yeah it is, but its mj's dog so u never know how many plastic surgeries he has had.

I think they photoshop the dog, the head looks way to big for its body so maybe its a different head on the dog or something. As for the abercrombie email, i really like that shirt too, its sweet..but all the clothes look sick on the models.

Actually, that looks pretty normal to me, for that kind of dog.

I'm requesting the Hollister Co's Dudes and A&F Men's email!
Please and thank you!

They have ran out of pictures.

Man, why are they doing that for? I seen a lot of unused photos of A&F models popping up lately. They better step it up.

Thanks by the way!

Holy crap. Have they completely given up? Maybe the company needs to get bought out again. By ME!

Got a couple billion, TNF?

I'll chip in a few bucks.

HCO Dudes:

Really unique, IMO. I love it. And that's something I haven't said about HCO in a while.

^^ they look so real for a picture, like i could touch them, lol

That does look great.

except for that red seagull
I really think its the ugliest symbol ever.
If it were black or something and smaller it would be fine

I agree. I was gonna say that, but I was getting tired of complaining about the thing. And while we're at it, that neck taping makes me want to ralph.

It's an effect of how the dog was photographed, making the head appear much larger than the rest of the body. A photograph flattens a 3-d environment into 2 dimensions, sometimes distorting objects when they're close enough.

For example, you can take a picture of someone laying on a lawn chair and make their toes bigger than the rest of their body.

I'd say the dog is real, and probably edited (NOT photoshoped, because I seriously doubt that they're shooting digital) though it's hard to tell. I mean we are talking about professional photography here.

Many pros use digital now that the technology has advanced so greatly. Besides, haven't you seen before & afters that show off A&F's Photoshopping skills? They even have the models sign releases that grant the company permission to edit (incl. airbrush) the photos.

I won't argue that they don't airbrush/edit the photos themselves, but to suggest that they're using digital is ludicrous. Yes, digital photography has made huge advances in the past few years, but still, even the 5,000 dollar top-of-the-line Nikons and Canons aren't good enough for modeling photography.

Most art/fashion/photography/national geographic magazines won't even look at your work if you send digital. Some even state explicitly what their requirements are.

It's not so much a "digital isn't good enough yet" as it is an inherent limitation of how sharp a reproduction you can make with film vs. digital. Those pictures you see in the A&F stores, the ones that are literally larger-than-life? Those HAVE to be film - there isn't a digital camera available right now that would enable you to make a print that large.

Just trust me, the film vs. digital debate is no real debate, and there is a clear winner - film. What you say is true, but I'd have a real hard time believing that they were shooting digital.

^^ About 90% of all fashion photography is shot with 30k digital medium format cameras, but that's because most of the images they are not blown up like they are at A&F, and even if they are blow up for billboards it wouldn't matter because the image is printed in a different way. Bruce Weber shoots with a medium format film camera, it might be because he is used to film but the most important reason is because those negatives are scanned at a super high resolutions, then they are sent to a lab to be printed with a laser on to rolls of traditional photo paper.

^ No Black flip flops