Who's taking the picture?
Thanks to Amanda and everyone who sent this in.
Everybody's Fine: No They're Not
Who's taking the picture?
Thanks to Amanda and everyone who sent this in.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Who's taking the picture?
Thanks to Amanda and everyone who sent this in.
68 comments:
lol FIRST!!! that guy has no arm!!! WTF
Is that supposed to be Robert's arm? And what did they do to his face? Blargh.
and the camera is point somewhere else :p
t from the possibility that's the old foggies hand. The had is consistent with someone from your point of view taking the photo. And as for the angle that is also consistent with the photo having just been taken. Only thing I'd accept this image for would be their posses are the same. I guess they just like to stand real still like!
Not sure I'd accept this one myself.
The had can't be his because his right hand which it's clearly not. I would still assume someone else took the photo.
Calling C.O....
Isn't he just making the photo with his left hand? What's wrong with it?
De Niro is taking the picture with his left hand. What exactly is the problem?
Cue comments about how we're looking at the wrong hand...
Yeah... I'm not seeing what the problem is here, other than the plastic-y mannequin look of Robert DiNero... but that's another issue entirely and not a PSD.
It's meant to be De Niro's left hand holding the camera. It's a horrible composition but standard fare for film posters for this kind of film. The thinking goes, "Well, they're not so discriminating that they'd avoid watching our crappy movie, so we shouldn't expect them to pay too much attention to the quality of our poster. And here's another thing: they've all taken photos of themselves with cameras like this so they can kind of get the idea of the shot, but none of them has seen what the viewfinder shows when they're doing it, so we can put what we like...
Bobby D is taking the picture... ??
Ugh, this blog is kinda lame. Good idea for a fun blog, but just rarely delivers. Sorry but I'm unsubscribing *gasp*
DeNiro is supposed to be taking the picture, but at that angle he'd get a picture of everyone's bellies, not their heads from above.
I can't believe a couple of you thinking the camera angle is correct. When the camera is at an angle, the image has to show the cast as being skewed *within the frame of the camera*. Not only that, the camera lens is pointing towards their torsos.
*** POLL *** POLL *** POLL ***
How Many of you guys are Graphic Designers?
YAY(are) OR NAY (are not)
Agree with S.
This site has so much potential, but most posts leave commenters wondering if there's a mistake at all, let alone a disaster.
Yes, it's supposed to be DeNiro's hand.
Yes, it's not photo accurate. For other examples, see any movie poster ever made.
The controls on the back of the camera are blurry, yet the image on the camera is sharp as are te subjects. Beyond impossible depth of field, or a badly applied blur filter. You decide!
The people who are saying "There's nothing wrong with this" are clearly not digital artists.
I sent this in because of Giraffe boys' neck on the left there, and DeNiro's body angle (we should be seeing much more of his left shoulder if that really is his hand.)
I don't understand why these kind of digital compositions are allowed to be sent out. Seriously, take the time, pay a bit of money, get your actors in a studio and take a photo TOGETHER. You'll save yourself money paying your lazy graphic artist and you'll save yourself ridicule from a doing a half-assed photoshop job.
I'm willing to forgive that, Jeff. The stated disaster, however, was "Who's taking the picture?"
"the image on the camera is sharp as are the subjects"
What? No.
Cheesy Photoshop, not disaster. These movie posters are intentionally cartoony, and it's clear in a cartoony sense that Robert De Niro is taking the pic. No problem that I can see. Cheesy poster, cheesy film, I'd guess. You want a quality Photoshop non-representative of the movie?
Yes, obviously it's is supposed to be De Niro's hand. I don't think anyone was confused about that But the angle he is facing at makes that impossible unless he has some kind of rubber monkey arm. It looks weird (and anyone who thinks it doesn't has zero concept of the human form).
It's not a failure so epic the Intrawebz are going to explode, but it's pretty shoddy work.(Also, the other guy's neck is a bit too long.) Seriously, the only way you people are happy is if it ends up looking like a Picasso (though then I'd imagine there'd be people going, "EMG ITZ ART U STOOPIDHED. IM UNSUBSCRIBING NOW.").
wv: poldevel
That point&shoot has a neat wide angle lense... and there are two options: first: the picture on it is a preview of last picture, and in that case they are pretty good at standing still; second: it's liveview, and in that case the angle is wrong. Epic fail, case made.
Being a photographer myself, I can say that taking such a picture wouldn't take more than 20min for the actors. Why can't they afford to hire a photog?
What about wtetched neck syndrome guy to the lege??
@Christian, respectfully: Seriously, if you see a poster of a new Dark Knight or a new Matrix, that is a TOTAL PSD, would you skip the theaters just because of that? That's exactly the way the cookie crumbles for those lazy morons - YES, this IS laziness.
One of the lovely aspects of this site is how the commentariat have become so skilled in parsing the nuances of "disaster".
"It's bad but not a disaster"
"It's a disaster but not a real disaster"
"It isn't a disaster at all. You see that kind of thing in catalogs/VS ads/movie promos all the time."
"This isn't a disaster. The one I sent in which was ignored was a disaster. It was from a Brazilian magazine and showed Gisele Bundchen with horns growing out of her head and a long scaly tail."
Cosmo really has us dancing to his tune.
I think this belongs on the 'Photoshop Extremely Minor Errors' blog, not Photoshop *Disasters*. Seems like we're scraping the barrel a little lately. Or maybe my standards just aren't high enough...
Not a disaster... nay, I'm not a graphic designer, I'm a photographer.
The image on the camera is actually the same as they are posing for. It's just blurred to give the dof a chance. If they were both in focus you'd be talking about that.
Is it just me, or is Robert DeNiro getting hot as he ages? yum.
wv: bednake... bed naked without the "d". lol
Erm, I'm not sure if you're familiar with digital cameras, but most of them will show the image for a short while after it has been taken. It's not really such an "impossible shot." I bet I could duplicate it in real life.
Fuck the photoshopping. These fucking "holiday" glurgefest movies make me want to projectile vomit, scoop up the fucking vomit with a spoon, eat it, and then projectile vomit it again!
Sure, the arm seems very long, and that camera really has a wide angle !
But that's De Niro, guys ! He makes everything possible !
The people who are saying "There's nothing wrong with this" are clearly not digital artists.
HOLY SENSE OF IMPORTANCE BATMAN
Something's happened to Robert O_o
Why can't it just be a picture taken by a fith person, looking at the camera after he took the picture... you know, like we all do... we take a picture and then we check it...
Why can't it just be a picture taken by a fith person, looking at the camera after he took the picture... you know, like we all do... we take a picture and then we check it...
It could, but I'd be very unlikely to hold the camera in my left hand with my palm facing me. There are positions far more comfortable.
The problem also is:
the viewfinder shows the picture slightly tilted ... it should't do that! thats the indication that the camera and the fake viewfinder has been comped in
Terrible job!
www.nodophotography.com
LAME. Sorry guys, this is no disaster whether you're a digital artist or not (which I am). It's mildly clumsy at best, as have been most of the entries on this blog lately. I'm unsubscribing. I'll check back in a few weeks and see if you've got anything good.
Enjoyed it while it lasted.
Who's taking the picture?
WHO CARES? It's a friggin' movie poster. Artistic license is allowed.
Where the camera is pointing is off slightly, but the angle it's being held at is well within the bounds of reality.
So is the hand holding it.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with his hand - I've taken self portraits before with a group in the exact same fashion - you have to use your left hand because usually your right arm is around someone. With a decent wide-angle lens, that shot is quite possible if the camera was pointed up a degree or two.
It's *hardly* a 'disaster'. The only thing worth making fun of is the heavy Photoshopping on De Niro's face. Don't bother posting things that are so close to RL you really have to double check to see if there's anything wrong. Ralph Lauren ad, yes. This? No.
I'm not why there are so many people that think it looks normal that Robert DeNiro's hand is taking the picture. Its obvious enough that its supposed to be his hand, but look at the angle of his shoulders and his body, as well as the physical distance between him and the camera. It doesn't work.
WV: gonis... the day when people could agree to disagree. You people are spending WAY too much time arguing over a movie poster when we could be arguing over homeschool
I must have monkey rubber arms because I take pictures of me and other people all the time and usually you can never see my arm in the photo. And this while positioning the camera a good 16-18 inches from our faces.
I could probably add another inch of distance if I held my camera as shown in the poster.
Cheesy poster, but I don't see an issue with the hand holding the camera.
bahubauhbahubahu
EMG ITZ ART U STOOPIDHED. IM UNSUBSCRIBING NOW
wv: beconatc.. just be it
ProdigySim said..."I bet I could duplicate it in real life."
Ah, but could your girlfriend do that?
The most disastrous thing is the impossible situation of the camera's image being sharp whilst the camera itself is out of focus.
Almost everything else can be explained by the image in the camera not being a picture taken some moments ago.
Whats left is a dodgy arm and long neck.
So just minor stuff and one technical impossibility. Hardly worthy of a Ralph Lauren
I does worry me a bit that people think that there's nothing wrong with this image. I'll just leave it at that.
For the money that the film studio paid whatever graphic designer to put this together, topped with the fact that the star power (DeNiro) is the most terribly distorted part of the entire poster, yeah this is a huge effin disaster.
It amazes me that with all the cameras on a film set they couldn't get a good still or a clean frame of 4 actors together, especially in an ensemble movie where they were all on set the same day.
Instead they get somebody to photoshop junk like this poster. Deniro is facing the wrong way to comfortably take this photo, but I can see why people overlook that.
wv:nonaltu
OK. Fine. Let's assume that DeNiro is taking the picture.
Why is the image in the viewfinder not level?
Re: commenters bashing this site for a few marginal posts.
Just two short weeks ago, one little post in our little piece-of-heaven PsD was GLOBAL news. It's hard to follow that act, sl lay off and enjoy the offerings in the spirit that they are offered: a snarky, hyper-critical view of modern graphic design.
Not every post can be a world-beater; get over it and enjoy what's here for what it's worth. How much did you pay to view this site anyway?
WV: nalot, as in "not a lot"
@wahnua
I agree completely! I come here to see the photos and read the comments. Not every post is a big hit with me, but so what? I lose nothing but a few minutes of my time. I can always skip it if I don't like a post.
I'm unsubscribing from this blog. Not because every post isn't a disaster (because throwing a tantrum about something you get for free is whiny baby bullshit), but because the caliber of commenters has gone so low there are people who don't even recognize Robert DeNiro and refer to him as an "old foggie." (Fogey?)
And for those of you with no sense of humor -- and you have no idea who who are -- I am KIDDING. I love this site. Cosmo is hilarious, and so are many of the commenters.
Verification: pubbis, which is when you grope a girl at a tavern?
The big issue with this is that DeNiro is clearly comped in (all the other problems stem from that). And that's not really surprising. The guy's a big star who lives in New York (the rest of them live in LA) and he's old enough and respected enough that he does what he wants. So somebody probably took a photo of him in NYC, the rest were shot in LA and they got comped together.
To those of you wondering why they couldn't just take photos on the set of the movie... photo studio work and motion picture work is totally different. Different lighting setups, different backdrops, etc. You can't just stop filming one second and say "ok, everybody in the middle there, say cheese!" You *could* theoretically have two totally different setups, but then you'd be paying a photographer and all his assistants, and rentals on all the equipment to just sit there and wait while the movie's being filmed.
Many of your Photoshop disasters are truly disasters. This one was very purposely executed. There are a few very minor things wrong with it, one of them is not the hand. It's a left hand, but it takes the subconscious a while to deal with that. It's the stuff of intelligence tests. The picture is tilted. Once again, just enough to bother the subconscious. And the camera is more out of focus than the image. One remembers this poster without knowing why. It's not just Photoshop, this is how top level advertising works. Thanks for posting it. I very much enjoy your blog.
What professional designers consider "disaster" and what the average viewer thinks is bad can be very different. Personally, I'm glad this blog doesn't always stick with the latter.
As a GD I would be absolutely embarrassed if this were my work. The neck, the horrible comp job on the camera, the foreshortening of the hand. As far as professional work goes this is a disaster.
To those saying that this isn't a disaster, or that it looks perfectly alright, get a life and stop arguing about stupid things like this. Its done shabbily, it doesn't look right, its not done as well as it could be. Simple as that.
角色扮演,按摩棒,跳蛋,情趣跳蛋,
情趣,情趣用品,衣蝶,
色情小說|七夕情人,一夜情,
潤滑液,SM,內衣,性感內衣,自慰器,充氣娃娃,AV,
G點,性感丁字褲,情趣,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲,無線跳蛋,
按摩棒,電動按摩棒,飛機杯,自慰套,自慰套,情趣用品,情趣內衣,
情趣按摩棒,.,
First time I notice you have to be a graphical designer to post an opinion here. I also guess this movie poster was only addressed only to them.
Well, to all graphical designers, enjoy you crappy DeNiro christmas comedy.
Jesus wept I can't believe that there's people trying to justify the fact that they've made one of the the most famous actors in the world today look like a Care Bear with it being "artistic license" or "not that disastrous".
This is the face of the movie... a multi-million pound investement by the movies company and this is one of the first thing that people are going to see. It seems that many on here would still be saying that it is not a mess had the "artist" responsible for this had wiped shit and semen all over it.
The whole composition of this is woeful. It is a commercial piece that a so called professional was aid for and a company ran with. If you fail to see that this is disastrous then perhaps you should get back to playing with GIMP/crayons/bodily fluids..
oh for the love of pete, whiney babies. If the disaster isn't disastery enough for you go find some that are and submit them.
I am NOT unsubscribing.
sheesh.
it's not a psd really, the guy's neck is the only thing that stands as a disaster and the post isn't being focused on it tho.
you can just look at the poster and pass it for those not having the cia's intensise graphic designer training, for those "trained", you will find a million mistakes even in psd site top banner.
the only real problem with the photo is the angle of the snapshot. see how he's not holding the camera perpendicular to the ground? the viewfinder (which is showing their expressions and position at the exact moment we're seeing them) is wrong, because the actual photo would be off kilter about 30 degrees.
and yeah we can't see his arm, big deal it's out of frame. not even close to the worst out there this holiday season!!
I wonder where DeNiro's right hand is. You should be able to see him below the camera, but his gray sleeve and body are missing (and everyone else appears to be there). Also, unless he is showing us a picture he had just taken -- possible -- the camera angle is wrong. If he is showing us a picture he had just taken, then his body position is wrong for having taken the photo, which is centered in the middle of the group -- someone taking a photo from the edge couldn't do that.
what I can tell is wrong with this at first glance:
- skin on everyone is too smooth and skin tones are way off.
- major DOF issues - christmas tree is way out of focus, while subjects are in focus and camera is out of focus - considering the DOF relationship between forground and background, Deniro should be in focus, while the focus on everyone else should be dropped considerably.
- Comping issues: I've done a lot of these celebrity shoots and can tell you that just about everyone of them is composite work, mainly because you can never get all of the talent there at the same time - schedules in celebrity-land, never mesh and "lets do lunch" is never really a serious proposal. So for this shot, they may have shot Sam and Deniro in NYC, then the photographer flew out to LA to shoot Kate and Miami to shoot Drew...Because of this, a lot of the realism of the shot must be done in post by the retoucher. Unfortunately these guys did a horrible job comping (as noted in the foreground with the bad job done on the hand holding the camera. Dinero's hand or not, why is there such an absence of light on the hand, considering all of the light that is on the subjects? It doesnt' make sense. Also the lack of shadow on beckinsale really ruins the comping job - some shadow/darkness must fall on her to make the illusion of dinero in front of her real.
- Finally, the tree in the background was very badly silo'd as I can see the edges.
The irony is (after seeing this film), Rober De Niro's character uses an old wind-on film compact, and not a digital camera (as it's part of his character and the "plot"... loose term).
ok i get it, long neck guy had to be stretched over to fit in the picture but also his body is completely turned to the side and his head is stretched out and turns at a 90 degrees, not the easiest taks unless you're an owl, maybe he really has a long neck. maybe then made de niro's image sharper cuz he's the big dog but by default this showed he's natural oldness. hand is way to big to be his hand and angle of hand is wrong in reference to de niro, the camera angle is wrong for the pic. and if de niro is holding the picture he would be turned towards the rest of the people so his arm and shoulder could stretch as far out as possible, have you guys never seen the pictures people take of themselves at the same angled stretched out arm pose. and the pic in the camera should be the same blurriness as the camera, but both the picture of the camera and the picture in the camera should be less blurry than the background because they are closer to you. order of shrap to blurry objects should be nearest, middle and back but here its, middle, back nearest. these guys may know computer cut and paste but they do not know graphics.
Post a Comment