. You can see it in many photos. 
Out of curiosity, what herb ritts images do you find to airbrushed?

I don't have one in mind right now, but I remember that Ive seen some that looked too retouched to me at the time. Doing a quick search within my archives (I collect Herb Ritts photos) this one for example, her face looks oddly brightened (enlarge by double clicking).

Stephanie Seymour - Spy Story 1, Van Nuys, 1990 - Ph. Herb Ritts

ef20d7fb1c5ffa1f189d011ea5f9f260049bc4e0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, realityisalways said:

You can still retouch and leave the peach fuzz, retouching used to be a mostly manual & artisanal craft, almost like an art but it seems photographers these days rely more and more on new software and algorithms and most human qualities are lost via these new editing methods. Herb used to have great retouching, although even Herb went too far with the retouching on a couple of his photos. So not even the greatest are exempt of fucking it up in the editing. 

In my personal experience, and I am no expert, it can take hours to manually retouch a photo when you are trying to make it look natural and as faithful as possible to the real features of the person Vs. minutes or less than an hour if you use presets.

I think the problem is that Photoshop is something anyone can learn and not everyone is great at it vs manual retouching which took actual skill to do professionally. So we've seen a lot of dodgy photoshop over the years in magazines, etc. You can do great retouching in little time in Photoshop with enough practice and skill...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, deathproof said:

A lot of Madonna’s photo shoots get retouched, ever since the 80’s. Some more so than others.

This is for me the example of too much editing, this is Steven Meisel in the 80s, and yes he has great photos, but most of them seem too edited for my taste. Also, anyone can be a "good photographer" if you have the right editing skills. Its totally destroyed the art of photography. Mert & Marcus are others that go overboard. 

c0368e220d026cc142ac72e9c8c85875339ebc51

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fighter said:

I think the problem is that Photoshop is something anyone can learn and not everyone is great at it vs manual retouching which took actual skill to do professionally. So we've seen a lot of dodgy photoshop over the years in magazines, etc. You can do great retouching in little time in Photoshop with enough practice and skill...

That’s not true at all. And very reductive haha. 
To be successful in retouching you still need a ton of skills like lighting, anatomy, drawing, color theory. 
Which is why some retouched photos look dreadful and others look fantastic.

Also people think they know about retouching but they really don’t.

And if we think about it lighting, makeup, hair etc are all retouching and transform someone just as much. 
It’s just part of the visual like everything else.

I don’t hear people saying, oh I wish they didn’t do hair in photoshoots 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, realityisalways said:

I don't have one in mind right now, but I remember that Ive seen some that looked too retouched to me at the time. Doing a quick search within my archives (I collect Herb Ritts photos) this one for example, her face looks oddly brightened (enlarge by double clicking).

Stephanie Seymour - Spy Story 1, Van Nuys, 1990 - Ph. Herb Ritts

ef20d7fb1c5ffa1f189d011ea5f9f260049bc4e0

Oh that’s really bad! The face should have more contrast for sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, thegoldencalf said:

That’s not true at all. And very reductive haha. 
To be successful in retouching you still need a ton of skills like lighting, anatomy, drawing, color theory. 
Which is why some retouched photos look dreadful and others look fantastic.

Also people think they know about retouching but they really don’t.

What's not true? :confused: We said the same thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, char said:

I didn't know that love the untouched photo. I should've known there was photo editing. Marilyn marked X's and scratched with hair pins on some of  Bert Stern's photos of her. And he actually removed the X's and hair pin scratches then published the x's  of the ones she didn't like. Which i thought was rude but still there some of the best photos we all have of monroe.  So it would've had to been photo editing. You used to be able to tell if a photo on a woman at least was touched up because all women have peach fuzz and if you don't see that then it must be touched up now since dermaplaning. you can't tell except its just a very blurry photo. 

With x's do you mean the marks on contact sheets? In the days of analogue photography it was customary to print contact sheets of a film roll and mark the selected images with an X to order bigger proof prints of that negative, so on those sheets the ones that are crossed out are the photographer's selection, hence they also include the well known images. So it probably wasn't rude ;-)

There are many contact sheets of Madonna shoots out there where you can see which pics were in the final selection. I always find it very interesting to see what makes the cut and what doesn't.

But yes also Marilyn's pictures were probably retouched, it's been around almost as long as photography itself. But it is also good to remember that a picture is never a "real" representation, it is already manipulated by lighting, posing, angles, lenses etc. then furthermore in developing and printing there used to be real artistry with contrasts etc. very much reminiscent of photoshop. It's been around forever, we are just more aware of it now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, realityisalways said:

I don't have one in mind right now, but I remember that Ive seen some that looked too retouched to me at the time. Doing a quick search within my archives (I collect Herb Ritts photos) this one for example, her face looks oddly brightened (enlarge by double clicking).

I collect Herb too (among many other fashion and portrait photographers).

By the way -

I've never been able to find hi-res photos of his Playboy shoot for Elle Macpherson. Have you?

Here's a great example of Herb's retouching notes for a photo from that shoot...

https://www.christies.com/img/LotImages/2017/CKS/2017_CKS_14225_0056_000(herb_ritts_elle_macpherson_playboy_may_1994043334).jpg?mode=max

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, char said:

Marilyn was very hard on herself. The only thing i could see that was wrong with her photos that she Xed out was  her eyeliner in some of the photos was smudged. But i still thought she looked good. She was supposed to have approval before they we're printed. Some of my  favorite photos are from Lawrence Schiller from the unfinished film Something's Got To Give. She actually was in the car with him and scratched them so bad he couldn't print them and he gave her all of them to look at. I hate to say it I wish he hadn't if you look up something's got to give the pool scene you'll soon see how beautiful she looked. Would've loved to seen them all.  Marilyn fans are so anxious to see this cover of madonna. I can't wait. & madonna was a fan of marilyn also. 

I don’t understand this Marilyn Monroe story. Was she given the negatives the scratch? Or are we talking about the contact sheets

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vasili said:

I collect Herb too (among many other fashion and portrait photographers).

By the way -

I've never been able to find hi-res photos of his Playboy shoot for Elle Macpherson. Have you?

Here's a great example of Herb's retouching notes for a photo from that shoot...

https://www.christies.com/img/LotImages/2017/CKS/2017_CKS_14225_0056_000(herb_ritts_elle_macpherson_playboy_may_1994043334).jpg?mode=max

Nope don't have them either. It gives me so much anxiety thinking that there are tons of Herb Ritts HQ digitals on https://www.trunkarchive.com/ and I cant get them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, realityisalways said:

This is for me the example of too much editing, this is Steven Meisel in the 80s, and yes he has great photos, but most of them seem too edited for my taste. Also, anyone can be a "good photographer" if you have the right editing skills. Its totally destroyed the art of photography. Mert & Marcus are others that go overboard. 

To say that it "destroyed the art of photography" is a bit dramatic and, in my opinion, not true. There are tons of photographers out there who don't retouch their work at all, it's really down to personal preference, the type of photography you do, the intent of the photo and what client is expecting of you. I'm a full time photographer myself and I'm often asked by clients to alter images in a way that's too much for my taste, but in the end it's what the client wants so, like a good hooker, I grin, bear it and take the money :).

Photo manipulation is as old as photography itself, the only thing that's changed is technology. Yes, it was trickier to retouch before digital, a lot of the work was done on negatives (especially in the Old Hollywood days) but, as in modern times, there have been people who were better at it and others who went way overboard (apparently there are negatives of Mae West where she's so altered that her bracelets seem to be floating mid-air). It's also good to bear in mind that digital is far harsher on skin tones than film (and therefore might require more work in post). 

Some photographers want to capture bare reality without much interference in post (Nan Goldin is a great example) and there are others who are more interested in creating a new world with their work (Tim Walker, David LaChapelle, Mert & Marcus). There's no right or wrong, it's all art in the end. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Write here...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use