Next <
From: Whisky-dave <>
Subject: Re: Oprahs third hand
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id g127mr9453920qkg.28.1516979572591;
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:12:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id b131mr1497805vkd.7.1516979572145;
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:12:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:12:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <p4fdv7$o94$>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=Fal3rgoAAABua4brvRuRwdmPfigIDi6x
References: <> <p4fdv7$o94$>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Oprahs third hand
From: Whisky-dave <>
Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:12:52 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 4335
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3382650121
Print Article
Forward Article
On Friday, 26 January 2018 14:29:02 UTC, Mayayana  wrote:
> "Whisky-dave"<> wrote
> | Vanity Fair gives Oprah and Reese Witherspoon extra limbs
> |
> |
> |
>    Interesting. Also, the woman in the middle seems to
> have had a leg airbrushed out to make her look
> more lithe. It would be very tricky, to say the least,
> to somehow keep her second high-heeled leg out
> of sight behind 3" of dress fabric.
>   And Harrison Ford looks old. Are we supposed to
> believe that people in Hollywood age? How silly. :)

I didn't even know he was still alive ;-)

>    Personally I've never liked the work of Annie Leibovitz.
> This one is no exception. It's creepy and ominous.
> A party you wouldn't want to be at.

I didnl;t lok at it like this but I know what you mean, it's like those family pictures where the
kids and parent all wear the same style and colour outfits.
>   She has a knack for getting shots of people looking at
> the camera, but there's always a cynical quality to
> the images. As though she's criticizing, perhaps even
> loathing, the subject.

yes I see what you mean looking at it more closely.

>  This one evokes a sense of
> claustrophobia. Hollywood heroes trapped in miserable
> glamour.
>   Many of her photos approach being clunky, cartoon
> one-liners, like Whoopi Goldberg in a milk bath, or
> Clint Eastwood tied up with a lasso.

So we're saying this is more an art shot than a photo in the normal sense of the word.

>    Just my opinion. I'm curious whether other people
> think she's good.

I agree now you meantion it, I don;t like taking pictures of people it just annoys me for the most
part even when I was asked to do a fashion type shoot.

>   Retouching photos seems to be an obsessive activity
> with the media. Maybe they get requests from subjects?
> I saw a photo of politicians this week with one man who
> had clearly had his cellphone removed. Several people
> walking. A congressman. Maybe Chuck Schumer. I don't
> remember. And next to him is a man looking at his
> cellphone. Except the phone has been smudged out
> and they put in a finger! I imagined a caption, as the
> photo focused my attention on an empty hand with an
> odd, extended finger:, "Chuckie! See if you can guess
> the card I'm holding!"

I'd have thought "spin on this luv"

>   The story you linked says Vanity Fair claims Reese's
> extra leg is actually the liner of her dress! The extra
> leg can only be the middle one, given that the forward
> leg's knee is showing through her dress. So their claim
> is an embarssment. I can see why they might have
> wanted that image, though. It makes Reese W. seem
> like a floating mermaid; a pure blonde beauty supported
> in the arms of the all-powerful Earth goddess Oprah.
> Which is just the image the two portrayed onstage.
> Reese cute-as-a-button, as wowwed disciple of Oprah
> The Warm, Wise And Thunderous.

I admit that I didnlt study it too much I wouldn't have noticed the extra hand or much eles for me
it'd be a picture of some famous people and not worth a second look or thought.