Yes, lenses from way back looked sort of - well, finished off, if you see what I mean. In fact, even with cameras, the 111G struck me as a finer-looking piece of mechanics than the first M that I saw... the attraction of tiny windows. (On first typing this it read 'the attraction of tiny widows... hope it doesn't indicate then sort of morning or day I'm, going to have.)
Regarding the shoot, I'm disappointed with Pirelli's company ethic. When I first found their calendar site, years and years ago, they allowed internet access (open) to the history of their calendars, and it was really very interesting for anyone who was in the business or art; then, maybe two years ago, it was suddenly blocked if you didn't have 'membership'! I understand the exclusivity of the actual calendars, but the website representation of the historical interest in the genre? Come on Pirelli, you've sabotaged a huge opportunity.
Regarding the 2012 one, I have no more idea of what's actually in it than anyone else not privy to the job or to the calendar itself. What did strike me was that though the shooting involved a lot of wet clothes (the spraying reminded me so much of what my late wife used to do on our shoots!), there was an emphasis on totally nude black/white images at the end of each separate model segment; I wonder if it means that these shots are the chosen ones? They are very nice, but I thought the semi-translucently clad ones more appealing.
Of the girls, I'd have loved to have worked with three: most of all Isabeli Fontana, and then Margareth Madè and Edita Vilkeviciniute.
Sometimes, it's best if they don't speak, least of all when attempting to draw parallels betwen tyres and 'strong, empowered women'! Utter crap. Perhaps it was all tongue-in-cheek and I missed it.
What I did agree with was Isabeli saying how nice it was being just snapper and model... in that siutuation, with all those folks hanging around? Maybe she meant no art director?
Rob C
