chrisand489
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2022
- Messages
- 992
- Reaction score
- 1,943
The jaw on the left girl is not flaterring !
Honestly, I feel like it doesn't even have the same quality as some photos taken by influencers lolA bit cliché to have the show held at Villa D'Este AND shooting the campaign at the Villa D'Este pool...
I know right! The Google maps uploads from random visitors look better than the outcome from a professional photoshootHonestly, I feel like it doesn't even have the same quality as some photos taken by influencers lol
What do you think: are we so habituated to AI that we 'see' it even when the pictures are taken on location? Does all digital photography now look AI-generated to some degree? Does Mario Sorrenti's light (and retouching) just not look good? I think these photographs were taken on location at Lake Como, with real models who've sat through glam and spent the day posing for pictures. Such fascinating times we live in... and does it all really matter? People are buying the product anyway.This isn't specific to Chanel, but I am done with brands producing fashion imagery where you're supposed to want to spend thousands on their merchandise when they're making the minimum of effort to entice you.
Too many adverts with fake backgrounds and AI models and 'experiments' in magazines with image manipulation, all of it contributing to the blandest, flattest visual landscape we've ever seen in the history of fashion photography.
I'm not complaining about things being commercial - some people on tfs are fashion purists, but I've always liked commercial things when it's been clear they've been done well, by people with decades of experience along with a slight creative twist on top. You can look back at beauty campaigns from decades ago, and still feel the power of commercialism when done well.
Is anyone going to be looking back at 90% of what gets produced today?