Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Magazines' started by Melancholybaby, Oct 30, 2018.
Such a beautiful cover. Love her
We would have known this was a blatant advertorial even without tagging the brands, Vanity Fair.
Wait, they really went with this for the cover? Mid air jump face expression and all? My god is this woman completely clueless as to what makes a decent cover, or what!!!
It's an unconventional and glamorous shot and it should've worked with a bit more character, whimsy or quirk. And I loathe the lighting. The fault clearly doesn't lie with Erik because his immense library of work at UK Harper's Bazaar begs to differ. Ever since he's been at CN the quality of his work just went downhill. Shooting celebrities is not a good match for him.
This is definitely the best cover under Radhika so far though, which is not saying much. She's got no taste, and definitely doesn't have a visual eye. What makes matters worse is that her henchwoman in the fashion department now appears to be the stylist responsible for Elle's eternally dull and dour studio cover shoots. Well, you get what you pay for.
Also, enough with the fashion spokespersons on VF!
Source: Vanity Fair
The editorial is certainly interesting but the cover really doesn't work - being able to see the grass just cheapens it. Nothing about this tells me its a December issue either...I'm not asking for her to be decked out in a Santa costume and surrounded by elves, but I think it should at least have some sense of festivity to it.
The cover looks like a fart. A gale force fart by someone hiding on the other side of a wall and really letting rip.
Nothing about the cover really quite works for me. The sunlight on only three quarters of her face makes her look very washed out and severe. If I only glance at the bottom of her dress near her shoes, it looks like Natalie is perched on some kind of rock and attempting to make herself look taller.
That image of her in a hot pink cape would makes a stellar cover. Also goes with her new movie too. But they need a Dior dress to be on the cover. Literally VF now feels like LVMH supplement magazines.
yes , pink cape is the perfect cover!
And that pink cape shot of 'Natalie against the greenery' would have provided an interesting visual update to her Vanity Fair cover from way back when - May 1999 (exploregram.com).
Between this cover and that one, it would show her journey from Hollywood ingénue to legend.
Wit some cropping or a different angle, the cover could work. Radhika must've thought that the drama of the hemline should not go to waste, which explains why she picked this cover. Wrong move.
Natalie is such a beautiful woman, but that cover shot is not flattering.
The light is so harsh and and severe on her face. Her gaping mouth doesn't help either.
This is another miss for Radhika.
I too was transported back to that stunning Leibovitz shoot tigerrouge.
Erik's work is either phenomenal or forgettable. This ed falls into the latter. Natalie looks peeved in most of the shots thanks to that insanely too bright lighting aimed directly into her eyes. Her posing looks forced, corny. The second to last shot esp looks comical; like she's struggling to retain composure while the atrocity that is the bottom half of that slippery get up is causing her to slide off the chair.
Yes capturing vibrant jewel tones and lush fashion is Erik's forte but that in itself does not a memorable editorial make. None of these photos are worthy of print, let alone earning cover editorial status.
They turned her into a brunette Carolina Herrera and aged her about 20 years.
Out of all the shots they have. They choose ones which have the worst face expressions?
That lighting isn't very flattering is it?
Its as if they wanted a commercialized Paolo Roversi shoot