> Prev
From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
Subject: Oprahs third hand
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.233.239.86 with SMTP id d83mr8894195qkg.16.1516972450289;
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 05:14:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.54.205 with SMTP id d196mr1463609vka.14.1516972449855;
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 05:14:09 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!i22no1396444qta.1!news-out.google.com!g8ni245qtk.0!nntp.google.com!s47no1394544qta.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 05:14:09 -0800 (PST)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=161.23.245.51;
posting-account=Fal3rgoAAABua4brvRuRwdmPfigIDi6x
NNTP-Posting-Host: 161.23.245.51
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7e994250-f764-4ea9-805c-e583d0f49e50@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Oprahs third hand
From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 13:14:10 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 4
Print Article
Forward Article
Vanity Fair gives Oprah and Reese Witherspoon extra limbs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42830535 

	
From: Mayayana <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
Subject: Re: Oprahs third hand
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Subject: Re: Oprahs third hand
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 09:28:45 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <p4fdv7$o94$1@dont-email.me>
References: <7e994250-f764-4ea9-805c-e583d0f49e50@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 14:28:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="066eed0654cd1e4ed6245cbddf2ab568";
logging-data="24868"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19j0cVQilz6OqDffwSI2GabYSQ+Lo2fgvY="
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3e5yVG7O7M19eSszvOCeWebS4ko=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Print Article
Forward Article
"Whisky-dave"<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote

| Vanity Fair gives Oprah and Reese Witherspoon extra limbs
|
| http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42830535
|

   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. :)

   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.
  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. 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.

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

  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!"

  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. 

	
Next <
From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Oprahs third hand
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.55.32.133 with SMTP id g127mr9453920qkg.28.1516979572591;
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:12:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.128.137 with SMTP id b131mr1497805vkd.7.1516979572145;
Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:12:52 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.unit0.net!peer03.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!s47no1458648qta.0!news-out.google.com!e39ni451qtk.1!nntp.google.com!i22no1460626qta.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:12:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <p4fdv7$o94$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=138.37.90.65; posting-account=Fal3rgoAAABua4brvRuRwdmPfigIDi6x
NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.37.90.65
References: <7e994250-f764-4ea9-805c-e583d0f49e50@googlegroups.com> <p4fdv7$o94$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <edf83024-4b1e-475c-b115-30ab58370041@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Oprahs third hand
From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
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"<whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote
> 
> | Vanity Fair gives Oprah and Reese Witherspoon extra limbs
> |
> | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42830535
> |
> 
>    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.