Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Ad Campaigns' started by LoveLetter, Nov 17, 2006.
There still was hope until now
I was right to not make any sarcastic comments before these came out. I'm loving these. They're gorgeous!
miu miu just proved me that almost every average girl can look amazing in ads.
now i know i could do miu miu campaign and look amazing too! but i'm not Lindsay, so...
anyway, i love these ads with Lindsay
Well, this just shows that anyone, celebrity or not, can model in an ad and look decent. I had absolutely no hope for her upon hearing the initial news, I admit, but now find these ads to be some of the best of the season.
^she's way more recognizable in those two.
^^ I love the second one! But, it's the bag, not Lohan!
She made no impact on prada but prada did have a strong influrence over her.She looks so different,just like another person.
why can't i see this 'Lindsay Lohan' in her candids?
i actually like these ads...i thought they were going to be much worse. Lindsay looks cute!
Regardless of Lindsays personal life, I dont think she is ugly, unattractive whatever, in our out the ads, but I get the impression people just label her like that because of her personal life
The gold/silver bag is to die for
oooh I love the other pictures too! Amazing !
I don't have a negative image on her because I don't follow magazines like star or perezhilton or any other similar often..I sometimes check her style thread and it's decent she is beautiful et all.
these aren't bad.. i'm pleasantly surprised
I really like these! What I surprise.
I HATE the big curly orange hair in the ads... what's up with that!?
it is her!!
2nd & 3rd picture better than the 1st one imo..
Yah, I don't think she's ugly at all. I don't even see how she's merely "average-looking"...where do you all live??? Everyone must be flipping gorgeous there if Lindsay is only average, lol. I dunno, but I wouldn't mind looking like her!
She's a trainwreck, sure, but imo she's naturally very pretty and photographs well. Here are some of my favorite photoshoots she has done:
Sheryl Nields (http://linds-lo.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=21)
John Huba (http://linds-lo.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=171)
Elle Magazine (http://linds-lo.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=220)
Entertainment Weekly (http://linds-lo.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=2)
Terry Richardson (http://linds-lo.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=575)
Premiere Magazine (http://linds-lo.com/photos/thumbnails.php?album=179)
love the ads...and love Lo
i have to greatly disagree with you. i know several photographers working in the field professionally and with the introduction of digital technology in photography, professionals are even more likely to use that ease of alteration to their advantage and more frequently. Before, with traditional photography and before photoshop, altering a photo was a lot of work in the dark room, not to mention a very exspensive process if something was not right (lighting, exposure, etc.) The photographers really needed to know their stuff to take high fashion photos, and they got paid good money for their talents.
Today, many many professional photographers use digital and for many reasons. Fixing bad lighting, skin conditions, the weight of a model, saturation, contrast, exposure, etc, can be edited completely in photoshop and other programs. That's why being an apprentice photographer is so much easier because you have all of these tools at your disposal. Many jobs have been lost because of this, and also many more unskilled photographers can use digital technology to fix other-wise crutial mistakes that would, in the past, single out the talent from the amateur.
even if you see the shots they take on americans next top model for each challenge, almost all of those shots are taken digitally and photoshopped to get those girls looking the best they can. (unless an unphotoshopped image is what they are after..........)