The Words Escape Me

[John Morton]

I hope that no photographers here are responsible for images such as these...

http://photos.ellen.warnerbros.com/g..._photos#197653

[Andrew76]

Ha! Well, I've got some great ideas for new poses for my next shoot now! Thanks for sharing John, now all I need to do is find a rifle for my boudoir models!!

[Andrew1]

197 photos of bad hair. Thanks for the laugh.

[Bobobird]

I don't see anything wrong with them and perhaps the deliberate snapshot look. They do typify well the fashion sense of a very large segment of the population on a certain continent.

[gregj1763]

lost for words

[Glenn NK]

lost for words

I'm not: UGH.

Glenn

[jcuknz]

Bobo's right but they don't have much to work with?

[Dave Humphries]

Oh come on....

Many of these were obviously taken decades ago, when perceptions were somewhat different than they are now.

Even today, I wonder how many times has a pro' 'tog' had to take a picture they don't feel does the subject any favours, yet if the client (Agent/Mom or Dad) requests it, and the subject (at the time) was happy with it, should they not have taken it?

This is one of those things where it's just too easy to poke fun at something old.

Ask yourself this; what positive thing comes out of that parade of images for those subjects?
Does that give the rest of us the right to a giggle at their expense?

This must have caught me at a funny time, I'm sure at another time, I might not have reacted this way.

[John Morton]

Oh come on....

Many of these were obviously taken decades ago, when perceptions were somewhat different than they are now.

Even today, I wonder how many times has a pro' 'tog' had to take a picture they don't feel does the subject any favours, yet if the client (Agent/Mom or Dad) requests it, and the subject (at the time) was happy with it, should they not have taken it?

This is one of those things where it's just too easy to poke fun at something old.

Ask yourself this; what positive thing comes out of that parade of images for those subjects?
Does that give the rest of us the right to a giggle at their expense?

This must have caught me at a funny time, I'm sure at another time, I might not have reacted this way.

Well all I can say Dave is, since those photos were sent in by the people who own them and, since we can probably agree that the photographers can't be held entirely responsible but were most likely working with what was presented to them, if nothing else this clearly demonstrates have badly things can spiral downward when nobody is willing to step up, put their foot down, and say: "NO! Your child DOES NOT look good in tight fitting, shiny clothing!!!"

[revi]

Granted that the base material wasn't optimal. Still, there's a number of photos in that series where the photographer is to blame, unless the models were that ugly that the camera broke down...

[Geoff F]

I didn't see a great deal wrong photographically speaking in the few which I saw, although at a small image size it was difficult to examine closely.

The styles may be a bit dated; but many of the modern styles will also look strange in 20 years time.

However, I didn't see many of them because some form of questionnaire appeared on my screen which looked like a scam or potential virus attack; so I immediately left the site.

[John Morton]

However, I didn't see many of them because some form of questionnaire appeared on my screen which looked like a scam or potential virus attack; so I immediately left the site.

Geoff, it's a major corporation's site for a top rated television show that has millions of viewers. If there were any kind of scam or virus embedded in that site, it would be discovered within seconds.