This photo wasn't used in the original VF magazine article. He once made a comment that he had a "funny mug" that looks different at different angles. I think that's true. At this angle, it hardly looks like him.

The colorized one is my playing around with photoshop when I should have been doing something else. LOL



This topic is postable.

that is a very sexy pic.

That reminds me of something Ang Lee said: He said, that with Jake Gyllenhaal you had to be a little bit careful from which angle the camera looked at him, whereas Heath just looked good from any angle.

Hell, he even looks sexy when seen from below:

LOL I hadn't heard that about Jake, but Ang's right. Heath did look good from any angle. But he also looked different from different angles, too; I think Heath probably realized he had asymmetrical features, but to me, it actually made him more beautiful.

Phyllis, there is more unseen photos than just that one, they were put up on the VF website when a preview of the article came up.

This one is my absolute favourite, though.

Have you got 'em, Miranda?

I seem to remember that there were, but I've had a computer crash since then. I don't remember if I snagged them or not.

Here is the set:
Heath Ledger VanityFair Portfolio


I think this one is my fave:

That's one thing I love about Heath. He was always changing and experimenting with new looks. He didn't stay stuck with a particular style or color even. I notice he often changed degrees and style of facial hair as well. The beauty of Heath is that he didn't have perfect features, he was ruggedly handsome and so real (does that make any sense???). He was such "the flame" that he drew you in-regardless of his particular look. I believe that came from inside, the soul of Heath was so beautiful and powerful that he captivated us all. I still can't decide on my fav. look. I think I really like where he was going with the long hair and the beard-the Parnassus look. Sometimes I wonder how long he would have let his hair grow? What would he have done next?

I always figured that the facial hair was something that got decided that day, or the next day . . . whenever he didn't want to bother with shaving. LOL

My thought when I saw some of his earlier photos was. . . "I'm pretty sure he would never wear THAT!" LOL

(for example >>>)



Makes perfect sense. And regardless of the fact that he was physically beautiful, this is the real reason he was sexy. You should read some of the quotes that go along with those photos. How people described him.


Mine is 2007.
I hadn't really thought about it, but I doubt he would have grown his hair much longer, just based on how he'd previously worn it. . . He once said he liked to wear it "a little longer", but he didn't say "long". He had previously almost gotten it that length after Candy, then buzzzz . . . off it came. He never seemed to let it grow past that point, so I just kinda figured that he had gotten it to the length he wanted it.

I can't believe we're talking about hair. uch! LOL

Speaking of hair, that 6th pic always makes me giggle. As a photographer I would have mentioned that his man patch was showing. Then again maybe he knew and did not care,lol!


I love that photo even though I have to admit that I am not a big fan of his blonde hair phase. I have this photo framed on my wall.There is something about the lighting and all the angles on his face,I just love it. My fav look of his though was how he looked in Parnassus. It is so wonderful just how many different looks Heath could pull off. I love that about him too.

Actually . . . Heath did NOT know.

He did not know until the photo appeared on the cover.
And he was very embarrassed.

Had it been later in his career, he might have been more daring and not as embarrassed . . . but this was his first big magazine photoshoot, and in my opinion, for the photog to not let him know (presumably to further some "teen idol" phase) was out of line.

Yeah . . . he was embarrassed when he saw it.

Personally:
1st - my mouth dropped open.
But I thought it was sexy.

This picture puts all kinds of images inside my twisted and nasty brain... sorry ladies move along, there's nothing to see here

Phylis: gotta agree, i think the pic looks sexy (and yet again, my mind wanders into dangerous territory)

Poor guy, that is so wrong. I mean yeah I find it sexy too,I am only human,lol! But when you photograph another person you have to first respect them. Talk about what you are going to do, well you know all that. Clearly whoever photographed him just wanted to sell magazines. I would have told him. However awkward that would have been! You are right it was very out of line.

Bruce Webber did a great job here!!! This must be the most classic photoshoot Heath did. It is everywhere. I want this in bigger quality, is there a possibility we could find it somewhere? 800 pixels is not enough for that man!!! LOL... The originals must be around 4000! So someone -who is more into that than me- can learn how to have them? Probably we must ask Mr.Webber or Vanity Fair LOL...

But...he was humping a statue in a pic inside the issue! And that didn't embarrass him?

LOL That incongruity never ocurred to me.

I suppose it's the difference in knowing what you're showing, and not having control over something you didn't know about?


LOL Not the best plan.
And they charge something like $150 to $200 PER PHOTO to use the original HQ shots.

Would they have been using film in 2001? or digital by then? Just curious. I do think that film still enlarges better than digital,but thats just me,lol!

He most likely used a medium format film. Film is still very widely used in fashion and magazine studio photography.
It does enlarge better, but if you shot in RAW on digital, you still get HUGE shots.
Either way, VF and all the Conde Nast companies are VERY proprietary.