To: Art Dept
From: sparry@marieclaire.com
Subject: Excellent retouching! You didn't miss a thing!
Thanks to Grom!
Marie Claire: On reflection, perhaps not
To: Art Dept
From: sparry@marieclaire.com
Subject: Excellent retouching! You didn't miss a thing!
Thanks to Grom!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
101 comments:
This isn't a disaster, it's a social statement about the photoshop era, and how we cannot hide the true reflections of ourselves...
LOL nice find.
Classic and frightening. Where does this manipulation of images end? Would those people even recognize themselves??
Alright, maybe I'm just slow, but what is the Photoshop problem here? I get that the reflections look funny, but that is because of the glass surface of the table. It has a wave in it, as well as the numerous seams. It's just how the photo was - not any Photoshopping (or really lack thereof)
Also I get that the problem could be that their faces have been touched up some (which you can tell because of the reflections), but honestly, besides some color correction/brightening, it looks very minimal to me.
i believe the diaster is not in the faces. it's the missing background in the reflection.
What's wrong with people??
Of course it is a Photoshop disaster, they touched up the faces and left the reflections, a disaster by whoever did it.
Do you really think that is how they actually wanted the end pic to look? No, someone stuffed up yet again - a disaster, and to make it worse, it is a fashion magazine...
PMSL
"(...)but honestly, besides some color correction/brightening, it looks very minimal to me."
Oh yeah? Well what about "Vanessa Thompson" or "Bridget", not to mention "Kath Brown"?? Minimal? I beg to differ.
I agree with eric -- I don't see evidence of egregious retouching. The distortion in the reflections is clearly due to the uneven surface of the table. The color changes are, similarly, due to color casting from the table surface itself.
Ah not that terrible of a disaster. Part of the problem is the glass table will distort their reflection anyway. I'm not saying that no photoshoping has been done to the people at all, but you can't exactly go by what their reflections in the table look like.
is this an ad for the exorcism of emily rose part 2?
This is a perfect photo for before and after retouching.
re: the 'obvious' lack of a background
There is no background in the reflection because it is from a different perspective. You obviously could not see buildings just over their shoulders if you were looking from the surface of the table at the point of their reflections.
There should be some sort of annual contest on this site where we get to vote on the most atrocious example of photoshop incompetence about which someone still manages to say it isn't a disaster.
Eric, don't forget to let other people have a chance at this.
Magnificent find.
Just to clarify so people don't think I'm a tool...
This is definitely a disaster! Kath Brown before and after retouching?? You can't tell me that's just the table!
freakytee said...
This is a perfect photo for before and after retouching.
I don't know, I think I would have done a better edit and chosen one where Bridget didn't look like she was taking a shit.
Also, note that the reflection shows a hell of a lot more five o'clock shadow than the guy has. Either they retouched the guy or the reflection came from the future. If so, Bridget also got a bit of a trim in the future. My guess it was around the time that her herpes flared up.
No disaster here. Does not everybody possess a magic mirror (or other reflecting surface) showing how they would appear if they were not the perfect, unblemished, uncannily-looking people they are?
Richelle has a point – Like the majority of the fashion world, they just want to be something they are not. And Photoshop is the best invention since sliced bread!
lol seriously...why is everyone commenting about the distortion from the reflection? that's not why this was uploaded...the reflections held next to the face are to show the difference between before retouching and after.
awful mistake i have to say...
After a couple of good posts the whole blog turns to making fun of distorted reflections. Brilliant.
Stuart has more stubble, Vanessa’s face has possibly been reshaped (though the reflection may just be extra-warped on this one), the shine and laugh lines are gone from Kath’s face and chin, and Bridget’s wrinkles/laugh lines have likewise been smoothed out.
Kath's waist has also been smoothed out and made curvier.
lol at sparry@marieclaire.com - very good
Let's call it
THE TABLE OF DORIAN GRAY
Grasshopper, as always you look but do not see. This high school yearbook staff has taxidermied their grandparents and encased them in a poured acrylic tabletop.
The original people look O.K. They're not beautiful, but average, honest-looking people. I don't see the point of manipulating them through photoshop or other means.
I don't get the people commenting that this is not a photoshop disaster because it's "clearly a distortion caused by the mirror/glass".
As far as I know, mirror distortions don't add wrinkles or stubble to your face, unless you're living in some magical alternate world.
Look closer. Wrinkles around the mouths, jowls, spotty skin... all still present in the reflections.
I really don't get why people follow this site just to say "that's not a disaster" on every post :/
hearst magazines IS an alternate universe... trust me on this
hi you!
OH...MY...GOD...
Hehe, I love all you "It's not a disaster" people! You make me feel good about myself.
THE GLASS TABLE DOESN'T LIE.
wow. this is actually pretty frightening. as in, I'm checking under my bed tonight for any stray deputy editors.
Okay, reading the comments... I get it now. It's not about the distortion of the reflections (glass tables do that), it's about how the people were cleaned up but the reflections show what work was done (plus distortion).
Not so much a disaster in the work that was done to the people, but the reflections should have been cropped to remove the proof of work.
Oh, and if you want an opinion -- I think the reflections look better than the touch-ups. I don't mean because of the distortion :) but look at the reflected faces -- they have dimension, where the smoothing applied to the people looks like they need some Photoshopping (or pancake makeup). A little of that lack of gloss in the reflection may be due to the glass of the table, but certainly not all the smoothing.
It was right the first time.
Oh dear. Rofl. I laughed so hard.
The colors are funny, the rest seems pretty good to me.
I love how people come to this blog to deny there were any disasters when they were plain obvious. It's hilarious.
Eric, Warren, Tom Dougherty.
Thank you for applying to work at Very Good Design House. Unfortunately your applications were unsuccessful.
We hear however, that Bang Up Any Old Crap are hiring and we think you'd great for them.
Sincerely.
I honestly think this is no photoshop disaster. It was quite well executed with good affect.
Upon further examination I retract my previous statement and agree with the blog. :P. shitake
This confused me, because at first I was sure the reflection in the table was one of those faux reflections Photoshop is so infamous for. Sadly, it's a real reflection, but they still schmutzed it up.
not really 'disaster', more like a photoshop lack of complete attention to detail.
A disaster is where someone's arm appears through a door, or when someone has three hands. When things are so subtle they have to be pointed out by giant red boxes then it's not a disaster.
The woman on the right. Look at where the top of her head comes to in relation to the woman next to her's arm.
So the editorial team at a well-known magazine use a table with ripples, dips and domes?
Maybe they're being very trendy and postmodern and buy their tables from the hall of mirrors at the local circus.
theburningislove said...
not really 'disaster', more like a photoshop lack of complete attention to detail.
Well I guess that www.photoshoplackofcompleteattentiontodetail.com was taken.
"I really don't get why people follow this site just to say "that's not a disaster" on every post :/"
those people are photoshopdisasters waiting to happen.. if you can't even tell the disaster/mistake you obviously won't be able to prevent them yourself when making something
When I first looked at this I thought it was actually a before-and-after makeover photoshoot with the previous versions beside them. Took me a ferw minutes of head scratching to realise that the faces beside them were added by photoshopdisasters to show how different they were from the reflections.
Yeah! Go get 'em PsD! That'll teach them to not fix the reflections in that perfectly mirrored table!
...wait, it's not a perfectly mirrored table? It's a glass table with uneven surfaces?
*tucks tail between legs*
...move along... nothing to see here.
I want a magic mirror that makes me younger after it captures my image and soul.
This is one of my favorite disasters *ever*. All those products Marie Claire endorses to provide you with an even, radiant skin-tone are apparently no match for good old Photoshop.
Btw, to all those who insist on defining the word "disaster" in the narrowest sense possible and castigating what they perceive as any deviation from it... I don't even know what to say to you. I tried a few different insults but none were sufficiently scathing.
wahah cool
Stuart seems to have a quick run over his face with an electric shaver but his reflection was obviously far too busy to do the same.
This is great!
This is so not a disaster.
Yes, this is not the highest quality work in the world. Yes, higher expectations can be had for a fashion magazine.
Yes, the reflection looks like crap, and they should have tried to match the edits in the reflections (easier said than done).
What's worse to me is the lady that's not looking at the camera. Before anyone else says it, not every shot needs everyone looking at the camera. That's not the case here, you have everyone looking at the camera (well, you can't really tell with squinty-eyes over on the right), except that one lady. WTF? Did they only take one shot? Even if this was the best shot overall, they should have PSed her eyes looking at the camera. Then, then, THEN it could have been a disaster because if they PSed the eyes, but not in the reflection, it TOTALLY wouldn't match and they'd be busted.
Anyway, I love the site, it's just that in this case, it's not really a disaster.
Someone posted about the background not being photoshopped because it's a matter of reflection... Wrong wrong wrong, look at where Parry and Selner overlap in the PSed top and then look at the reflection, especially as the buildings come up near her head.
Gotta prove they're real big citeh magazine workers, yup yup!
For someone who works in marketing, or at a magazine, or in graphic design, this is a disaster.
While I fully agree that this is a disaster I disagree with Emily.
The reason the positions are different in the reflection is because we are, in effect, looking up at the people from below which is the reason you can see under their chins and the buildings don't appear on the table. That's how reflections work.
Three points:
1. Have you ever glanced at your refection in car door window while standing outside? Did you notice the stark difference in the contrast, making the overall image more washed out with the shadowed and darker areas of your face even darker?
2. The difference in background could arise from the different, lower angle of the table from the camera, causing it to reflect a higher background view outside and a possible distorted picture of the faces.
3. Couldn't some mischievous photo shopper have touched "down" the table images to grab all of this attention?
Ou friend works for Marie Claire - we are emailing her right now!
buaahahahah
This is probably the best photoshop disaster EVER.
Anyone who defends shit like this is the same set of douchebags who actually do work like this. Frightened freelancers the world over are so quick to jump to the defense of "retouching".
Fact is, 'retouching' is a disaster in itself. It's a cancer infecting every form of media today, and any time we can catch some pixel pusher's process, we can all have a hearty laugh because evidently some folks may be powerful, but deathly frightened of their frown lines or crooked noses.
Quit defending work like this. To repeat; even if the reflection WERE cropped out, these airbrushed and digital-botoxed kewpie dolls are a disaster.
Three points:
1. Have you ever glanced at your refection in a car door window while standing outside? Did you notice the stark difference in the contrast, making the overall image more washed out with the shadowed and darker areas of your face even darker?
2. The difference in backgrounds could arise from the different, lower, angle of the table, as opposed to the straight on position of the camera, causing the glass top to reflect a higher background view outside the window and a possible distorted picture of the faces.
3. Couldn't some mischievous photo shopper have touched "down" the table images to grab all of this attention?
Hoite, it was just as dumb the first time you said it.
the angle of the glass table distorts the face
Oh come on, people! Sure, the elongated heads and possibly the skin tone difference are likely reflection distortion, but that doesn't hide the fact that wrinkles and stubble were smoothed over in one place and not the other. Definitely a disaster!
Blackbeard said...
Hoite, it was just as dumb the first time you said it.
This was my first time posting, so I guess I clicked the "post comment" button twice. Sorry. But thanks for the warm welcome to the site.
If there is anything rattling around inside your black bearded head besides unsupported opinions, you might respond to each of my three points with a little logic to go along with your shallow sharing of unshaven sarcasm.
Um. What is all the debate about. Has no one answered these questions yet? It is posted here because someone retouched the faces but forgot to retouch the reflections. Its not about the distortion or the background and viewing angle. Its very simple. The reflections should match the faces. Features were smoother out or removed up top and not in the reflections thus revealing what they looked like before the retouching. Simple. Why is this such a long thread? Take care.
all these people here who say that there is nothing wrong with photoshopping and that's the way the world is...you'll be hilarious when you're old. all the botox in the world won't make you happy.
i can't wait to enjoy all the suffering when you realize humans are not made of plastic.
To those of you who don't think this is a Photoshop Disaster, it's scolding time: Stop downloading illegal copies of Photoshop off the bittorrent sites. Photoshop is a tool primarily for professional designers and photographers.
The person who was paid to work on this photo should have had a more critical eye and spent more time on the details.
This is what happens when everyone has photoshop skills but no concept of photography. The image was probably taken with a wide angel lens. thats why in the reflection the people's heads on the sides look disfigured and skewed to the corners. They probably corrected for this after but didn't spend the time on the table. They did minimal work on the faces and the biggest job they did was to the background. People should have a photo degree before they start cirtquing photographs and calling everything "photshoped"
It's not a photoshop disaster. The glass tabletop is an aging machine!
Can one of the people who thinks it's a wave in the table or a wide-angle lense or whatever explain to me how these things made the guy's beard thicker?
You folks who leave the "Not a disaster" comments... YOU are the reason these gross incompetents have jobs. Makes me wonder why I spent all that time and money learning my craft ;x
you all have it wrong.. the photoshopping is the reflections!
just saying :)
To make comparison a little easier:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3239/2965776514_37d7a27be4.jpg?v=0
The retouch is minimal on the faces, mostly, complexion smoothing by lightening the complexions. Most of the wrinkles and five o'clock shadow are dealt with this way.
There is no background in the table reflection, because from that angle, the table is seeing only sky.
For the same reason, you are looking up the noses of the people in the reflections, and a slightly different angle head on.
Just think how much of a mess it could have been if they tried to retouch the table reflection as well, even if they flopped and warped their own work.
I think there should be a contest for the least disastrous so-called disaster.
Sure, there has been some touch up, but is not a disaster because the reflection might be more true, or more distorted. It is a disaster because it is difficult to keep frequent posts on this blog without posting milder examples.
Note to self: never hire Hans Flagon
Where is the original - I want to look at the whole photo without the boxes you've added (note that it would have been more effective to just flip the table, as the flicker user above has done).
I gotta side with the not-so-popular 'nothin to see here' crowd..
I mean if anyone was going all out with the 'shop on this photo, surely they would have had a go at sorting out poor Bridget's squinty eyes while they were at it..
If you look at their eyes in the reflection, you will see that they too are looking straight at the camera. They should be looking up. I submit that the "reflection" is really just a flipped version of the strait shot, with the background and the glass table texture added in.
I know, I meant to type straight.
hi you!
your blog very nice...welcome my blog to watching video cool...thanks for your visit...
This is no photoshop disaster, its the glass table of Dorian Gray!
I wish pretentious artist types would keep their noses well out of this business.
Sure. You're a fantastic image editor, and you can pull of something like this flawlessly. You can make the people look like gods personified, and the refelections match seamlessly...
The sad thing is that the only reason most of you noticed the issue in this image was the fact it was posted here - and that is because you are all photoshop users. Take your average person and they wont even think twice about it being genuine, and photoshop users are certainly not the target market of this magazine.
Disaster? Don't be ridiculous. Just because we can see how it could have been improved doesn't mean it's terrible. Sloppy work? Sure.
I agree with eric... we're trying to find something so badly we're stretching. this site is getting lame. Just a bad case of wavy glass and minimal photoshopping. As far as the background reflection goes, someone obviously doesn't understand angles as you would never see the same background from the low angle of the glass and only sky.
I see the Marie Claire crowd is doing a pretty good (not) effort of defending this sad, sad image. Stop trying. It's pathetic. :)
'Just a bad case of wavy glass'
a glass table wavy? have you ever seen a glass table? they are perfect, even surfaces. The site is not lame. You are.
The faces were obviously photoshopped and the faces in the table were forgotten.
I've never seen a glass table that takes a woman with perfect plastic-like skin and give her wrinkles.
I like photoshop work when weel made. It's some kind of art for me. Nobody liked Van Gogh's work when that style was en its innovating step. But I also think that using photoshop for journalism is just too much- beacuase we want to buy and see the true if not the journalism shoulb be called "fantasism".
Well said Reka. I'm amazed that so many people think that a rippled glass table is likely.
I think that the manipulation is on the glass table, because where are the houses reflections?
I think that the manipulation is on the glass table, because hwere are the houses reflections?
I think that the manipulations are on the glass table, because where are the houses reflections?
anyone who is still in denial that this image was altered should look at kath's waist.
Never let an intern do the job of a professional^^
I swear, they gave Stuart Selner, the creative Director, a bigger brain box.
Yes, with several hours this could have been P-Shopped to perfection. But the REAL skill in advertising/magazine graphics is this: how good can you make it in the 20 minutes until final deadline?!
LMAO! I am so glad I found your blog - these are priceless!!
One of my favorites so far!
Time mirror alert!
Yeah this is not a disaster. I'm really ashamed at the people who don't have a grasp on real life. Different angle - different background. Distorted glass - Different shaped faces.
The only photoshopping is to remove blemishes or other unwanted features, and is that a disaster or rather one of the MAIN FUNCTIONS of Photoshop? A lot of the PSD's are not PSD's but more of good judgment disasters.
My first post here. It is quite apparent this image is shopped, but I doubt many will notice.
Besides us I don´t think many people will make such a scrutinous review of the image, to compare the reflections. I think they might get away with it.
I just visited your blog and i though that to post a comment at your blog. I think richelle was said absolutely right we cant hide the true reflections.
Web Design Quote
I agree that the long faces on the lower three are the result of a curve in the tabletop. But the disaster is more that there was PS used to smooth out the wrinkles and bad complexion (as well as considerably lighten Stuart's two-day stubble), and yet this effort is nulled by the unretouched reflections.
Also the missing background is a good catch! Clearly the editors of this esteemed (fashion? photo?) magazine do not really have their office on the common third floor, but up much higher where there are only clouds.
Post a Comment