Yu Tsai's LiLo. Fab or Fail?

<p>Too bad that LiLo wasn't shot by one-of-the-many talented P-Net gallery photographers.<br /> Maybe, with all of the hype, I was expecting much better images. I like a fair portion of Yu Tsai's work,<br /> especially some of his previous b&w shots of LiLo, but sadly, the LiLo images for Playboy aren't some of them. <br /> Lighting is harsh, way over powered, (which might be necessary to blowout Lindsay's freckles and cutting scars).<br /> The images really don't look any better than images from a shopping mall Xmas photographer, actually...maybe worse.</p>

<p>If you were to do a Marilyn themed shoot like this, what would you do differently? <br /> Would you change the lighting...Use a larger space...A different red material? I would!<br /> I'm sure some will say...a different model. Maybe I would, too.</p>

<p>There are still several sites that have the leaked photos, however, to keep the legal-eagles away from P-Net,<br>

I won't post the URL's, (and probably, neither should anyone else). <br /> A simple Google search under, "Yu Tsai/Lindsay Lohan," Images...will yield all/several of the leaked images. <br /> You can't miss them; they're all shot against a red velvet background.</p>

<p>Hard to tell without seeing the actual magazine. I'd wait till it hits the newsstand. </p>

<p>I doubt anyone buys Playboy for the quality of the photography. Their photogarphers (or photo editors) aren't out to make art. They're out to sell magazines and if you get somebody famous (no matter what they are famous for, even if just for being famous), so much the better. If the photographer is a celebrity too, better still.</p>

<p>It's basically the "Emperor's new clothes" syndrome, but without the clothes. I haven't seen the pictures but I'll bet that there are dozens of photographers and even more models that could have collaborated and produced better images, but they wouldn't have sold as many magazines.</p>

Fail.

 

She is so overshopped, her head looks pasted onto someone else's overshopped body.

And then pasted a photo of a wig on her head.

 

They have cloned out her areolas. That's creepy.

 

I hope everyone who wants a copy gets a pirate distributed copy. Ha.

<blockquote>

<p>"They have cloned out her areolas. That's creepy."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The faint, or blown-out areolae are the product of the severe/harsh lighting. <br /> To render these features, using this level of harsh lighting, color should have been added to her areolae,<br /> (simply, lip stick/color applied to her areolae). The entire hair & makeup looks amateur, or rushed...sad.</p>

<p>The pictures do look better after conversion to b&w, though. Not $900k+ great...but better.</p>

<p>I do not care who the Photograph is , It is always hard to recreate the original photo, try as you might<br>

you can get close but that's as far as it gets In my book:</p>

Good point.

 

I haven't downloaded it myself. I was just looking at what was up on Google images.

 

They are not erotic at all to me. They have no real artistic anything going on. She looks like an old naked Barbie doll at

the bottom of a toybox, or the Barbie Bordello Townhouse. They could have taken a RealDoll and posed it, shot it, and it

would have been more interesting.

 

Hope she needed the money. If I were paying that photographer, I would ask for my money back.

<p>Agreeing with Richard Sperry-- wow, those are horrible photos with horrible lighting, horrible art direction, horrible hair & make-up, and none of the charm of the fifties era Marilyn Monroe photos. Beyond the technical, Lohan as a subject is no Marilyn Monroe.</p>

<p>Am I wrong to expect much better work in Playboy.</p>

<p>She looked a whole lot better when she was a redhead. The bleached blonde look most always looks fake. Of course Marilyn was a bleached blonde too.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, I was for some reason reminded of the end of this dialog by Terry Thomas in <em>It's a Mad, Mad...World</em>:<br />

<p>to wit - "This preposterous obsession with bosoms..."</p>

Bosoms are important.