FastFreddy2 Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 2 hours ago, Shyheels said: No, I mean maybe they got that way in the bedroom! Carpeted with asphalt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puffer Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 9 hours ago, FastFreddy2 said: Carpeted with asphalt? Surely, Freddy, you would want a properly-tanked concrete floor and vinyl sheet (siliconed at perimeter) in every room? [Private joke ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted January 23, 2018 Report Share Posted January 23, 2018 37 minutes ago, Puffer said: Surely, Freddy, you would want a properly-tanked concrete floor and vinyl sheet (siliconed at perimeter) in every room? [Private joke ] Much more suitable for a 5 inch heel and pointed toe shoe than a pavement, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointyboot Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 1 hour ago, FastFreddy2 said: Much more suitable for a 5 inch heel and pointed toe shoe than a pavement, that's for sure. Careful, my friends. What happens in the bedroom should STAY in the bedroom. ;-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 And showing off your scuffed soles as evidence of your wild nights is poor form, right up there with bandying a lady’s name...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacchi Alti Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 Are they what's known as wanklepackers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puffer Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 9 hours ago, pointyboot said: Careful, my friends. What happens in the bedroom should STAY in the bedroom. ;-) Oh dear! You mean that I can't have a snooze in the lounge in front of the TV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 While doing a daily search for Loubies, those shoes came up again, with claimed "worn twice". Since they look like the wearer used them for running, I tried to find (what I think may have been) a picture for a tyre promo of some 30 years ago. It was an image of a "well known" track runner wearing red heels on starting blocks. The message in the ad ran something like "You wouldn't wear the wrong shoes on your feet, why use the wrong tyres on your car?" It caused a bit of a stir at the time, but I knew/know nothing of track athletics, so it meant very little to me. Anyone else remember it? As for blabbing details of bedroom activity .... At my age, the difficulty is remembering what I was doing 5 minutes ago ... Unless I made written notes at the time, no-one need fear any indiscretion from me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tacchi Alti Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 Yes, I remember that ad. I loved it but didn't know anyone else who would! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 (edited) I suspect you are thinking of Annie Leibovitz's portrait of Carl Lewis in red stilettos - an image that was, I believe, later used by Pirelli Tyres. Edited January 24, 2018 by Shyheels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Shyheels said: I suspect you are thinking of Annie Leibovitz's portrait of Carl Lewis in red stilettos - an image that was, I believe, later used by Pirelli Tyres. Well done! I did use Google to try an find the image I had in mind previously, with no luck. Even with your guidance, it took some finding: An image used for an ad campaign circa 23 years ago. Edited January 25, 2018 by FastFreddy2 Typo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 It was - is - quite a striking image and received a lot of coverage when Leibovitz made the original, during the 80s. It was a clever concept on her part and of course later on Pirelli made use of it. It was not originally part of an ad campaign but a fine art photo as far as I know - although it might possibly have been done for the famous Pirelli calendar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 I think Leibovitz is currently promoting a new book of her work. I don't know if that iconic (memorable) image is part of the her collection recently published. It would certainly add some heat to the promotional tour, unless she felt it had already been done to death in the 90's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 I find her work to be very hit and miss, and highly overrated in any event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 She won't die poor, but I'm not a fan. Bet she's got some phone numbers of some people I'd like to meet though .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 1 hour ago, FastFreddy2 said: She won't die poor, but I'm not a fan. Bet she's got some phone numbers of some people I'd like to meet though .... Not so sure about the not dying poor bit. She had to sell the copyright to all of her work a couple of years ago to pay off millions in debt. No doubt she'll bounce back, but she certainly took a big hit. Yes, I'm sure her Rolodex is full of interesting names... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 24 minutes ago, Shyheels said: Not so sure about the not dying poor bit. She had to sell the copyright to all of her work a couple of years ago to pay off millions in debt. No doubt she'll bounce back, but she certainly took a big hit. Yes, I'm sure her Rolodex is full of interesting names... I think she put up the copyright as collateral against loans, but these were not called in, and the recent-ish sale of some of her property may mean they will never be called against a loan. In fact it looks like one of the financial backers of the "pawn shop" she hocked herself to, has suggested they might be willing to offer her a loan that didn't require she sign her life work away. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/arts/design/24artloans.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1 House sale. Her ego has her working in la-la land. With only two snippets of information here, it's not hard to understand she is a fool. I imagine the more one delves into her life and tendency to spend money, the more this conclusion would be supported. I've seen some of her work, when she was at the top of her game. Some of it I liked, but not much. I've no idea what her current work is like, if indeed she still does take pictures. Many creatives dry up when their lives are not full of angst. That said, she still has plenty to worry about - assuming she ever had 'debt' as a concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted January 25, 2018 Report Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) I saw a show of her work in Britain and, as you say, some of it is nice, others less so, but none of it struck me as stuff I couldn’t find plenty of on Pinterest. It was certainly not exceptional. I have had the privilege of working with some truly world class photographers during the course of my career and while they were and are famous names, none of them ever achieved the lucrative day rates or renown amongst the chattering classes etc of Annie Leibovitz. And yet they all easily eclipse her for talent Edited January 25, 2018 by Shyheels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted January 26, 2018 Report Share Posted January 26, 2018 And while discussing Leibovitz .... Seeing triple! Photoshop fail leaves Oprah with THREE HANDS while Reese Witherspoon appears to have an extra leg in Vanity Fair cover shoot by famed photographer Annie Leibovitz Full story >> here << Not what you'd expect from someone paid a lot of money to produce the ultimate "premium" image. I'm sure it won't have been done on purpose, though the publishers have more media coverage of the photo's than they might have anticipated ..... Not so good for the photographers career... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted January 26, 2018 Report Share Posted January 26, 2018 (edited) That’s hilarious. And no, I am sure it was not done on purpose... I see where Vanity Fair is claiming that Reese’s third leg is actually the lining of her dress. They have run out of ideas on Oprah’s third hand, and are just letting that one alone. Edited January 26, 2018 by Shyheels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted January 26, 2018 Report Share Posted January 26, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Shyheels said: I see where Vanity Fair is claiming that Reese’s third leg is actually the lining of her dress. Her left thigh is in-line with the hidden "third" leg .... For the initial (perceived) left leg to be connected to the left thigh, it would need to be dislocated. It's not something that's immediately apparent because her knee is hidden, but the "third" leg is the one than isn't hidden. The two vertical blue lines indicate a straight leg, and has Reece standing or without her leg crossed. For the 'seen' left leg to be connected to her left thigh the knee bone (patella) needs to be offset as shown. Edited January 26, 2018 by FastFreddy2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted January 26, 2018 Report Share Posted January 26, 2018 It's pretty clear somebody goofed with the Photoshop. That's a really bad mistake - on several grounds; one, it's sloppy, and two, its questionable if the photographer/processor should be engaging in such trickery. Different magazines have different policies towards that kind of thing. The one for which I have contributed for many years has very strict policies against that kind of jiggery-pokery. Vanity Fair and Annie Leibovitz are obviously far more laissez faire... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FastFreddy2 Posted January 26, 2018 Report Share Posted January 26, 2018 5 minutes ago, Shyheels said: Vanity Fair and Annie Leibovitz are obviously far more laissez faire... I think you are being very generous there. I'm sure a number of people are now looking for new jobs .... Probably in a different industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyheels Posted January 26, 2018 Report Share Posted January 26, 2018 One would hope. I know - know as a fact - they would be out on their ear if they did anything like that at the magazine for which I work. Gone... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now