a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-04-04 14:14 , Alan Browne wrote:
I've always found DeGeneres to have one of the most interesting faces in
the E crowd. This quirky portrait highlights her eyes beautifully.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...len1-popup.jpG

Link fixed:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...len1-popup.jpg

Sorry 'bout that.


Not bad, but I prefer this one:

http://totallylookslike.files.wordpr...3178762053.jpg

--
Jeff R.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-04-04 14:34 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-04-04 11:24:50 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-04-04 14:14 , Alan Browne wrote:
I've always found DeGeneres to have one of the most interesting faces
in
the E crowd. This quirky portrait highlights her eyes beautifully.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...len1-popup.jpG


Link fixed:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...len1-popup.jpg


Sorry 'bout that.

Cover your ears.

AAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaggh!!!!!!!!!!

I take you're not a fan? This is about the photo, not the person.

But it's a photo OF the person, which makes it hard to separate the two
things.

Is there some reason she's eating her coat?

Oh well. It's better than seeing her weep and wail on TV about the puppy
thing, which was the first time I'd bothered to watch DeGeneres in years and
reminded me of why I couldn't stand her. She's not only a nut case but a
nasty self-serving one at that.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.........

Chuck.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010040415533780979-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-04-04 15:32:51 -0700, "Chuck" said:

Alan - Everyone has jumped on tour photo, so let me tell you I like it.

Oh well!
There is no accounting for taste.

The eyes make the whole picture.

Yes, they make the whole picture awful scary.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010040413371195335-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-04-04 13:27:18 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-04-04 16:01 , Tony Roberts wrote:
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010040412503751816-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-04-04 12:46:31 -0700, "Tony Roberts" TR@wft .com said:

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
On 10-04-04 14:14 , Alan Browne wrote:
I've always found DeGeneres to have one of the most interesting
faces in
the E crowd. This quirky portrait highlights her eyes beautifully.

Link fixed:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...len1-popup.jpg


Sorry 'bout that.



On the monitor, it doesn't look good. However, if you take a few
steps back...

30, 40, ...er maybe a 100.



Depends on your monitor.

I don't think the original was meant for screen display.

So people reading that article in the online edition of the NYT are
supposed to print it first?

...or step back 30 paces.

--
Regards,

Savageduck


Ah, so she's some famous bird. Makes sense now.

Sorry, I didn't know who she was. And still don't TBH.

On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:19 +0100, Bruce wrote:



I agree. It is an extremely unflattering portrait of an interesting
woman who deserves much better. Very much better.

She/he can always try changing the contact lens.

On 2010-04-05 08:41:41 -0700, Bruce said:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:13:18 -0700, Irwell wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:19 +0100, Bruce wrote:

I agree. It is an extremely unflattering portrait of an interesting
woman who deserves much better. Very much better.

She/he can always try changing the contact lens.


Maybe she should choose a competent photographer.

The photographer was probably quite competent. She manages her "look"
all by herself.

I suspect this was a proof sheet reject, and a NY Times editor, having
Alan in mind, thought it was "quirky" and dumped the ...er "good"
shots for the one we are discussing.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10-04-04 18:32 , Chuck wrote:
Alan - Everyone has jumped on tour photo, so let me tell you I like it.
The eyes make the whole picture.

I like it. Clean, sharp, brings out her eyes, spiky hair.

She's an unusual looking, though attractive woman.

Don't top post.



Regards....Chuck.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
I've always found DeGeneres to have one of the most interesting faces
in the E crowd. This quirky portrait highlights her eyes beautifully.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...len1-popup.jpG




--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.



--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 2010-04-05 11:35:03 -0700, Bruce said:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:52:23 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-04-05 08:41:41 -0700, Bruce said:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:13:18 -0700, Irwell wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:19 +0100, Bruce wrote:

I agree. It is an extremely unflattering portrait of an interesting
woman who deserves much better. Very much better.

She/he can always try changing the contact lens.


Maybe she should choose a competent photographer.

The photographer was probably quite competent.


If so, he/she would have deleted that shot. Or at least made sure it
never reached the public domain. It's horrible.

Another frightening thought is, this might have been the best from the
shoot, and the photog had no choice other than submitting the "eye"
shot to the editorial staff. There might be some truly bad Ellen images
out there.
....and this was in the NY Times of all places.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10-04-05 15:29 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-04-05 11:35:03 -0700, Bruce said:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:52:23 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-04-05 08:41:41 -0700, Bruce said:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:13:18 -0700, Irwell wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:19 +0100, Bruce wrote:

I agree. It is an extremely unflattering portrait of an interesting
woman who deserves much better. Very much better.

She/he can always try changing the contact lens.


Maybe she should choose a competent photographer.

The photographer was probably quite competent.


If so, he/she would have deleted that shot. Or at least made sure it
never reached the public domain. It's horrible.

Another frightening thought is, this might have been the best from the
shoot, and the photog had no choice other than submitting the "eye" shot
to the editorial staff. There might be some truly bad Ellen images out
there.
...and this was in the NY Times of all places.

I think it to be a very well done photo. Simple, clean setup. Focuses
on her expressive face. Posed for fun and effect (her entertainment
market). I would bet the photog and DeGeneres had a lot of fun doing
this. Finally the technical quality is superb - would like to see this
image at least 3x larger in dimensions as well as the whole shoot set.

The NYT publishes photos that make that one look very ordinary.
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

On 2010-04-05 12:42:21 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 10-04-05 15:29 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-04-05 11:35:03 -0700, Bruce said:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:52:23 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-04-05 08:41:41 -0700, Bruce said:

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:13:18 -0700, Irwell wrote:
On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:19 +0100, Bruce wrote:

I agree. It is an extremely unflattering portrait of an interesting
woman who deserves much better. Very much better.

She/he can always try changing the contact lens.


Maybe she should choose a competent photographer.

The photographer was probably quite competent.


If so, he/she would have deleted that shot. Or at least made sure it
never reached the public domain. It's horrible.

Another frightening thought is, this might have been the best from the
shoot, and the photog had no choice other than submitting the "eye" shot
to the editorial staff. There might be some truly bad Ellen images out
there.
...and this was in the NY Times of all places.

I think it to be a very well done photo. Simple, clean setup. Focuses
on her expressive face. Posed for fun and effect (her entertainment
market). I would bet the photog and DeGeneres had a lot of fun doing
this. Finally the technical quality is superb - would like to see this
image at least 3x larger in dimensions as well as the whole shoot set.

The NYT publishes photos that make that one look very ordinary.

Alan,
All I can say is, this is a photograph, as technically good as it might
be, which does not work for me.

I am sure they would be more than happy to sell you a life size,
autographed copy.

--
Regards,

Savageduck