Kate Moss - posting requires reading thread rules, see post #1
, happy to see kate get so many sept covers, the clothes maybe kinda tacky in the just cavalli campaign but she does look gorgeous in it.100%
joshsimona
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 0
did you know that the red little dresss she wore last week on her vacation is vintage hermes...i just would never have thought that myself...now that i know it does look kinda vintagey
karen sofie
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,336
- Reaction score
- 1
The red dress looks more aged than vintaged, like something from the Stoneage.
It's just a very weird piece, in my opinion.
It's just a very weird piece, in my opinion.
karen sofie
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,336
- Reaction score
- 1
But it does make sense that it would be vintage - my mum's first reaction was: 'that's so 70s'! 
joshsimona
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 0
mine too, she said twiggy would wear that!
)
)karen sofie
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,336
- Reaction score
- 1
^haha, funny
joshsimona
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 0
totally, cause it's not like we always see pics of kate together, and to get the same coment from two moms...really funny
))
))karen sofie
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,336
- Reaction score
- 1
^Exactly!
I wonder if Kate is back in England now..?
I wonder if Kate is back in England now..?
Yes it is. I think the members of this thread will know better than anyone [well except for Kate and her beau!] the true state of her skin since we see HQ close ups practically every day and there is no way it is like that. I'm not saying its perfect [far from it, its sun damaged for sure] but the picture in question is so ridiculous.
I actually wrote to the Daily Mail and complained about it because it angered me so much. I'm sick and tired of agencies getting away with editing photos of celebrities [esp. female] to make them look worse than they actually do. There is uproar when celebrities are made to look better but I don't think people realize that agencies make them look worse as well [a bad photo of Kate is probably worth more $$$ than a good shot.]
The accompanying article was also particularly nasty [the writer picked apart every tiny flaw of Kate and got "experts" to write about why she looked so bad.] I know its the Daily Mail and I shouldn't expect anything less than crass and hateful from them but I personally felt this article and photo was way below the belt. If the writer's intention is to make us "normal" women feel better about ourselves then they are really misguided because (for me) it has the complete opposite effect. If they can do this to a supermodel then what chance do we have? Females always seem so much harsher on other women and it needs to stop. Don't they realize that females can be misogynistic as well?
There is such an obsession with youth. People seem to be under some illusion that aging is a disease you can stop and anyone that they sticks two fingers up to this "youth ideal" is torn to pieces.
Well it needs to stop.
Im sure the Mail will not even bother to read my letter but I really needed to get it off my chest. That newspaper is one of the worst offenders for picking apart celebrities and coupled with its general bigotry is really infuriates me.
grrrrrr
if anyone else wants to write to the mail then email [email protected]
*gets off of high horse*
oh and you know what? Even if [and its a bit if] that photo is the real deal and Kates skin is wrecked; good on her for not pumping herself full of botox and whatnot. One of the reasons Kate has always stood out for me is that she has always kept it real. Her imperfections make her special.
rayzor2212
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 161
- Reaction score
- 0
The fourth W shot is extraordinarily photoshopped. The work on her leg looks like a four year old has been let loose on paint and cut straight up. Other than that glaring mistake, it's a nice ed. The shot of her in the Balmain dress from Vogue is the best I've seen in ages.
Yes it is. I think the members of this thread will know better than anyone [well except for Kate and her beau!] the true state of her skin since we see HQ close ups practically every day and there is no way it is like that. I'm not saying its perfect [far from it, its sun damaged for sure] but the picture in question is so ridiculous.
I actually wrote to the Daily Mail and complained about it because it angered me so much. I'm sick and tired of agencies getting away with editing photos of celebrities [esp. female] to make them look worse than they actually do. There is uproar when celebrities are made to look better but I don't think people realize that agencies make them look worse as well [a bad photo of Kate is probably worth more $$$ than a good shot.]
The accompanying article was also particularly nasty [the writer picked apart every tiny flaw of Kate and got "experts" to write about why she looked so bad.] I know its the Daily Mail and I shouldn't expect anything less than crass and hateful from them but I personally felt this article and photo was way below the belt. If the writer's intention is to make us "normal" women feel better about ourselves then they are really misguided because (for me) it has the complete opposite effect. If they can do this to a supermodel then what chance do we have? Females always seem so much harsher on other women and it needs to stop. Don't they realize that females can be misogynistic as well?
There is such an obsession with youth. People seem to be under some illusion that aging is a disease you can stop and anyone that they sticks two fingers up to this "youth ideal" is torn to pieces.
Well it needs to stop.
Im sure the Mail will not even bother to read my letter but I really needed to get it off my chest. That newspaper is one of the worst offenders for picking apart celebrities and coupled with its general bigotry is really infuriates me.
grrrrrr
if anyone else wants to write to the mail then email [email protected]
*gets off of high horse*
oh and you know what? Even if [and its a bit if] that photo is the real deal and Kates skin is wrecked; good on her for not pumping herself full of botox and whatnot. One of the reasons Kate has always stood out for me is that she has always kept it real. Her imperfections make her special.
Three cheers to you! The media completely builds women up into these ridiculously unrealistic paragons of beauty and then loves to tear them down. Both sides are totally misogynistic. I'm so in agreement with you that neither the idolizing nor the tearing to shreds of female celebrities results in so called 'normal' women feeling better about themselves. Prhaps if there was more realism in the media rather than extreme praise or extreme critism (or inthis case extreme photoshopping) 'normal' women wouldn't feel bad to begin with.
Also, wasn't Rimmel fined for Kate's mascara ads because she was in fact wearing false eyelashes? Aren't there laws regarding how far you can go photoshopping? Or are they only applicable to advertisements?
joshsimona
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 0
agree with you!
People are trying to instate laws but I don't think there are any at the moment (I may be wrong, but I'm judging by most beauty advertisements I see which are shopped to hell).
And re: the Rimmel thing, they only got into trouble because she was wearing false ones, they probably would have gotten away with it if they'd just photoshopped the lashes bigger.
joshsimona
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 0
yes, but sometimes, there's really no difference between photoshoped eyelashes, and fake ones, on ads they all look unnatural and you know that unless you have your own natural good eyelashes, no mascara will do what they claim on ads-that you can touch the sky with them and other nonsense
and outhere there are people who actually think it all works, that's so naive and well, stupid...
and outhere there are people who actually think it all works, that's so naive and well, stupid...
Last edited by a moderator:
[In the UK] I think cosmetic companies are obliged to include a disclaimer stating that false lashes were used and I have a feeling this was introduced as a direct result of the Rimmel ad with Kate.
If Im looking to buy a mascara I want to see what it actually looks like on, not what some computer geek thinks it should look like after hours of editing. If the cosmetic companies actually believed in the claims they make about their products why the need to edit the images!?
But don't get me wrong, Im not against editing photos full stop. The majority of images we see in print are edited even if they are of landscapes or something incredibly boring simply because the images are flat. Im not against photoshopping in fashion because one could argue that photographers/magazines are using artistic license [you only have to look at photos by Rankin to see that photoshopping images can totally be justified] and its obvious they have been edited and why they have been edited. What I personally have a problem against is when the editing is done almost underhand as a way to deceive the viewer. They are presenting an image as if it were real when it has been heavily airbrushed to distort the "truth".
Women [in particular] are being bombarded with this perfect image which is completely unachievable. And now articles like the one in the Daily Mail are trying to counteract that with photos that have been edited to look less than perfect to make "us" feel better but at what cost?
Im all for us ladies fighting against this ridiculous trend for airbrushing photos but that shouldn't mean we have to rip another woman to pieces in the process. I think that is what angered me the most about that Daily Mail article. [Oprah]What happened to empowering ourselves and each other?[/Oprah]
The thing that always gets me is that the reason why Kate became such a huge star in the fashion industry originally was because she wasn't perfect. She had a wonky eye, crooked teeth, bow legs, freckles and a big nose. that's why we loved her! Kate's has never been this amazonian beauty so why try to make her look like one now?
*burns bra*
If Im looking to buy a mascara I want to see what it actually looks like on, not what some computer geek thinks it should look like after hours of editing. If the cosmetic companies actually believed in the claims they make about their products why the need to edit the images!?
But don't get me wrong, Im not against editing photos full stop. The majority of images we see in print are edited even if they are of landscapes or something incredibly boring simply because the images are flat. Im not against photoshopping in fashion because one could argue that photographers/magazines are using artistic license [you only have to look at photos by Rankin to see that photoshopping images can totally be justified] and its obvious they have been edited and why they have been edited. What I personally have a problem against is when the editing is done almost underhand as a way to deceive the viewer. They are presenting an image as if it were real when it has been heavily airbrushed to distort the "truth".
Women [in particular] are being bombarded with this perfect image which is completely unachievable. And now articles like the one in the Daily Mail are trying to counteract that with photos that have been edited to look less than perfect to make "us" feel better but at what cost?
Im all for us ladies fighting against this ridiculous trend for airbrushing photos but that shouldn't mean we have to rip another woman to pieces in the process. I think that is what angered me the most about that Daily Mail article. [Oprah]What happened to empowering ourselves and each other?[/Oprah]
The thing that always gets me is that the reason why Kate became such a huge star in the fashion industry originally was because she wasn't perfect. She had a wonky eye, crooked teeth, bow legs, freckles and a big nose. that's why we loved her! Kate's has never been this amazonian beauty so why try to make her look like one now?
*burns bra*
joshsimona
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2008
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 0
well, to me she was always a gorge, even in her young days...
but aside that, you're right...but, of course they're not gonna show the real mascara effect when all of them have more or less the same, as i said it all depends on your natural lashes and the way you curl them or not and how you apply the mascara..all rest of it is as you said playtime for some computer geek..by the way, lancome and maybelline always work good
...but aside that, you're right...but, of course they're not gonna show the real mascara effect when all of them have more or less the same, as i said it all depends on your natural lashes and the way you curl them or not and how you apply the mascara..all rest of it is as you said playtime for some computer geek..by the way, lancome and maybelline always work good
Similar Threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
