LurkerinNJ has reiterated that she is not talking about the high school photo specifically-
The photos she’s judging are on a Facebook page titled “Outdoor Model Sessions”. Bolding is mine, to point out the difference I think you’re missing.
Labeled such by the photographer. That is the photographer’s Facebook, not the girl’s.
I have friends who are professional photographers. They frequently refer to nondescript fancy photos “model sessions” and stuff like that (and the photos are just of regular people who wanted some pictures, not professional models).
Your head must be a very depressing place to be and the woman in your good picture is going to be starring in my nightmares tonight with her freakish teeth.
Is it also reasonable to call the editor of the Centertown High Tribune a cock-hungry whore because their school paper is really, really just not as well written as the New York Times?
Of course not. It would be acceptable, though, for a professional writer to explain that the paper is not very good and explain why, in her opinion. She’d even be justified in criticizing the writer who is only good enough to appear in that publication. And you sure as hell can look at someone’s writing and determine their base personality. It’s not judging if it’s all you have to go on.
BTW, I graduated in 2003, and the only people who submitted photos were those who were excusably absent on both picture days or had not yet been attending the school. And even then the photo would be cropped to just your head and shoulders, like all the other pics. Everyone tried their best to try to not be the one who looked different.
Ironically, while the faux tuxedos always looked amazing, the faux dress was strapless, and made some of the students look naked. Even in this conservative little hole in ground, no one ever complained.
As for the photos: I don’t really see any problem with them, except that they don’t make good yearbook photos. Neither are what I think of when I think of sexy clothing. And, sorry LurkerNJ, but your photo was not good, at least, for a yearbook. Do you realize how much space you are wasting following the rule of thirds? You’ve likely got to fit 30-something pictures on a page. There’s nothing wrong with having the subject centered, as long as you pose it correctly.
This girl’s yearbook is either going to be really big or really busy looking.
Actually, we have a pretty good idea what happened next.
Yearbook staff rejects the picture
Spies and her mother throw a fit
Spies holds a protest outside of the school, with signs, the whole bit
Spies discusses this blow to her “freedom of expression” with local media
The story grows
Spies goes on the Today show, declares her desire to be a model and a dancer
She did not make a small misstep, and get raked over the coals for it. She deliberately took that small misstep and presented it for public review some of which has been negative.
Thick waist? Thick ankles? Weight? WTF? No wonder body dysmorphic disorder is a widespread problem, with attitudes like that, when anyone who isn’t an anorexic skeleton is shamed for having a “thick waist.” In the real world, that young woman is not fat, she’s well-proportioned. The standards of extreme thinness you’re pushing are unreal and unhealthy—and unattractive too.
Yes, but now we have the beauty product that the professionals use!
You won the thread. Hell, you just won the Pit for a week.
Yes. I am sure she has knobby knees as well as freakishly perfect teeth.
No problem with that. I’m OK with this young woman having revealing pix taken of herself, and plastering them all over town on billboards if she’s in the mood. Them’s some pretty hot pictures IMHO, and if she wants to promote her hotness, well, more power to her.
But one’s class photo in the yearbook isn’t the place for it. In that context, looking attractive is fine, but looking hot to trot definitely isn’t. Do you disagree?
I disagree.
There’s really no reason for the school to allow any clothing in the yearbook that they wouldn’t allow in the hallways, and I’m pretty sure that the outfit in that first picture would get her sent home to change.
My thought was, “Too bad the rest of us were too stupid to get photos like that taken when we were 18.”
Probably not yearbook material but I have no doubt they’ll be a treasured keepsake for her, and rightly so.
Who?
I don’t think I could have articulated it with the detail that LurkerInNJ has, since I know pretty much nothing of modeling or fashion photography, but when I look at her “modeling” photos they just seem…not quite right. It’s like when you see someone wearing somebody else’s clothes; here it feels like the photographer is taking someone else’s picture.
As for her clothes and styling, I feel like she has bought into a fairly generic idea of what “sexy” is and she hasn’t figured out what sexy is for her. Not that I would expect an 18-year-old to have figured that out. To me she’s trying way too hard, and just like the pics themselves she seems to be showing off somebody else’s sexuality.
I’m glad they make her happy. I think that in 20 years she’ll be proud of the body she had in these pics, but they’ll feel very dated to her.
Speaking of dated, my senior year fell not too long after a nearby mall opened an outpost of Glamour Shots, and many of the girls in my class went there for their senior pics. This was 1993 out in the sticks, which means it was essentially 1988, so you can imagine the giant hair we’re talking about to start with, to say nothing of what it was like after Glamour Shots got hold of them. GS seemed to specialize in combining ridiculous hair, makeup, clothes, lighting, and photography technique to create a portrait that looked nothing like its subject.
I said as much to my best friend/de facto sister who got her pics done there. (I had not yet learned to tell whether someone asking for my opinion really wanted it or not.) I really just didn’t think they looked like her. She was pretty proud of them and didn’t talk to me for a while afterward. I haven’t asked her about it since (and I don’t intend to), but IMO all of the Glamour Shots that made it into the yearbook look comically dated at this point.
Agreed. Really…wtf…? The photos themselves may or may not be stupid, but the girl herself looks fine-looking to me, and any argument otherwise is really splitting hairs.
The hot chicks who looked like that when I graduated HS were, by the 10th reunion, all… err, let’s be polite, less than svelte. And they tried to stuff themselves back into the same clothes they wore 10 years earlier. It wasn’t a pretty sight.
Let her (and everyone else) enjoy her hotness while it lasts.
I looked at the rest of those pictures and I think number 15 in the series would have been a perfectly fine one for the yearbook. A yearbook is not the place to look for modeling jobs anyway.
I posed nude (oh! the slutty horrors!!) for an artist friend of mine at that age, and the sketches bring me a lot of joy. I’m no Kate Winslet in Titanic, but it is nice to look at them and think, “Yep, I had a rockin’ set of boobs before kids!”