Memento Mori

Saturday Night Photographer: Gregorio Campos (@gregoriophotography) http://www.arsenicmag.com/submissions/2015/3/21/saturday-night

Alone Again Photographer: Greg Campos (@gregoriophotography) http://www.arsenicmag.com/submissions/2015/3/22/alone-again

Dressing Room A Photographer: Greg Campos (@gregoriophotography) http://www.arsenicmag.com/submissions/2015/3/22/dressing-room-a

Take Your Time Photographer: Greg Campos (@gregoriophotography) http://www.arsenicmag.com/submissions/2015/3/22/y0timo5hggiew2dl55fxz2xh0xglz0

Show Me Darkness Photographer: Greg Campos (@gregoriophotography) http://www.arsenicmag.com/submissions/2015/3/22/yjas5gtw5zfp51g9v151jn76avjg09

SKIVVIES, from For Love and Lemons Photographer: Craig Stuart Eisenberg (@craigstuarteisenberg2) http://www.arsenicmag.com/lace-and-lemons/

Karlie looks great in that music video. May have to gif it later.

Made a bunch of gifs from Emmy Rossum's Esquire Mexico shoot. Embedding my favorites, rest attached:

Rehosted them. Make may gifs later. Or some more from Endless Summer. Depends how much work I get done on this paper or if I decide to play FM15 or EUIV instead. http://rg.to/file/c089ae3c35236c53a3b5259b262b6661/11022352_1617898248443474_1690959848_n.mp4.html http://depositfiles.com/files/a5q3vuxgn http://rg.to/file/1e60172af7882154b0caeb07c87cc998/11020548_1583926308516884_1607287147_n.mp4.html http://depositfiles.com/files/2n9cs55iz http://rg.to/file/322f86971bd19c3f3da82d44dd76b6b7/11020605_369115659940594_24041369_n.mp4.html http://depositfiles.com/files/sv75vsmp0

Anyone have an iphone or ipad and can get what she's posting to Swipe posted here? https://instagram.com/p/ztPFWzIhwi/ I'd do it but I have an Android.

Made these gifs earlier, they're small and they're from old Bonprix videos but eh why not:

Yeah that swing is so suspicious and against trends that it can't reasonably be explained outside of internal or external manipulation.

So much for my lingering suspicion, Rose overtook Erin.

I would not actually be surprised if they went legit this year, for a change. My only evidence is really that the tallies aren't fluctuating wildly (as indicated above) and they took the anti-vote-stuffing measure of randomizing where each "vote for X" box appears on the ROTY page. Which isn't so much evidence as inference. The wild fluctuation on day 1 is the result of earlier samples being smaller. By 2/10 enough votes have been counted to stabilize it. It's interesting that Ashley, Solveig, Hailey, and Robyn are all trending down recently. The only name that has been consistently trending up is Rose. Solveig had a nice run of gains for a while but seems to have plateaued. Robyn as well, but there's been significant correction. Now if I'm suspicious of anything in that chart, it's Erin's 1% lead. She had been trending down until Rose caught up to her, now she's staying just ahead. The losers paying for these gains? All taken from the bottom four in what looks like equal proportion (note Kelly's flatline over the same course). Nowhere else on the chart is this kind of symmetry observed. On the other hand, this may also reflect voters who had an interest in the bottom 4 essentially giving up and voting for their choice of the frontrunners. </not an expert, just my interpretation of the results, etc>

Oh, I've long thought the vote totals were manipulated, I just don't think adding up to 102% is good evidence for it. The best evidence is probably the frequent lead changes. Or at least it was in the past. I haven't followed these results that closely. Like... at this point if someone other than Rose or Erin wins, I'd bet my savings that the vote was either fixed internally or manipulated externally. There's a line in BSG, I think by Adama, that if an election seems rigged, it probably is. If SI was truly concerned with "authenticity" they'd link votes to Facebook or Twitter accounts and limit the votes to one per person. They don't, anyone can vote as many times as one wants, and this gives them plausible deniability when they just pick whoever they want.

This may be a consequence of rounding all the percentages up for display purposes. For example: 22.5 + 22.5 = 45 23 + 23 = 46 Something like a 2% disparity with seven contestants is easily explained that way.

Just blow up threads with the occasional awesome GIF. That's all I ever do anymore ...though those first two are probly the best I've ever done. All downhill from there, really.

I want to do this often enough that I ended up paying for TubeDigger. Worked perfectly. Free version only gets half the clip, but it's enough to demonstrate how to use it/how it works. Only really wanted Rose's videos so I'll upload those in a sec, might as well. Edit: Here they are.

Thanks, didn't see that. Appreciate it.

So are the other videos gonna be posted for download, or at least, can we hear how its done so we can do it ourselves?

I like all of these. It is a fantasy, so why limit oneself? While categories like high fashion, or glamour modeling, etc, have relevance when describing someone's career, they don't mean much to me if the subject is "who is hot?" Eugenia Diordiychuck is known for erotic, softcore stuff, but what's keeping her or say, Alyssa Arce, out of something like the swimsuit issue is her resume, not her appearance. Doesn't prevent either of them from having folders on my HD, right next to Karlie Kloss. I do know quite a few guys who mock the swimsuit issue as cheesecake, and think only 13 year old boys who haven't discovered all the free hardcore porn on the internet follow it. Though I know just as many giving it crap for not having a damn thing to do with sports illustrating (this opinion only pops up within a week of ESPN's fantastic-for-other-reasons Body Issue coming out).

Yeah I edited to be more clear. I meant dont do that. The "models who actually have a chance of being cast" is essentially the main reason for having broad ground rules. But then, I don't follow this business as closely as many (especially here, including folks who have unique access) so my judgement regarding who would be plausible and why is not the best.

I used my own loose ground rules (not listed anywhere but in my head) to come up with something like: Though if we were to do something like this for a thread, I think picking actual photos (2-4 per model) would be more fun. Lists by themselves are kind of boring, especially if a model is either obscure or so prolific that the pictures of them we have in mind could be anything. I get eddie's point about a free for all being possibly more fun. I'd be initially in favor of ground rules because hey, art from adversity. You're gonna have to retain some models you aren't all that thrilled by, and resist going back in a time machine to re-do decisions you didn't like (for me itd be retaining Catrinel and Kim Cloutier or something). Ground rules establish a vague approximation of the actual conditions of picking who goes in the magazine. Kinda like fantasy football not allowing you to pick six quarterbacks and skipping the kicker.

History proves that this has not truly mattered to racists. I believe they even have a term for that phenomenon in the US: the one-drop rule. ^ Again, bingo Sympathy, and you are right about the one-drop rule. Things like that have faded, but still linger to some degree. And the OP is not playing a card of any kind, she simply made an astute observation that others agree with. Moving on, Solveig is definitely deserving of support To clarify, I was not denying that the epithet of cheap, or its synonyms, were reserved exclusively for women of color. It certainly hasn't been. Nor have I done some kind of rigorous study that demands explanations or apologies out of people. Merely that in my limited observation, when the terms are often applied to white women they reflect some measurable quality in the model's work, such as the brand involved. Hence why I didn't say anything until another user posted comparisons of Rose's allegedly trashier posing. Generally, I cringe a bit whenever a person is described as cheap (which as some pointed out, is common), regardless of their color, and not the campaign (or whatever) it is they're working with. That this would carry added negative connotations--intended or (more likely) not--when applied to groups of people who are already marginalized shouldn't be controversial. That should suffice as my final 2 cents as far as this thread goes.