Posted this pic on the forum under the caption "Local reduction of entropy in one part of a system is always accompanied by a greater increase in entropy elsewhere." Most interesting response from someone (who is not a native English speaker btw):
It's like if her passive acting is not enough for what DM wanted from her for this pic. This is my very personal feeling. It would miss something in her expression for being in appropriateness to the clothes and make-up...
Seems a very perceptive comment to me, and he is exactly right to say that "(Lucy's) passive acting is not enough for what DM wanted from her for this pic". It wasn't. The pic as originally published was in B&W (To see what this looked like, use your monitor's controls to turn the colour all the way down, the brightness nearly all the way up, and the contrast up about a third of the way from its normal position... or else download GIMP (like photoshop, only it's free), use "Colours -> Desaturate -> Luminosity" to convert to black and white, then use "Colours -> Brightness/Contrast" to set the brightness to 90 and the contrast to 40) and the contrast had been messed with to wash out all of Lucy's skin tones and show her as a flat, two-dimensional drawing of something Lucy-shaped, rather than as Lucy.
It wasn't Lucy. It was awful. There was nothing of Lucy left in it, no personality, no warmth, no attractiveness, it was completely empty and dead.
Now the whole point of pictures of Lucy Pinder is to showcase Lucy... her beauty, her talent, her "Lucyness". It's all about them being pictures of Lucy. This pic, as originally published, did not do that. It showed a thing that someone else had manufactured out of Lucy. A monochromatic zombie, a shop dummy in white plastic... a sales pitch for the photographer, a promotion of his idea of "something arty" made at the expense of Lucy's own talent and beauty. In using Lucy's picture to create his "art" he had shoved Lucy's own input out of the picture almost completely - any random dark-haired model would have done just as well to get the same effect - and replaced it with his own. And that is not what it is all about!
Not to mention that while the photo in the form it was originally published - black and white, toneless, and plastered from top to bottom with watermarks and logos - is an epic fail as a depiction of Lucy qua Lucy, it is - one hopes unintentionally - an excellent depiction of Lucy with her soul in a coma, her vitality suppressed, her individuality subsumed into a morass of unsuitable ideas which originate with other people and insert themselves into Lucy under the masquerade of being her own, like a virus inserting its genetic material into a host cell. Lucy as no longer Lucy but as a husk of Lucy assimilated by the Borg.
Since this is exactly what has been happening to her over the last few years, to my increasing disquiet, it's hardly surprising that when the Borg puts such an image out by way of actual official propaganda it is sharply painful to see...
Lucy Pinder herself is a walking work of art. I would be the last to say she is perfect - she is human, after all - but she comes a flipping sight closer to perfection than any other human does The beauty she has naturally is on a level far above any possible human creation, and any possible human attempt to improve upon it is inherently bound to fail. For which there is extensive proof in her pictures - she looks more attractive in the so-called "candids" - the natural, unedited photos of her taken at PAs and the like - than she does in the painted, photoshopped studio pics, and the topless candids Nuts published this July definitely make Lucy look better than their studio pics do
Furthermore, a prime concern of this site is reality. To present Lucy as she really is, not as what other people want to make out of her; to remove, as far as possible, the entropy added to her output by the influence of other people, to strip away the noise and obfuscation and leave only Lucy as pure as possible. That is why the scans of her magazine features are carefully edited to remove all text, captions, overlaps, reversals and the like - those things are not Lucy. That is why, when photoshoppers and makeup artists ruin a shoot with their daft fallacy of anatidine lips being "sexy", their edits are reverse-edited back again to bring them in line with Lucy's appearance in unphotoshopped "candid" pics. That is why this site repudiates the unreal image of plastic, divine perfection which the official site attempts to enforce with their obsessive, psychotic denial of the existence of Lucy's imperfections and of her humanity from which they arise, and their equally obsessive attacks on anyone who views Lucy realistically as a human being and refuses to share in their mass psychosis of sycophancy (it makes me laugh to see the official site complain about fake Lucy Pinder accounts on social media sites, when the official site itself has a comparably small amount of the real Lucy about it and is a far more pernicious and damaging fake than any of the "fake fakes"). Lucy does not need that crap. Lucy is presented to her best effect when the detracting influence of other people is at a minimum - whether it is in terms of pretending she's something she isn't, editing her pics to make her look like something she isn't, peer-pressuring her to follow daft conventions aimed at making her figure something she isn't, or whatever. All those things serve only to detract from Lucy's beauty - physical or mental - and present her in a suboptimal light, and this site has no truck with them; Lucy would be far better served if all the people responsible would back the @$#% off and leave her alone to get her head clear of the evil influences of the past few years...
So - if you are still with me - it was necessary to perform a reverse transformation on the picture... to analyse and process it to remove the pseudo-information content added by other people and restore Lucy's own content; to reduce its entropy, eliminate the noise and bring back a pure Lucy signal. To try to recreate what was lost, to try and put Lucy back in her own picture, to make it hers, a creation of her rather than a creation of someone else, a living depiction of Lucy rather than a dead thing someone else used her to make.
Unfortunately the maths is against it... there was so little of Lucy remaining in the picture that it could be little more than a template. The original, now lost, information is mathematically unrecoverable; it was a case of enhancing as far as possible the few remaining traces to provide a framework to fill out using Lucy data taken from some of her other pictures... but of course even in other pictures from the same shoot that is still not the right data, and the inherent inaccuracies of such a process are obvious enough not to need mentioning. So much of the result is synthetic; it didn't work all that well... I think I found as much of Lisa (the makeup artist) as I did of Lucy. And of course there's the difficulty of avoiding putting anything of myself into it. There are parallels with Greg Bear's Way series and the reassembly of Korzenowski and Patricia Vasquez from partial backups... the characters in the story seemed to reckon the resulting individuals to be complete and valid, but I was not really convinced, and the difficulties here are worse...
But it's a whole lot better than it was; there is way more Lucy in it now than there was to begin with... it is now much more of a picture of Lucy herself, and much less a product of someone else trying to convert her into a misguided piece of dead, self-promotional "art"... at least it shows something of what it could have looked like before it was messed with. An approximation to Lucy made with the intent of recovering what she herself had put into the pic is a lot better than a pic from which Lucy has been deliberately removed
Of course, if Lucy herself had recolourised it then it would work a lot better to continue the Way analogy, whatever the equivalent here of what they call the "mystery" may be, one certain thing is that it is Lucy's, and only she can properly restore it
(As long as, like Olmy, she can free herself of Jarts.......)
Please note: I'm not having a go at the photographer, either, even if it looks like it. Damien Morley is one of the very rare jewels of the glamour photography world who explicitly acknowledge that Lucy does not need photoshopping, and his other work with Lucy is excellent proof of the correctness of this view. Those other pics with their lack of photoshopping are like a draught of water in the desert and I would love there to be a lot more of that sort of thing it's just this particular piece I'm complaining about.