Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
I should have known better...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 383040" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>Just to add to husband's post - easy child 2/difficult child 2 is beautiful, although when a baby she looked like a Cabbage Patch kid. She has worked as an actress and photographic model, but her best paying gig actually "uglified " her. They wanted a kid with braces for the photo shoot. She had clear braces (so she wouldn't miss out on too much photographic work - cost us extra, and then she never got the work while she had braces except for this gig). They wanted her hair done in tight braids, and she wore her reading glasses. She looks a lot younger always, she looked about ten years old (she was almost 16 at the time). Then they used a wide angle lens to take the photo.</p><p> </p><p>When they Photoshopped the images, they made her braces look like the heaviest metal, they painted in a lot more freckles and then made her nose look wide and bulbous. They were a professional ad agency and had to spend a lot of money and work hard, to make her look ugly. It made for a brilliant ad (not sure if it's available online any more) which won a Gold Lion at Cannes. No, she didn't get more than a basic fee for one hour's work.</p><p></p><p>That was about the time we stopped paying for school photos - that same year, the school photographer managed to get pretty much the same result as the expensive ad agency. And easy child 2/difficult child 2's best friends, both of them even more beautiful than our girl, had to have their photos re-done, they were so bad.</p><p></p><p>I think to take photos this bad, takes real anti-talent.</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 383040, member: 1991"] Just to add to husband's post - easy child 2/difficult child 2 is beautiful, although when a baby she looked like a Cabbage Patch kid. She has worked as an actress and photographic model, but her best paying gig actually "uglified " her. They wanted a kid with braces for the photo shoot. She had clear braces (so she wouldn't miss out on too much photographic work - cost us extra, and then she never got the work while she had braces except for this gig). They wanted her hair done in tight braids, and she wore her reading glasses. She looks a lot younger always, she looked about ten years old (she was almost 16 at the time). Then they used a wide angle lens to take the photo. When they Photoshopped the images, they made her braces look like the heaviest metal, they painted in a lot more freckles and then made her nose look wide and bulbous. They were a professional ad agency and had to spend a lot of money and work hard, to make her look ugly. It made for a brilliant ad (not sure if it's available online any more) which won a Gold Lion at Cannes. No, she didn't get more than a basic fee for one hour's work. That was about the time we stopped paying for school photos - that same year, the school photographer managed to get pretty much the same result as the expensive ad agency. And easy child 2/difficult child 2's best friends, both of them even more beautiful than our girl, had to have their photos re-done, they were so bad. I think to take photos this bad, takes real anti-talent. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
I should have known better...
Top