Wow, VS really captures that surgical gown chic with this hot backless wrap! In eleven colors!
Thanks to Gabriella! Original is here!
Victoria's Secret: Sexy! Convenient!
Wow, VS really captures that surgical gown chic with this hot backless wrap! In eleven colors!
Thanks to Gabriella! Original is here!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
77 comments:
My girlfriend has one like that
I really think I may just have to go with "my girlfriend can do that" and walk away...
and is it just me or do her arms like that look like something by Escher. I can't tell if they're going in or out.
dangit, beat to it! Stupid mobile edge network!
Since I own one, I can attest to the act the back is indeed too short to be seen from the front.
*fact
Yeah, it's amazing how the model managed to hold exactly the same pose - down to the pixel - whilst wearing eleven different garments!
(PS, Yes, it is backless, you can see that in the other photo on the same page. That's not the disaster, here.)
Yup. No disaster this. Check out the original link. There's a shot of the back of it that shows it ties in back. D'oh!
I second that, LT. No photoshop disaster here. If you go to the original link, there's an alternate view that shows you the back. It is indeed split up to the waste, with a tie in the back.
Fashion disaster yes, but no PsD disaster :D
Um, yeah. I own this. And while I'm not nearly as tall, skinny, or white as the model, I can assure you that the back stops at the belt, and the front is designed to wrap around you or hang down.
You all are correct about the ugly sweater.. But her right arm is underdeveloped..
Either VS has started hiring physically deformed models or there was some bad PS in there.
Whoops! I think we are genuinely in PSD Fail territory here - mostly for including the thumbnail of the image that shows why you can't see the back of the gown between the legs in your original post!
This might not be excusable elsewhere but, to be fair, it has to be something of a shock to the system to find that VS isn't perpetrating some egregious PSD in every image they paste on their website.
Yet another sad non-disaster that will never be corrected or removed.
Aside from the clothing which isn't PSD'd after all, that right arm of hers is awful. Almost looks like she's reaching behind her to place her hand on the hip of someone standing perfectly in her silhouette... Maybe to strangle the fashion designer?
I'm not seeing any issue here.
wv: "Hymgyne"
I'm not goin'there.....
Hah no PSD, definitely can see that from the other pic. Agreed though: fashion disaster :p.
Word verification: bubby
That SEE HOW TO WEAR IT link should come in handy.
I hate to say I'm sorry, but: I'm sorry but the rear shot is a tied-up thingie while the front shot just ain't.
I really hate to get so technical...
Raptor arms, augh!
By the way, she's way too fat. Fire her!
It may tie in the back, but its still a PsD...on her right, you can see the fabric wrapping around to the back, but it doesn't continue. If anything, that fabric should have been clipped out as well.
just goes to show you even home-schoolers can run a photo critiquing blog.
80)
oh, come now, you knew you'd be receiving your come-upens soon.
Two issues (besides that I can't see the PSD which isn't the point)
1) those strange garments are all over the place--to be expected since VS isn't exactly cutting edge fashion--and every one of them is hideous.
2) that's Allesandra Ambrosio--perfect name for a model--who should never be pictured in anything by VS other than skimpy underwear because she is a knockout.
wv: detoz. Ouch, I dropped de hammer on detoz.
fuck you fuck you fuck you. you. are. sad.
It is "backless" in a way, it has tails instead of a solid back.
Ok, so it's designed not to be visible between the legs. In that case, is it deliberate that the bottom edge of the garment looks like it was cut by a drunken roller-coaster attendant?
Yup, PSD fail. It's obvious from the second picture that you shouldn't be able to see the rear tails from the front.
And for those of you who never buy clothes online, a lot of clothing websites do this with the colors (i.e. just change the color of the garment when you click on the swatches, rather than having separate photos of the model with every single color). Not exactly "real" but good enough to give you an idea of how they look.
she is most desirable for me http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1
Her legs look weird. Is she anorexic?
It does appear they clipped out part of her upper right thigh in order to make the whole "backless" thing more apparent to the especially dense.
Look at the tied-back pic, they cut out the front of that one. Which means it is a one-dimensional object: you can have either a front or back, but not both!
Totally a disaster....look at the boobage area on the right hand side....it appears she has two. See how the purple thing is all tight look there's a boob under it, but from the gray tank, them suckers are much lower. Yep.
The clothing IS a PSD!! If you look at the shot of the back where it's tied, then the bit that'snext to her knee and hanging behind the other fabric wouldn't be visible because it would be tight to her leg. The material all around would be form fitting below the waist by being tied!
another mighty fail posted by PSD who should check their facts before posting this same old lame bullshit.
Why the hell do people care so damn much whether PSD is always one hundred percent obvious to them!? Why do I read these comments?! Of course, if the people COMMENTING read the other COMMENTS they'd know how pathetic their smug demeanour really sounds.
Also, that they are often wrong in their assumptions.
I don't think this is a disaster at all..
In fact, I have a cardigan designed the same way, long on the front and short on the back, so you can wrap it around your body. It is just style, for that one. Sorry folks...
Erm..the original post already acknowledges it's backless.
Great scott, are her thighs really that size?
I'm not sure the PSD is the sweater, I don't think he was being sarcastic when he said it was "backless." I think her bottom half is out of proportion. I was trying to draw in my mind where her thighs would be relative to her hips and shins, and I couldn't get them to be proportionate with both.
Maybe I'm wrong, though. It wasn't exactly a scientific method.
(wv: dicto)
While this is not a PsD due to the clothing style, it is a PsD.
Here's what I could dig up with my analysis tools:
- Clothing color is unnatural. Reminds me of the bait-and-switch fraud from Ralph Lauren. While VS used better (near realistic) colors than RL, none appear to be original.
- Bracelet was added. (Notice how it is reflective but doesn't reflect any of the fabric colors.)
- Her face, neck, and chest were color-smoothed. (And yet they left some massive veins on her arms. A blind phlebotomist could draw blood on the first try!)
- Did they remove a necklace? They did some really bad smoothing just below the clavicles, and it is shaped in an arch like a necklace.
But to VS's credit, at least her hips are convex and not shopped to look concave. (You just know that Ralph Lauren would have fired her for being fat.)
wv: toofa
I swear I can't make this up.
Thats a really poor photoshop
Almost like a tale
As a side issue
According to Photoshop CS5 .co.uk
They claim that it will be released on March 2010
Does anyone else think this is realistic date release for CS5?
http://www.photoshopcs5.co.uk
Blog fail
The back is a lot shorter than the front, you schmucks! It's not a raincoat, it's a wrap. They are long down to the waist or so...
It doesn't take much brains to figure that one out. Nevertheless, there's always people obsessed with finding Photoshop disasters where there's none.
Both attitudes are correct. The robe is short in the back, but the one shown from the front was photoshopped to make it look that way. You can tell from the curve and drop of the robe as it goes behind her leg that it would not match the way the robe looks tied up in the behind shot.
Agreed with the sentiment that people are trying to find photoshop disasters where there are none. Clearly the disaster is not that you can't see the garment's back through the legs: it's designed that way. And the fact that they show the different colours on the same picture: most companies do that for items that come in many colours, and the colours don't look messed up, so no disaster there. Now people are trying to say, oh the arms look weird, or look at the boobs, they're shopped wonky! No disaster to be found here.
I think most people are under the assumption that the large pic is supposed to have the same back view of the smaller (grey garment) pic - this is NOT the case.
This garment is designed to be worn several ways, the large pic shows the two long "scarf-like" extensions on it; the back hits just below the waist.
The small pic is what the back looks like if you cross the two "scarf" pieces in the front & wrap it around & tie it in the back. The front of this is shown in blue here: http://www2.victoriassecret.com/commerce/moreInfo.vs?namespace=moreInfo&prnbr=EF-253184&cgnbr=OSCLOMWLSWD&moreInfoInd=dispImg&groupCd= &dispMode=STANDARD&buttonClicked=btn_styling_instructions&selColor=
Sorry PsD, better luck next post.
Thank you Ash for bringing logic.
Errare humanum est.
To err is human.
for me the forearms look strange
So when does this site actually post some disasters, because everything you have been posting lately really sucks.
You all realize this is actually correct, right? Did you go to the VS product page and click on 'more images'? It's cut that way.
Not entirely sure why this is considered a disaster. I don't really see anything horribly wrong with the photoshopping, and anyway... isn't that what photoshop is for? to save money so you don't have to spend the time and effort to get the model to try on other clothes? i don't see a problem with the color changes, they're actually done pretty well for web use. no outlandish proportions for the model and the smoothing on the background, although visible, isn't bad at all.
sorry to say but this is a PSD fail..
wv: blers
What's wrong with her arms, the look fine. Although her left leg (on our right) looks a little missing.
nothing wrong with the photo. It's designed that way, the back is too short to be seen from the front. I got one.
Well, I certainly hope that all those who are so outraged at this post are able to get their money back for their paid subscriptions to this site.
Meanwhile, children are starving in Ethiopia.
The curves of the cloth make me think the back area between her legs has been 'shopped out. It doesn't really look like it's tapering up to a point behind her waist. But it's a tough call, it could be a weird-looking photo.
Total disaster! They totally took Dr Crusher's head off and put that woman's on instead!
Actually, it looks like it can be let down in that back (it's not a unitasker).. however, if you look at her right side, you can see that it looks like it's hanging down. I think they many have tried to make it look like it was tied in the back, but it's wasn't... if you look at the other image, it clings a little better to her sides... they're pulled back... the first image, they're loose.
goodness i have to point it out dont i? ok first look at her legs. go on look. little bloop there where the shooper's mouse moved while using the pen tool to cut her out. second, the thing stops perfect at her legs, even having a odd edge to it. third how wide can a person get with small little chicken leggs like that?
forth,...well look at the crotch area looks like they used liqufy to shorten that area...for some reason. whoooooo....man...
oh and WV: mistri, how yall missed this one is a mistri to me!
I actually own that wrap cardigan and the back is indeed way shorter, really doesn't go further than wast length
Absolutely a PSD: giraffe lady has two right boobs.
Thank you makers of PSD for continuing to show us how we're fooled all the time! I still hope people will stop buying crap once they realise how much bs goes into making us want stuff.
Totally a disaster!!! Look at her arms! Elbows don't bend like that in the middle! And who has got eyes as symmetrical across their face as she has! Pshaw!! And hair, doing DOWNwards?!?! A belt outside the wrap?!?!? LOL!! And what on Earth is Gandalf doing looking over her shoulder with that giant pot of green honey? And she's got eight toes on her left foot!!! Waaaah!
My favourite has to be the two right boobs. Priceless. We're done here.
Guys, look carefully at the edges of the sweater near her knees. The hem trails in a straight line along the outside of the leg. that leave the sweater down and visible. If it is tied (like in the second photo) then the hem trails upward along the outsides of the leg. Either there is some funky sewing going on, or someone "helped" the image.
you guys are really slacking.
if you look at the "back view" and the different ways to wear this from the original, you'd see this is not photoshopped.
someone needs to be fired.
Elyse,
Someone needs to read a few of the 66 comments that came in the two days before they showed up...
ey! if you look at the picture next to it, you will see that it actually IS backless!!
it tied up at the back!! not an error
For those who say that it ties in the back and it backless... that is true, except the one the model is using is a straight edged one with the back (look at her right leg) is lower than the front. The pic on the site that shows the tied back garment pulls the back up.
This was photoshopped to attempt to LOOK like the one at the site.
it's actually just made that way... the back is shorter than the front
ok this isnt true!i just checked out that sweater on their site, and if you try to view the alternate view (back view)... you'll notice that is a knot in the back! there isn't a piece missing!
wow.. they have to do that on purpose... right? to attract attention to the product.. so maybe it's not so much a photoshop disaster as it is a marketing success? i mean... that HAD to be done deliberately... no one would just crop out a section of clothing for NO reason except to attract attention, right?!
You should have checked this much better. Your first conclusion is not the right one! This picture is okay!
To be fair, it seems like this is how it's actually constructed. Look at all the other pictures.
http://www2.victoriassecret.com/commerce/onlineProductDisplay.vs?namespace=productDisplay&origin=onlineProductDisplay.jsp&event=display&prnbr=GJ-254974&page=1&cgname=OSCLOWRPZZZ&rfnbr=6494
I don't understand why, once one person has made one statement, and another person has made an opposing statement, we then need to have forty more people make each statement again in their own words. If you're not adding to the argument with new material, all you're doing is taking up space so you can see your comments on a blog.
Post a Comment