Normally I hate the overly airbrushed look, but in a case like this where the photo is clearly referencing fashion photography from the late 70's/early 80's, Guy Bourdin's look in particular, it works because back then the look was hyper-perfect as well. The only difference between Bourdin/Nadja's cover and this cover is the methods the photographers took to make it look hyper-perfect. Why does it matter if it's precision lighting and makeup or photoshop if the results are pretty much the same?
Yes the cover is a ripoff of another photograph, but when are M&M not referencing someone else's work in their photography? Is anyone really shocked?
I don't like this cover very much because it fails at doing the same thing that the Nadia/Demarchelier cover did...Nadja had an edge in her eyes that Kate Hudson could never have. The 1994 cover looks like you would have - miraculously - been able to snap some infinitely gorgeous creature at an S&M club; and by some grace of god, the lights were bright enough, and it's just that one perfect frame, where she looks up, somewhat angry to see you take photos of her....and just so unbearably cool.
In other words, she is a great model, and the people involved in the shoot were a great team. Both those things must be true for a great cover to happen....Kate Hudson could never accomplish the same effect, unless they photoshopped someone else's eyes in there, I suppose. Maybe merge Sasha into the picture somehow - you know - then you can claim it's a celeb on the cover and you can still have a great shot...
Further, the neck is the difference, as already mentioned.
As for Bourdin... With old techniques, texture wasn't lost, with photoshop, it frequently is...
Last edited by a moderator: