Jump to content
Bellazon

Recommended Posts

Posted
6 hours ago, Matute said:

no, for while larger, its resolution is not substantially better. all the aboutyou images that they upload are very grainy, and either thats a filter they put on or more unlikely it means the original resolution was much smaller. even the non-resized images on the website are not uhq. not sure why. even the press release photos were grainy. must be some kind of anti piracy thing

Posted
2 minutes ago, hrehe said:

even the non-resized images on the website are not uhq. not sure why. even the press release photos were grainy. must be some kind of anti piracy thing

The images were shot on film. Which is why they appear 'grainy' (even the white wall shots)

Posted

ah i see @Kane i didnt know that. is film still very common for editorials?campaigns? i thought most used digital which makes editing them easier? i guess raere campaign photos were not edited much at all then?

Posted
3 hours ago, hrehe said:

is film still very common for editorials?campaigns?

It's definitely a common trend. But ultimately just a creative/artistic decision. I personally like film photography 

 

3 hours ago, hrehe said:

i guess raere campaign photos were not edited much at all then?

I would imagine the photos are still edited (after being converted to a digital format)

Posted

 

2 hours ago, Kane said:

It's definitely a common trend. But ultimately just a creative/artistic decision. I personally like film photography 

 

I would imagine the photos are still edited (after being converted to a digital format)

 

oh they converted them to digital? maybe there is a market somewhere for a camera that take digital and film simultaneously, the film can then be for the photographer to develop and later display, and the digital can go straight to the editor without any need for a conversion. i definitely dont know what im talking about but having both formats at the same time would be a win

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

I’m happy for them both as well, but he hardly took his time. They’ve been together for 4 years not 10. Marriage isn’t what it used to be better to be safe than sorry. I wonder if all that time they spent together in 2020 helped to strengthen their bond.

Posted

ham147  i really hope you were being sarcastic. if youve been dating for 4 years and he hasnt proposed yet... then your relationship is in trouble. unless you started dating at 15... waiting 10 years to get married is not healthy for any long term relationship. although you may find yourself married under common law married. however this is all besides the point of this forum.

Posted
55 minutes ago, hrehe said:

ham147  i really hope you were being sarcastic. if youve been dating for 4 years and he hasnt proposed yet... then your relationship is in trouble. unless you started dating at 15... waiting 10 years to get married is not healthy for any long term relationship. although you may find yourself married under common law married. however this is all besides the point of this forum.

Marriage is a requirement for health and happiness, I thought Johnny Depp and Amber Heard proved this.

Posted

I never said wait ten years. I simply stated 4 years is not too long. You do realize the west has gone through an enormous cultural shift in the last 50 years. Marriage is no longer required. Plus given their relative young age and Lorena’s occupation. Taking your time and building a strong bond is the smart play. CJ played it right he clearly loves her, and now he knows she feels the same. The stupid play is to get married in the first 2 years. Those marriages are usually based on lust, and are doomed to fail. I work in family court you have no idea how bad it is out here.

Posted

ham147 you said they have been dating for 4 years not 10, the inference being that if they had been dating for 10 years... then... they should be married -> because it would be wrong of CJ to take 10 years to propose -> because 4 years is not too long but 10 would be -> therefore it follows that the longer you date the more inappropriate it becomes to not propose and that by saying 4 not 10, you've delineated what the boundary of appropriateness is. therefore you did not need to say "wait" or "wait 10 years", since by implication that is what any reasonable person would conclude from what you are saying. marrying young is not a problem... the people getting married are the potential problem. its a little demeaning to suggest that a young marriage wouldn't work, and it is hubris to suggest that marrying later would work out better. many of Lorena's friends are of a similar age... yet they married young. they are also of the same generation... and yet they felt that it was appropriate to get married. just because some people don't want to get married, does not mean everyone thinks the same. Lorena is from a modest background, she isn't part of the liberal elite, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to think she may have wanted to get married from a young age. Many models - despite their high profile status and presence within high society - do not share all the views of the liberal elites. They often get married young and have kids soon thereafter. how many models only got married in their mid 40s and then had kids? that's what actors do. you can see that in CJ and Lorena's posts, though they certainly are of means, they don't live like Hollywood celebs. it would be fair to conclude that they don't also share Hollywood's values.

concluding on the basis of messy divorce that 2 years is the threshold for whether the marriage will succeed or not, is prime cherry picking. Plenty of marriages succeed even when the amount of time dating was short, likewise healthy marriages can fall apart after decades, simply dating longer will not work out all the kinks or potential problems. the persons in the relationship are the ones who will make or break it. if CJ and Lorenas relationship is as healthy as SM makes it seem, then their relationship can only continue to flourish and produce more fruit. perhaps the reason these two have a healthy relationship is because while they were dating... they lived together... in a sense they acted as though they were married, and we all know that when you live with someone that is the acid test for any relationship.

Posted

You clearly aren’t understanding me so let’s agree to disagree. While an interesting topic of discussion this isn’t the place for it. I don’t want to derail the thread. I’m a newly appointed family court judge, so we aren’t going so this the same way. I have real world experience dealing with these issues, however it is hard not to take work home with you. Particularly when so many children are hurt in the process of divorce. I see couples at their worst which invariably colors my view on marriage. I’m open to discussing this further but elsewhere as this is a model forum, and I’m a stickler for rules. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...