The Most Attractive Photo On The Internet

The Most Attractive Photo On The Internet

Even though this was shot in 2011 for Vanity Fair's 17th annual Hollywood Issue, this image is still the most attractive photo on the internet. It's so eye catching that I had to take a second look just to notice there was a lion in the frame. As beautiful as this image is, especially those in it, I have to say that there is one celebrity missing who would have made this entire image better: Ryan Gosling. This one's for you, ladies.

Click to see larger resolution

Log in or register to post comments

31 Comments

MariPili Carrasco's picture

who are the last two in the far right?

Kyle Mercury's picture

The guy is Garret Hedlund, Sam Flynn from TRON: Legacy.

Alberto Oscarelli's picture

let's add she is the original Girt with the Dragon Tattoo ;-). Most americans think of the remake by Fincher, which actually stars Rooney Mara. Noomi is also in Prometheus which made her a lot more popular in the US 

MariPili Carrasco's picture

thanx :)

MariPili Carrasco's picture

thanx :)

Jason Schultz's picture

I heart the lion cub.

what happened to the hands to the guy 2nd from the left?

his whole arm looks wrong to me????

The photographer is Norman Jean Roy, btw. (give the guy some credit!)

Duvall sticks out like a sore thumb! All young gun actors then him. I like him as an actor but I would think Clooney, or Connery would have been a better choice. thats just me

K. G. Brown's picture

But Duvall was added in after the shoot.
Look at his right shoulder, they never included it all in, there's white background under the woman's arm where his black tux should be.
He was never intended to be in the shot.

Duvall is in the video in a vest no jacket

KG, unless you have info to back up your assertion, I think you're wrong. I think Duvall is wearing a vest. He's the bartender. It's his white shirt's sleeve you're seeing.

K. G. Brown's picture

OK, I watched the BTS carefully, vest it is.

So who is the photographer?

Whos the Photographer? - Its Norman Jean Roy.

Christopher Hoffmann's picture

Why are no photos like this ever done "right in camera"???  I know the answer, but it disappoints me how much ps is used today.

John Godwin's picture

Surely the next logical step is for you to be disappointed that a camera is used at all, rather than brushes and a fresco?

Christopher Hoffmann's picture

Really???? That's you idea of a logical and intelligent argument?

Hail Sagan's picture

No cave painting no care.

Perhaps one day you'll only be impressed if someone can piss the Mona Lisa into some snow with their eyes closed. 

Christopher Hoffmann's picture

And perhaps one day you will no longer be a troll.

Perhaps one day, you, and everyone else like you, will realise that this isn't 1950 anymore. Something isn't better because it's done "in camera"

The very fact that you appreciate it less because it wasn't done in camera is just utterly ridiculous. 

Christopher Hoffmann's picture

And perhaps one day, people like you will realize that PS has only been around since 1987. What's with the 1950 crap? Do you just enjoy looking like a fool?

So, your argument is never try to do something in camera? Never get a whole bunch of famous people together in the same room at the same time for a historic photograph? Oh yea, you are absolutely correct. Why would we want something like that occurring, it would obviously have been of no historic importance. 

You do realize there are still photography outlets that can not ethically PS photographs other than WB and crop? It completely changes the story. 

Calm down, no need to get emotional. No, my argument is stop pretending you're some deep purist who thinks it's somehow more noble to "get it right in camera", a concept which has NEVER existed.  

I'd like, just once, to see someone say "I wish they'd get it right in camera", and then go to their portfolio and see a bunch of amazing fashion photography or some unique conceptual work. Nope, it's always invariably dog photos and weddings. Where are your examples of nailing this level of shot in one take? You're setting high expectations when your own portfolio doesn't even convey a smidgen of your oh-so-exacting demands for perfection. Yes, there are photography outlets that can't ethically PS, what is your point? You're now comparing documentary journalism to professional portraiture. Pointless.

Christopher Hoffmann's picture

I love how people who are not intelligent enough to argue on point resort to personnel attacks. And trust me, trolls such as you will never get me emotional... LOL.

I'm sure your not smart enough to read my profile, but I shoot PJ. Yes, my portfolio does suck if you want high end fashion or conceptional. It's not my gig. I may try doing some when I get time, but right now I'm too busy actually working and getting paid. BTW: I've published over 1000 images in my career. 

Feel free to continue, you really can't argue the points I've laid out regarding the historical importance of doing shoots, such as this, with everyone together. However, if you'd like to give it a go, I could use a good laugh. 

Never works in your favour when you attack someone's intelligence for making personal attacks, in the form of a personal attack.

Well, I will say I am definitely smart enough to read your profile, I'm also smart enough to know the difference between 'your' and 'you're', something you seem to have missed-opportunely, right at the moment where you questioned my intelligence. Always a mistake.

So anyway, I read your profile, where nothing about being a photojournalist is mentioned, or even being a professional. I offer the following quotes:

"I have been an amateur photographer for 20 years"

And

"I also work full time as a steamfitter"

You fail to mention your 1000 published photos, a figure that rivals most photojournalists I know personally.

I'll end with the final quote:

"I consider myself primarily a wedding/portrait photographer". 

Your portfolio on both your Smugmug and your Tumblr contain absolutely no photojournalism whatsoever.

I'm sorry Chris, but that strikes me as a bit odd that a photojournalist of your calibre would not have any of the 1000 photos he's had published visible anywhere on either of his websites.

Still, I guess the front covers they've graced are your portfolio, or something.

Anyway, pointing out your stupidity aside, the real issue is you acting like the guy's work is somehow deemed less worthy because he didn't get it right in camera, when a quick flick through your portfolio reveals the work of a man who wouldn't even know how to set up the light packs.

Christopher Hoffmann's picture

Sorry it took so long to reply, been busy with work. 

As for you comments, real simple. You apparently read my profile and decided to lie about what you read. Yes, omission is still a lie. You lie about having friends that are full time PJ that "rival" the 1000 images mark. Laughable! I'm part-time and I hit that mark. Granted, I've had 20 plus years of stringing to do it, but obviously it's not hard for someone who works in the trade full-time to accomplish in only a few years. You make assumption to fit your arguments. You ignore most of my galleries. And my smugmug is a relatively new attempt to allow clients an easy viewing option. Yes, they are small customers and they mainly consist of senior portraits and weddings, but I am fairly new to that type of photography (as a business) and it's a start. It's not suppose to be for getting PJ work, that's not how it's done!

I really don't care what you think, but I figured I could be the better man and at least try to make things simple enough for you to understand.

Most importantly, you fail after numerous attempts by me, to even address historical perspective of the above photo.

Keep your trolling little man. I'll keep on working and I'm done with you. Have a nice day.

One last note as an FYI, I'm gonna be an amateur until I work full-time on photography and my bills rely upon it. That's just how I see it.

haha, fucking hell, you edited your profile. I should've taken a screenshot. 

6 girls and 9 boys - I see what you did there!

Pages