Loading...
> >

Celebrity Look-a-Likes for 3D figures Part 2

1…7778808283…100

Comments

  • RayDAntRayDAnt Posts: 1,133
    edited May 2020
    alex86fire said:

     

    RayDAnt said:
    co.higgins_643bb33aea said:

    There are a number of good points in this post you made. Unfortunately, they don't really provide damage control for BLATANTLY incorrect facial structure

    Blatantly incorrect according to what standard? My points are made based on the standard of having gotten to see and study (in a professional capacity) what famous people look like dynamically in real life versus how they tend to be presented as looking statically in visual media. What are your standards based on?

    You are making it sound like famous people look different than the rest of us.

    I'm making the opposite point. Famous people are just like you and me in that they can look strikingly different appearance-wise depending on what angle/under what kind of lighting/with what makeup they are viewed from. However, due to the nature of the appearance business, certain angle/lighting/makeup combinations get favored over the others. Leading to the false public impression that they only look like X. Whereas the reality is that they only look like X under very specific parameters. Which can lead to the funny situation where someone attempting to craft a faithful likeness of a person overall (rather than a likeness of them at a specific point in time/embodying a particular iconic look) can end up with somthing that - to the average public viewer - looks less true-to-life despite being technically more true-to-life.

    And this isn't a new phenomenon. Prior to the days of still photography, painting with a live model for reference was the de facto standard method for realistic portraiture. And since painting is a very lengthy process, doing portraiture that way inevitably leads to the portrait artist being exposed to their subject's appearance under a dynamically changing set of visual parameters. Which ends up making its way into the overall visual feel of the portrait being produced.

    Hence why - if you go back to the golden days of realistic portrait painting (during the early days of still photography) and compare painted portraits of famous people to photographic portraits of them taken soon after, there tends to be a distinct visual difference. Because the former represents what the person looked like in a dynamic fashion, whereas the latter is entirely static - by nature of the underlying mechanical processes of their creation.

    Post edited by RayDAnt on
  • billyben_0077a25354billyben_0077a25354 Posts: 771

    Suzie Q in The Hollywood Knights.  It also had Popular Hotrodding's Project X Blown Canary Yellow 57 Chevy and several other nice cars in that movie.  I do remember Ladyhawke and also liked her in several other movies (too many tp nqme here)

  • AdamThwaitesAdamThwaites Posts: 779

    @co.higgins_643bb33aea I wasn't attempting to end or re-route a critical discussion of my work at all actually. I just felt it would be good to move things along again and get the forum back to normal. If you'd like to prepare a presentation of why the side views of my characters are "absolutely atrocious" as you say, then I'm all for it. Please make sure that you use a reference photo for comparison where the head is actually in a neutral position this time though, rather than tilted upwards. I mean, if you want to criticise in the way that you do then at least do it properly. Like I said previously, my problem isn't with criticism of my work. My problem is with the arrogant way that you chose to present it. A "public service announcement"? What exactly is the public service you believe you are providing? If you are going to criticise my work publicly in such an arrogant, unfair and unwarrented manner then I also would like you to back it up publicly for everyone who reads these posts to see and to judge for themselves. If your description of my work as "absolutely atrocious" is a fair description, then I would like you to show everyone in the forum why that is. You said that you apologise, but not what you were apologising for. You said you wish you would have phrased things differently, but not what you would have phrased differently.

  • SevrinSevrin Posts: 6,306
    AdamThwaites said:

    @co.higgins_643bb33aea I wasn't attempting to end or re-route a critical discussion of my work at all actually. I just felt it would be good to move things along again and get the forum back to normal. If you'd like to prepare a presentation of why the side views of my characters are "absolutely atrocious" as you say, then I'm all for it. Please make sure that you use a reference photo for comparison where the head is actually in a neutral position this time though, rather than tilted upwards. I mean, if you want to criticise in the way that you do then at least do it properly. Like I said previously, my problem isn't with criticism of my work. My problem is with the arrogant way that you chose to present it. A "public service announcement"? What exactly is the public service you believe you are providing? If you are going to criticise my work publicly in such an arrogant, unfair and unwarrented manner then I also would like you to back it up publicly for everyone who reads these posts to see and to judge for themselves. If your description of my work as "absolutely atrocious" is a fair description, then I would like you to show everyone in the forum why that is. You said that you apologise, but not what you were apologising for. You said you wish you would have phrased things differently, but not what you would have phrased differently.

    Adam, I wouldn't worry about it.  I think a lot of us appreciate your work, and understand the difficulty of recreating the appearances of people we've gotten to know through the media.  As someone who's bought several of your CS and AC characters, I have no regrets. heart

  • AdamThwaitesAdamThwaites Posts: 779

    @Sevrin Many thanks Sevrin :)

    @RayDAnt Many thanks to you too for your comments :)

    @thomasbrooks07 stay tuned! :)

  • backgroundbackground Posts: 404
    RayDAnt said:
    alex86fire said:

     

    RayDAnt said:
    co.higgins_643bb33aea said:

    There are a number of good points in this post you made. Unfortunately, they don't really provide damage control for BLATANTLY incorrect facial structure

    Blatantly incorrect according to what standard? My points are made based on the standard of having gotten to see and study (in a professional capacity) what famous people look like dynamically in real life versus how they tend to be presented as looking statically in visual media. What are your standards based on?

    You are making it sound like famous people look different than the rest of us.

    I'm making the opposite point. Famous people are just like you and me in that they can look strikingly different appearance-wise depending on what angle/under what kind of lighting/with what makeup they are viewed from. However, due to the nature of the appearance business, certain angle/lighting/makeup combinations get favored over the others. Leading to the false public impression that they only look like X. Whereas the reality is that they only look like X under very specific parameters. Which can lead to the funny situation where someone attempting to craft a faithful likeness of a person overall (rather than a likeness of them at a specific point in time/embodying a particular iconic look) can end up with somthing that - to the average public viewer - looks less true-to-life despite being technically more true-to-life.

    And this isn't a new phenomenon. Prior to the days of still photography, painting with a live model for reference was the de facto standard method for realistic portraiture. And since painting is a very lengthy process, doing portraiture that way inevitably leads to the portrait artist being exposed to their subject's appearance under a dynamically changing set of visual parameters. Which ends up making its way into the overall visual feel of the portrait being produced.

    Hence why - if you go back to the golden days of realistic portrait painting (during the early days of still photography) and compare painted portraits of famous people to photographic portraits of them taken soon after, there tends to be a distinct visual difference. Because the former represents what the person looked like in a dynamic fashion, whereas the latter is entirely static - by nature of the underlying mechanical processes of their creation.

    I think a thing to consider when comparing painted portaits to early photography is that the ealy photography required the subject to stay motionless for what might be an uncomfortable long time, so some of the photographs looked like the subject is uncomfortable, and they probably were. 

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,076
    AdamThwaites said:

    @maikdecker You forgot a very important part of my comment. What I actually said was that I find it unnecessarily harsh and quite unfair that a personal opinion was posted as a "public service announcement". That is how co.higgins presented it, even calling it a "PSA" and that is my problem with the post. Of course the point of a forum is to post personal opinions and I have no problem at all with that, people do that here all the time. What I have a problem with is someone implying that a "public service announcement" is required because there is something about my products that needs bringing to the public's attention. I present all of my content clearly and without any edits, so that everyone can make up their own minds whether they like the product or not.

    I (and most of us that have been to your site probably) think your products and site is a nice and different place to shop.

    I am also so greatful Colonel Higgins didn't decide to write one of those "open letters" so popular at other media outlets. You know the kind. laugh

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,076
    dukejones said:

    I've bought all of Adam's CS and want to send my support, but nobody is asking the important question...

    cool pic and garden

  • AdamThwaitesAdamThwaites Posts: 779

    @nonesuch00 LOL! thank you :)

  • solariansolarian Posts: 2

    Has anyone made a morph for Hayley Atwell or Rosario Dawson? Hell, or even know about some

  • alex86firealex86fire Posts: 1,130
    RayDAnt said:
    alex86fire said:

     

    RayDAnt said:
    co.higgins_643bb33aea said:

    There are a number of good points in this post you made. Unfortunately, they don't really provide damage control for BLATANTLY incorrect facial structure

    Blatantly incorrect according to what standard? My points are made based on the standard of having gotten to see and study (in a professional capacity) what famous people look like dynamically in real life versus how they tend to be presented as looking statically in visual media. What are your standards based on?

    You are making it sound like famous people look different than the rest of us.

    I'm making the opposite point. Famous people are just like you and me in that they can look strikingly different appearance-wise depending on what angle/under what kind of lighting/with what makeup they are viewed from. However, due to the nature of the appearance business, certain angle/lighting/makeup combinations get favored over the others. Leading to the false public impression that they only look like X. Whereas the reality is that they only look like X under very specific parameters. Which can lead to the funny situation where someone attempting to craft a faithful likeness of a person overall (rather than a likeness of them at a specific point in time/embodying a particular iconic look) can end up with somthing that - to the average public viewer - looks less true-to-life despite being technically more true-to-life.

    And this isn't a new phenomenon. Prior to the days of still photography, painting with a live model for reference was the de facto standard method for realistic portraiture. And since painting is a very lengthy process, doing portraiture that way inevitably leads to the portrait artist being exposed to their subject's appearance under a dynamically changing set of visual parameters. Which ends up making its way into the overall visual feel of the portrait being produced.

    Hence why - if you go back to the golden days of realistic portrait painting (during the early days of still photography) and compare painted portraits of famous people to photographic portraits of them taken soon after, there tends to be a distinct visual difference. Because the former represents what the person looked like in a dynamic fashion, whereas the latter is entirely static - by nature of the underlying mechanical processes of their creation.

    I am not as familiarised with you with photography so I will not argue with you on that but today, most of what you are saying doesn't apply anymore.

    Cameras now capture everything. And as I mentioned before, we don't just see a few angles that are thought by the director. Now we have interviews, red carpet walks, paparazzi, social media. We can see the celebrities from any and all angles.

    Of course, if someone only looks at some perfect photos taken from certain angles, maybe even photoshoped afterwards, they will have a wrong impression of how that celebrity looks.

    But if you want to know how they really look, you have access to enough information available for that.

  • backgroundbackground Posts: 404

    It would be a brave person who would try to make a likeness of Rowan Atkinson ( Mr Bean etc etc ) he has so many looks it's crazy, but nevertheless he is always recongnisable

  • SevrinSevrin Posts: 6,306
    edited May 2020
    alex86fire said:
    RayDAnt said:
    alex86fire said:

     

    RayDAnt said:
    co.higgins_643bb33aea said:

    There are a number of good points in this post you made. Unfortunately, they don't really provide damage control for BLATANTLY incorrect facial structure

    Blatantly incorrect according to what standard? My points are made based on the standard of having gotten to see and study (in a professional capacity) what famous people look like dynamically in real life versus how they tend to be presented as looking statically in visual media. What are your standards based on?

    You are making it sound like famous people look different than the rest of us.

    I'm making the opposite point. Famous people are just like you and me in that they can look strikingly different appearance-wise depending on what angle/under what kind of lighting/with what makeup they are viewed from. However, due to the nature of the appearance business, certain angle/lighting/makeup combinations get favored over the others. Leading to the false public impression that they only look like X. Whereas the reality is that they only look like X under very specific parameters. Which can lead to the funny situation where someone attempting to craft a faithful likeness of a person overall (rather than a likeness of them at a specific point in time/embodying a particular iconic look) can end up with somthing that - to the average public viewer - looks less true-to-life despite being technically more true-to-life.

    And this isn't a new phenomenon. Prior to the days of still photography, painting with a live model for reference was the de facto standard method for realistic portraiture. And since painting is a very lengthy process, doing portraiture that way inevitably leads to the portrait artist being exposed to their subject's appearance under a dynamically changing set of visual parameters. Which ends up making its way into the overall visual feel of the portrait being produced.

    Hence why - if you go back to the golden days of realistic portrait painting (during the early days of still photography) and compare painted portraits of famous people to photographic portraits of them taken soon after, there tends to be a distinct visual difference. Because the former represents what the person looked like in a dynamic fashion, whereas the latter is entirely static - by nature of the underlying mechanical processes of their creation.

    I am not as familiarised with you with photography so I will not argue with you on that but today, most of what you are saying doesn't apply anymore.

    Cameras now capture everything. And as I mentioned before, we don't just see a few angles that are thought by the director. Now we have interviews, red carpet walks, paparazzi, social media. We can see the celebrities from any and all angles.

    Of course, if someone only looks at some perfect photos taken from certain angles, maybe even photoshoped afterwards, they will have a wrong impression of how that celebrity looks.

    But if you want to know how they really look, you have access to enough information available for that.

    Right, so which Mila Kunis do you want?

    maxresdefault.jpg
    1280 x 720 - 84K
    Post edited by Sevrin on
  • HaruchaiHaruchai Posts: 1,948

    List 01 - 25 https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/4054716/#Comment_4054716
    List 26 - 50 https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/5014556/#Comment_5014556

    New one added
    List updated 

    CS51 - Salma Hayek
    CS52 - Keira Knightley
    CS53 - Reese Witherspoon
    CS54 - Sofia Vergara
    CS55 - Halle Berry
    CS56 - Juliette Lewis
    CS57 - Hayden Panettiere
    CS58 - Mila Jovovich
    CS59 - Bryce Dallas Howard
    CS60 - Drew Barrymore
    CS61 - Alexis Ren
    CS62 - Anya Chalotra
    CS63 - Alicia Vikander
    CS64 - Sophie Turner

    https://www.most-digital-creations.com/poser_daz_studio_characters.htm

  • HaruchaiHaruchai Posts: 1,948
    dukejones said:

    I've bought all of Adam's CS and want to send my support, but nobody is asking the important question...

    +1

  • alex86firealex86fire Posts: 1,130
    Sevrin said:
    alex86fire said:
    RayDAnt said:
    alex86fire said:

     

    RayDAnt said:
    co.higgins_643bb33aea said:

    There are a number of good points in this post you made. Unfortunately, they don't really provide damage control for BLATANTLY incorrect facial structure

    Blatantly incorrect according to what standard? My points are made based on the standard of having gotten to see and study (in a professional capacity) what famous people look like dynamically in real life versus how they tend to be presented as looking statically in visual media. What are your standards based on?

    You are making it sound like famous people look different than the rest of us.

    I'm making the opposite point. Famous people are just like you and me in that they can look strikingly different appearance-wise depending on what angle/under what kind of lighting/with what makeup they are viewed from. However, due to the nature of the appearance business, certain angle/lighting/makeup combinations get favored over the others. Leading to the false public impression that they only look like X. Whereas the reality is that they only look like X under very specific parameters. Which can lead to the funny situation where someone attempting to craft a faithful likeness of a person overall (rather than a likeness of them at a specific point in time/embodying a particular iconic look) can end up with somthing that - to the average public viewer - looks less true-to-life despite being technically more true-to-life.

    And this isn't a new phenomenon. Prior to the days of still photography, painting with a live model for reference was the de facto standard method for realistic portraiture. And since painting is a very lengthy process, doing portraiture that way inevitably leads to the portrait artist being exposed to their subject's appearance under a dynamically changing set of visual parameters. Which ends up making its way into the overall visual feel of the portrait being produced.

    Hence why - if you go back to the golden days of realistic portrait painting (during the early days of still photography) and compare painted portraits of famous people to photographic portraits of them taken soon after, there tends to be a distinct visual difference. Because the former represents what the person looked like in a dynamic fashion, whereas the latter is entirely static - by nature of the underlying mechanical processes of their creation.

    I am not as familiarised with you with photography so I will not argue with you on that but today, most of what you are saying doesn't apply anymore.

    Cameras now capture everything. And as I mentioned before, we don't just see a few angles that are thought by the director. Now we have interviews, red carpet walks, paparazzi, social media. We can see the celebrities from any and all angles.

    Of course, if someone only looks at some perfect photos taken from certain angles, maybe even photoshoped afterwards, they will have a wrong impression of how that celebrity looks.

    But if you want to know how they really look, you have access to enough information available for that.

    Right, so which Mila Kunis do you want?

    Can I say neither ? :)  They are, I think both taken in a moment where she had a little more weight on.

    I would prefer her like this: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn1.thr.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Flandscape_928x523%2F2020%2F04%2Fgettyimages-1126058256-h_2020.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywoodreporter.com%2Fnews%2Fashton-kutcher-mila-kunis-reveal-charity-wine-sold-8-hours-1293339&tbnid=Cpbyf7O2LWRnOM&vet=12ahUKEwiJuc282KTpAhWOt6QKHdiAAQEQMygHegUIARD2AQ..i&docid=my212twLRg218M&w=928&h=523&q=mila%20kunis&ved=2ahUKEwiJuc282KTpAhWOt6QKHdiAAQEQMygHegUIARD2AQ

    Notice she is in a real life setting, not in a "controlled" environment.

    Of course all celebrities have their up and down moments. And I don't know who would want a version of them when they are not looking so good.

     

     

  • RayDAntRayDAnt Posts: 1,133
    edited May 2020
    background said:
    RayDAnt said:
    alex86fire said:

     

    RayDAnt said:
    co.higgins_643bb33aea said:

    There are a number of good points in this post you made. Unfortunately, they don't really provide damage control for BLATANTLY incorrect facial structure

    Blatantly incorrect according to what standard? My points are made based on the standard of having gotten to see and study (in a professional capacity) what famous people look like dynamically in real life versus how they tend to be presented as looking statically in visual media. What are your standards based on?

    You are making it sound like famous people look different than the rest of us.

    I'm making the opposite point. Famous people are just like you and me in that they can look strikingly different appearance-wise depending on what angle/under what kind of lighting/with what makeup they are viewed from. However, due to the nature of the appearance business, certain angle/lighting/makeup combinations get favored over the others. Leading to the false public impression that they only look like X. Whereas the reality is that they only look like X under very specific parameters. Which can lead to the funny situation where someone attempting to craft a faithful likeness of a person overall (rather than a likeness of them at a specific point in time/embodying a particular iconic look) can end up with somthing that - to the average public viewer - looks less true-to-life despite being technically more true-to-life.

    And this isn't a new phenomenon. Prior to the days of still photography, painting with a live model for reference was the de facto standard method for realistic portraiture. And since painting is a very lengthy process, doing portraiture that way inevitably leads to the portrait artist being exposed to their subject's appearance under a dynamically changing set of visual parameters. Which ends up making its way into the overall visual feel of the portrait being produced.

    Hence why - if you go back to the golden days of realistic portrait painting (during the early days of still photography) and compare painted portraits of famous people to photographic portraits of them taken soon after, there tends to be a distinct visual difference. Because the former represents what the person looked like in a dynamic fashion, whereas the latter is entirely static - by nature of the underlying mechanical processes of their creation.

    I think a thing to consider when comparing painted portaits to early photography is that the ealy photography required the subject to stay motionless for what might be an uncomfortable long time, so some of the photographs looked like the subject is uncomfortable, and they probably were. 

    This is a moot point. Extremely early film technology took around 20 minutes of exposure time to capture a well-lit image. By roughly 1840 this had been reduced to around 20 seconds.The amount of subject posing time (sitting/standing in place with as little viewpoint/lighting/appearance variations as possible) required for a realistic portrait sans photo references (because we are talking about before photography was a fully viable portrait taking option) is in the hours to days - if not weeks to months! - range. You tell me which scenario is more likely to give a subject a sour face over time...

    Oddly enough, this loops back into the original reason why applications like Daz Studio (and Poser before it) were developed in the first place: To serve as a best-of-both-worlds alternative (for painters wishing to depict the human body realitistically) to using either live models or poseable wooden mannequins as visual references for the creation of art. Photo-realism in terms of 3D models themselves was originally just an afterthought.

    Post edited by RayDAnt on
  • ProFotografProFotograf Posts: 112

    Anyone know who the new boy by Mousso is supposed to be?

    Armand HD for Genesis 8 Male - he's GORGEOUS.

    The Keanu Reeves one was spot on - I hope to see many more males by this amazing artist!  If Mousso keeps up this beautiful male series of characters I will purchase ever single release, just like I have purchased Mousso's characters here and at Renderosity.  Now if we can convince Sangriart to come to Daz and make males too of this quality.

    Antonio

     

    armand-hd-for-genesis-8-male-and-valentino-8-01-daz3d.jpg
    1000 x 1300 - 155K
    armand-hd-for-genesis-8-male-and-valentino-8-00-main-daz3d.jpg
    1000 x 1300 - 193K
    armand-hd-for-genesis-8-male-and-valentino-8-05-daz3d.jpg
    1000 x 1300 - 143K
  • TheKDTheKD Posts: 2,686

    I was thinking a young antonio bonderus, but I might be only thinking that, because I knew he played armand in interview with the vampire so my mind associated it. 

  • jestmartjestmart Posts: 4,449

    "To each their own.", as they say.  I think he looks like a young Ralph Macchio.

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,076
    ProFotograf said:

    Anyone know who the new boy by Mousso is supposed to be?

    Armand HD for Genesis 8 Male - he's GORGEOUS.

    The Keanu Reeves one was spot on - I hope to see many more males by this amazing artist!  If Mousso keeps up this beautiful male series of characters I will purchase ever single release, just like I have purchased Mousso's characters here and at Renderosity.  Now if we can convince Sangriart to come to Daz and make males too of this quality.

    Antonio

     

    I think he's just a generic Spaniard

  • Raziel.KanosRaziel.Kanos Posts: 39
    edited May 2020

    Heyas, maybe someone of you can help me out, i am not really hunting for an actress, but more for a movie character ;)
    Artimis from Ready Player One:

    Post edited by Raziel.Kanos on
  • i53570ki53570k Posts: 212
    evacyn said:
    alex86fire said:
    ChangelingChick said:
    alex86fire said:

     

    co.higgins_643bb33aea said:

    Well, except that they are. We associate celebrities with their iconic roles or the time period in which they rose to fame. For the *most* part, this means their youth (I'll roughly define that as 18-38). Also, I find it hilarious you use Michelle Pfeiffer's Ant Man role to make a point. Scarface I'll grant you, but you choose Ant Man over Batman Returns? That's a wee bit intellectually disingenuous. 

    I think you missed the point there. One (Scarface) was an iconic role and the other one (Ant Man) was the last role. I think that was the point Sevrin was making. Some people think of celebrities from their iconic roles. Others might think of them from their last role. Some may even be such big fans that they think of them from social media or interviews and not any role specifically. 

    She's always either Ladyhawke or Antman to me. There is no in between. She was fine in Batman. She is stunning now.And the point was indeed variation in appearance. Not iconic roles.

    When I think of her I almost always picture her in Dangerous Minds. The story, the soundtrack, that movie just had a powerful impact on me.

     

    I think of her in the mostly forgotten Amazon Women on the Moon. If you like the Airplane! series, you should check it out.

    Now I need to check out Amazon Women on the Moon but for me she always pops up as Grease 2.  Lousy moive but it was a heck of one-two punch with Scarface followed immediately.

    What's people's opinion of Mousso's likeness character of her?  I am hesistant to pull the trigger as I think talents are still needed to make the tweaks necessary on Mousso's characters to get them from having decent likeness to actual look-alikes similar to what Sangriart is doing.  I've tried tweaking PA characters and the results always ended inferior to the original so I want something as close out-of-the-box as possible.

  • PaintboxPaintbox Posts: 1,633
    Raziel.Kanos_d465a91cb0 said:

    Heyas, maybe someone of you can help me out, i am not really hunting for an actress, but more for a movie character ;)
    Artimis from Ready Player One:

    That should be possible, it already looks like it is rendered with Daz Studio / Iray

    Loved the movie!

     

  • OstadanOstadan Posts: 1,123

    Armand reminds me of the character 'Sean Diaz' in the 'Life is Strange 2' game; but that's probably because I've played it recently.  If I ever do fan art for LiS2, he is definitely in the casting room.

  • adriant1987adriant1987 Posts: 2

    Anyone seen any lookalikes of annasophia robb?

  • Fae3DFae3D Posts: 2,552

    I'm looking for lookalikes of Lee Pace and Hugo Weaving.  Has anyone seen anybody like them?

  • SevrinSevrin Posts: 6,306

    CS46 is out.  Any thoughts?  I can't place her other than she looks a bit Jennifer Lawrencey.

  • richardandtracyrichardandtracy Posts: 5,598

    I thought CS46 was Denise Richards.

    If you mean CS64 & have been digitally challenged like me... She looks familiar, but.. can't pluck the name.

    Regards,

    Richard.

     

  • SevrinSevrin Posts: 6,306
    richardandtracy said:

    I thought CS46 was Denise Richards.

    If you mean CS64 & have been digitally challenged like me... She looks familiar, but.. can't pluck the name.

    Regards,

    Richard.

     

    Srory. Tpyo.

This discussion has been closed.