The Brunette
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 359
Jun 6, 2007 18:57:39 GMT -4
|
Post by The Brunette on Sept 6, 2007 12:04:20 GMT -4
Seriously, how do these shitty photoshop jobs get on the covers of major magazines? [Semi-OT]Last week, I showed the photo tech at work Maroon 5's Rolling Stone cover; I told him the photo looked wonky but I couldn't put my finger on it. He proceeded to explain: The lighting on the band members' faces and shadows were not consistent, clearly indicating that the Maroons didn't pose together for the shot. Also, he believes the Photoshopper flipped the long-haired guy on the left. I suspect the process for landing a photo tech job at a major magazine is the same as it is for writing jobs - it's not about talent, but whom you know and how fabulous a person you are. Unless you're Ugly Betty, of course![/semi-OT] I just love how this issue of Glamour promises advice on how to "dress your body better." Yeah, fuck Glamour. But I do have to admit the dress they 'shopped America into is pretty.
|
|
|
Post by JeanBean on Sept 6, 2007 13:50:45 GMT -4
In the Glamour interview America says she's a size 6 or an 8. Really? I guess the camera does add 10 lbs, because I would have guessed she was a size 10.
|
|
|
Post by kostgard on Sept 6, 2007 14:33:44 GMT -4
I think that's true - I remember one of her dresses was available through some sort of charity auction and it was listed as size 6.
I think she looks bigger than that because she's really very petite. I don't think she's much over five feet tall (everyone on Ugly Betty pretty much tower over her), and she probably actually has a rather small frame. A size 6 on someone who is 5'1" is really different than a size 6 on someone who is 5'9".
Plus I think we're so used to seeing size 0 and size 2 on tv that anyone above that looks huge.
|
|
|
Post by mochakitty on Sept 11, 2007 10:52:13 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by mochakitty on Sept 17, 2007 6:37:34 GMT -4
Sorry for the double post. No replies to the last set of pics. Pics from the 59th Primetime Emmy Awards (September 16th, Los Angeles): Close-upFull Length Shot
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 18:28:35 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2007 8:02:06 GMT -4
Love her love her looooooove her. And I for one think she looks stunning; that's a great color on her. Props for her embracing her vavavoom-ness.
|
|
lulu622
Guest
Nov 28, 2024 18:28:35 GMT -4
|
Post by lulu622 on Sept 17, 2007 8:03:54 GMT -4
I love her. She is just so cute and I think she looked great at both events although I like the dress from the 9th a little bit more than the one from yesterday.
|
|
|
Post by Ladybug on Sept 17, 2007 10:11:38 GMT -4
I liked the white dress more than the blue. The belt on the blue one cut her in half and made her look very wide.
Was it just me or did she seem not surprised by her win? I just remember how cute and charming she was at the Golden Globes, when she seemed genuinely shocked and touched by the win. This time she was kind of like "yeah, that Emmy is mine."
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Nov 28, 2024 18:28:35 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2007 10:32:06 GMT -4
She is so pretty, but I really don't like that blue Emmy dress on her. it comes up too high and negates her cleavage and the belt manages to make her look like she has a real poochy tummy.
|
|
|
Post by discoprincess on Sept 17, 2007 14:53:22 GMT -4
She is so pretty, but I really don't like that blue Emmy dress on her. it comes up too high and negates her cleavage and the belt manages to make her look like she has a real poochy tummy. Love the color, but the length of the dress makes her look short and stumpy.
|
|