Photoshop of Horrors

[Zen]

courtesy of Jezebel.com

My favorite comment so far..."Ribcages are so last-century. The new craze is to have your heart thump against your breast implants"

Why did they take away her leg muscle

[badgercat]

This?

Yeah, I prefer my legs to have muscles, too.

[Grog]

I can't remember the last time I've looked at a fashion magazine, but stuff like that sure makes me glad I don't pick them up.

Ridiculous and insulting.

[bmccasland]

It's no wonder we have body image issues! Doesn't help that the "fashion shows" are on anorexic scarecrows of models - with all due appologies to naturally thin women, but those runway models need to sit down to a nice pasta dinner followed by a big bowl of Ben & Jerry's . Nightly. Of course this is to fuel a nice 20 mile bike ride.

[lph]

you crack me up bmccasland

[sundial]

....sit down to a nice pasta dinner followed by a big bowl of Ben & Jerry's . Nightly. Of course this is to fuel a nice 20 mile bike ride.

Spoken like a true southern fried chickie.

[Eden]

Let me just point out that while there certainly is some Photoshop touching up in the second photo (yes it certainly looks like they skimmed a bit off the belt area...)- its actually an entirely different shot with entirely different lighting.... the first one looks like a test shot - the lighting is much more soft, her legs and head in are slightly different positions and she hasn't even been styled (her shorts are all rucked up, hair isn't wet or blowing in the breeze) Some of what you are seeing was done with safety pins and strobe lights...

[Urlea]

I'll second what Eden said. It is an entirely different shot. Easiest to note by the eyes and that the camera itself is at an alternate angle. Undoubtedly photoshopped though.

I prefer the first shot myself, but alas fashion mags will be what they have always been. An illusion of perfection.

My legs aren't twigs,my waistline doesn't resemble an hour glass and my boobs are somewhere in there though not easy to find. Despite that, my current body-shape suits the active lifestyle I live and that encourages me more than vanity.

[badgercat]

While I thought the same thing, Eden, on the other hand, I have no idea what to think about any picture being "real" or not after seeing this a couple years ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U. Not arguing that they are or aren't different shots... it just gives me pause.

[Eden]

there are limits to what Photoshop can achieve without it looking pretty obvious (just as airbrushing used to look pretty obvious when taken too far in the days before computers...) It does mean that makeup artists, stylists and photographers can afford to be a bit more sloppy these days... you can fix it later...., but most of the tricks they use these days have been done before. It just took more effort.

I won't argue that it gives a sense of beauty that is basically not achievable.... if even the women who are already deemed to be the most beautiful in the world end up getting digitally enhanced.... I would be much more interesting to see a comparison of the actual original shot to see what was really changed. With the lighting difference and that they really smoothed out and pinned back her shorts its a little harder to tell. (you want faked, that might be some of the worst of it... those shorts are so pinned back that she probably can't move from that position.... that's why clothes on store manikins look so good too and so often don't look nearly as nice when tried on.... safety pin tailoring....)

[OakLeaf]

Dang. I like Campari.

I agree it's not the same shot though. Things like the eyes, the expression of the mouth, the folds in the shorts, yeah they COULD change it all (read a Photoshop User magazine sometime), but at some point it's less work for the photographer to just shoot the dang thing over again.

[roadie gal]

There's a lot of "photoshopping" in the pictures, but I agree that they're 2 different photos. Even the background is different... along with the lighting, etc. that people have pointed out.

[Eden]

the background is probably dropped in.... that you can do with relative ease... the hardest part is getting it all behind the hair without making it look fake. The photos really are too low res to take a good look.

Maybe with a huge amount of work you could smooth out the shorts as much as has been done, but it would be a big job to do it without making it look really unnatural...

The lighting could never be changed so drastically.

[Zen]

Smoothing out those shorts is easy, like taking wrinkles out of a face.
Highlights can be added giving the effect of different lighting.
I'm not great at Photoshop but I know some and I'm pretty sure it's the same shot.

[Eden]

Smoothing out those shorts is easy, like taking wrinkles out of a face.
Highlights can be added giving the effect of different lighting.
I'm not great at Photoshop but I know some and I'm pretty sure it's the same shot.

I'm a professional photographer, I can assure you that it is not.