Jump to content

V Magazine Photoshoot ( November Edition)


judas2015
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, baymad4her said:

Some nice photos, but I wouldn't say Madonna was the most photographed woman in the world as it says in one other post. That honour obviously belongs to someone else, Madonna is probably second.

To whom does it belong? To Diana? To a 90's Supermodel? Is there a way to measure it? I would honestly think a 90s supermodel has been more photographed than Lady Di since they basically worked 24/7 doing editorials and advertisements while also getting photographed relentlessly on runways. If this were the case it would still be difficult to pinpoint which supermodel has been most photographed. In my experience collecting fashion photography I have been surprised at how many editorials and runways Kate Moss has done. And when you take into account that basically only her and Naomi continued a successful modeling career into the 00s & 10s, I would bet the record is between them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, realityisalways said:

To whom does it belong? To Diana? To a 90's Supermodel? Is there a way to measure it? I would honestly think a 90s supermodel has been more photographed than Lady Di since they basically worked 24/7 doing editorials and advertisements while also getting photographed relentlessly on runways. If this were the case it would still be difficult to pinpoint which supermodel has been most photographed. In my experience collecting fashion photography I have been surprised at how many editorials and runways Kate Moss has done. And when you take into account that basically only her and Naomi continued a successful modeling career into the 00s & 10s, I would bet the record is between them. 

The other queen, you know Queen Elizabeth II is more photographed in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/23/2021 at 7:47 PM, realityisalways said:

I mean I still like Marco's over-sexualized and unattainable perfection photos, but I tend to give more value to photographs that seem as the photographers did most of the work in the real word rather than in the post-production editing process. I also enjoy Thierry Mugler's photos very much, not sure if there is coffee book of his work but I will look into it. 

eb675ad609790460be4163a99466520363ace72e

c8f92db0ebc6e443adbb69a3eb9b1cc843da6846

 

 

 

There are a couple: Thierry Mugler: Couturissime and his own Photography, one with a Red star on the cover.

My take on the retouching debate. I'm familiar with photography and Photoshop since an early age, all my family took photos. My boyfriend is a photographer and he is incredibly good at using lighting to create effects that look photoshopped, he is really good too at working with natural and non natural light to bring the best features and best skin. But there's always gonna be an small amount of retouching to clean flaws and minor details.

Humans when we look at people everyday we do a 'general scan' and we tend to see faces without the details but in a photo we do pay attention to the smallest spots, lines and 'anomalies'. I think the quality of being a good retoucher is being able to work with this distractions keeping the rest the most agreeable and balanced as possible.

With the latest technology there's a certain numbness to the natural look of people and sometimes we are reaching uncanny valley levels. Even my phone has settings within the camera to narrow chin, wider jaws, make eyes bigger, shrink the nose and smooth and light the skin, and it does that creepy alien face. We are becoming so used to retouched faces with smoothed out eyes that, there's always more and more because looks like it needs to be obvious, rather than natural.

I have this book and it shows photo manipulation already in the 1890's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EgoRod said:

There are a couple: Thierry Mugler: Couturissime and his own Photography, one with a Red star on the cover.

My take on the retouching debate. I'm familiar with photography and Photoshop since an early age, all my family took photos. My boyfriend is a photographer and he is incredibly good at using lighting to create effects that look photoshopped, he is really good too at working with natural and non natural light to bring the best features and best skin. But there's always gonna be an small amount of retouching to clean flaws and minor details.

Humans when we look at people everyday we do a 'general scan' and we tend to see faces without the details but in a photo we do pay attention to the smallest spots, lines and 'anomalies'. I think the quality of being a good retoucher is being able to work with this distractions keeping the rest the most agreeable and balanced as possible.

With the latest technology there's a certain numbness to the natural look of people and sometimes we are reaching uncanny valley levels. Even my phone has settings within the camera to narrow chin, wider jaws, make eyes bigger, shrink the nose and smooth and light the skin, and it does that creepy alien face. We are becoming so used to retouched faces with smoothed out eyes that, there's always more and more because looks like it needs to be obvious, rather than natural.

I have this book and it shows photo manipulation already in the 1890's

That book from the last link looks very interesting, will check that book out as well as the Thierry Mugler books. 

You know what's a bit creepy? That new prints of old historic figures, like for example some of Milton H. Greene's of Marilyn from this link seem extremely retouched; looks like they might have used new digital retouching technology on them. And when you add regular people taking these and running them through filters or editing them even further, it creates a sort of history revisionism where new generations get exposed to these extremely retouched photos of old celebs and end up thinking that they looked that way. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, realityisalways said:

That book from the last link looks very interesting, will check that book out as well as the Thierry Mugler books. 

You know what's a bit creepy? That new prints of old historic figures, like for example some of Milton H. Greene's of Marilyn from this link seem extremely retouched; looks like they might have used new digital retouching technology on them. And when you add regular people taking these and running them through filters or editing them even further, it creates a sort of history revisionism where new generations get exposed to these extremely retouched photos of old celebs and end up thinking that they looked that way. 

 

 

Wow! It’s horrible what they did to those Milton Greene photos of Marilyn. Some of them have been run through AI colorization software. 
Digital technology can greatly improve old photography but it’s a very delicate balance before ruining the original intent of the images. Disgusting.

This reminds me a lot of what happened to the last 4K transfer of 2001 Space Odyssey. They went too far with the HDR and color enhancement and it ruined the original atmosphere of the cinematography.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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