Some readers have said that I sometimes offend them by not explaining what's wrong with an image. I don't want to offend anyone, so I'm going to explain what's wrong with this image so that everyone can understand and not be offended, even homeschooled readers.
So Julianne Moore has her kit off for Bulgari. Good for you Julianne! Now twist to the right so we can see some of your lovely back. Yay. But let's also have your right shoulder waaay out in front. In fact your whole torso has a freeform quality to it, but at least your legs have been retouched with almost photographic realism.
Original is here, thanks to Mel and everyone else who sent this in!
91 comments:
It's like a collection of body parts vaguely arranged into a human form. I'm not even sure where her torso figures into all of this.
keep not explaining, pls.
It's pretty easy to put your back in that position, with a couple of months of yoga anyone can do that, especially if they let you hold a parrot! Hell, my girlfriend can do it with only a small owl.
Julliane Moore is made out of molding clay and butter.
Oh come on, that's a perfectly natural pose just as you're hurling a pecking cockatoo away from your plastic legs.
Is her ass being sucked by a black hole?
Oh noez! Not Julianne Moore! I know that she's flexible with her roles but I would have never guessed that she could be this flexible!
There's something not right about her left hand and left foot, too. Nothing compared to the distortion of hip and collarbone, but still disturbing.
I actually don't see anything wrong with the photo... :-/
to me, the photo is very reminiscent, reminds me of 19th and 18th century paintings of court women who would pose naked with silk draped over them.
I quite like it :-s
^ Have you ever seen what a human being looks like, ever?
The left foot looks like a fin.
i just want to say something.... jajajajaja nice explanation
i would just prefer you be less of a snarky asshole when posting new items. the photos are funny. some get it. some have to read the comments to get it. none of us need to be insulted or read your captions like a 14 year old sarcasm queen.
@ Deaf Indian, this photo is meant to be reminiscent of "La Grande Odalisque" by Ingres. The pose is similar and note the peacock feathers. The problem is that it is a well known fact the woman in that particular paining has WAAAY too many vertebrae in her lower back (artistic license on the painter's part). Looks like Julienne got shrunk instead of being elongated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_grande_odalisque
Liza Forbes--
ohhh, thanks for the link. I'm checking out the painting there
The real Julianne Moore has freckles on almost her entire body. It looks like they've been painted out. The back and right arm just don't seem right. I think it could be a poorly chosen pose, but it's kind of a stretch.
She looks like she fell through the toilet seat and she's slowly getting sucked in. And that her body is made of wax. As well as her skin was entirely replaced with plastic.
I would be very surprised if this were really meant to replicate La Grande Odalisque. It looks nothing like the painting. Perhaps the inspiration was a nude by Titian or an orientalist painting of the XVIII-XIXth centuries?
Moore as La Grande Odalisque can be seen here:
http://www.egodesign.ca/_files/articles/blocks/9582_julianne_moore_as_ingres_grand_odalisque_ny_michael_thompson.jpg
The picture is by Michael Thompson
http://davidikus.blogspot.com
+1 for Liza Forbes and Davidikus!
The impossible anatomy of Ingres' "La Grande Odalisque" seems intentionally referenced in this image. At what point is a "PhotoshopDisaster" not really a disaster? Sometimes, an image is intended as an illustration, not as a portrayal of reality. As such, this image is very nicely done.
@salzano
agreed.
explanations can be helpful but i think we'd rather struggle to figure it out than be patronised.
Just an opinion.
Salzano/DayDreamer, you're right. I don't do this for a living so I'm not as good with getting all of them. And now I'm made to feel like an idiot because I don't know as much as they do. Yay for explanations!
Ouch!
that is disastrously funny and not humanly possible.
What problem do you have with homeschooled children?
Great site, though.
salzano
DayDreamer
Both of you need to click on "Tools" on the menu bar of your browser, then select "Options", then put a check mark in the small box next to "Sarcasm Highlighting".
This will help you to make less of a fool of yourself.
My cockatoo can do that. My girlfriend can't.
WV: tween
where are her breasts?????
Exhaustive list of possible motivations for posting comments on this blog:
1. Hilarity! I had such a chuckle that in my joy I decided to share what I enjoyed with others. (eg joanna, chico)
2. Hmmm! I'm not quite sure about something - perhaps if I ask a question here then someone can point out what I'm missing or shed some light somehow. Or, I think there's more to this story - let's get to the bottom of it (eg discussing the paintings)
3. Communicating! Hey, there's other regular peeps here - I get a buzz out of interacting with them! Wonder if someone will @ me?? (eg me)
4. Tosser! I'm a touchy, angry troll and I only ever post here when my whole body is quivering with anger and the need for self-justification. It's not a PsD! It's not! You are insulting me! Grrr!! And what's more, I'm homeschooled!!!!! (eg... well you can work it out)
5. SNEAKERS NIKE REEBOK VIAGRA click my link liking your post enjoy its relevance please come visit my helpful online. (none today)
At least they have an even number of parroty bits. That'll checksum just fine.
The only thing I see wrong is that Julianne Moore is not that anorexic. They obviously placed her head on a slimmer model.
Oh gawd. Where to start?
@Cosmo: what's with all this explanatory stuff? i don't know what to do when you do that.
@Chico: what else can she do with a small owl?
@Alex-Linfosoma: is there an offer of some sort in that comment?
@salzano said "none of us need to be insulted or read your captions like a 14 year old sarcasm queen". so, tell us bubuleh: why are you so easily insulted?
@Jeff said: "…freckles on almost her entire body. It looks like they've been painted out". you mean on the computer, right? is there an offer of some sort in that comment?
@DayDreamer said: "explanations can be helpful but i think we'd rather struggle to figure it out than be patronized" . no one can patronize you unless it is directed at you personally and you accept it. does the blogger here know you well enough for you to take this personally?
@the odd sheep out said "What problem do you have with homeschooled children?" See Zaphod's unfailingly accurate advice above.
Is there someone, anyone, i forgot to insult? is "snarky asshole" redundantly defined? why are so many people so unhappy? I am SO gonna catch shit for this…
I just don't understand why the Photoshop artist would do this!?! Is the artist not human?!
@salsa At what point is a "PhotoshopDisaster" not really a disaster?
When the outcome of the illustration matches the (presumed) intent of the client and doesn't look so ridiculous that it overwhelms whatever product you are trying to sell.
wv: halocksj. These word verifications are getting harder to do when drunk.
Cos, Cos, Cos...the chicken is prettier when it's walking my friend.
wv:dratsa (e.g. Italian for 'drats')
PS: my wife can totally do that; not PSD. ;o)
love the homeschooling comment.
-1 reader
Julianne Moore as seen by Escher, methinks.
Her left arm and back look perfectly fine, but then your eye moves to her right shoulder, which should be connected to her back and somewhere under her hair by the green pillow behind her. But it's not there - somehow it's in front of her. And the legs don't seem to connect to anything at all.
But it is a very beautiful image. Maybe this is what happens when you use medium sized parrots and not small owls?
No boobies :(
God's Hand Killer: "Not a PSD. Demon... definitely a Demon. Captivating and grotesque, but still not human. Now where did I leave my holy work gloves and lead pipe, Fenton?"
What about the hand holding the parrot, huh? where are parrot's claws? what is this growth between the thumb and the index finger?
Did anyone else notice the cloning on the satin cloth under her legs?
As a parrot fan, I first noticed the birds, and as a hobby photographer keen on RAW postprocessing, I noticed the white balance. I love the differences in WB: the parrots have been photographed at a slightly colder white setting than the model holding her finger, and possibly there is a very slight WB difference between the two birds as well.
You know, there are many times when I don't get the disaster part. I'm going to echo others here in saying I'd rather not know, or come to the comments, than be patronized. PhotoshopDisasters was always a fun intermezzo but if you're going to be uncalled for and unfunnily snarky, I'm going to cop out.
I think the bird on the bag was not there in the original, possibly also the one on her hand. And the woman's back looks wrong.
Photoshop disasters got a mention on Metro newspaper's website, at http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/813933-photoshop-celebrates-20-years-of-cropping
They did not mention this site, but have some of the images from here.
I'm really surprised that some people believe themselves to be so incredibly important that their 'threat' of unsubsrib(erib)ing, never reading this blog again or at least feeling personally offended by whatever general comment is going to have any impact.
I wonder: Do you people believe that the world will come to an end as soon as you die? Because it's obvious to you, that the world, the universe itself, cannot possibly exist without the centre of its being?
As long as there are people with that kind of self-perception, the existence of PSDs such as the above (which hurts the eye, no matter if it references to a badly drawn painting or not) is probably just one and the same phenomenon, only from a different perspective.
wv: shibi
Yeah, gives me the hibi-shibis.
She's quite obviously being sucked out of a small hole in the spaceship window. I saw it happen to an alien-human hybrid in a documentary with Sigourney Weaver once.
I quite like your snarky descriptions of what's wrong with the photo. Sometimes I don't catch right away what the issue is and I'll stare at the photo for a long time before I figure it out (or I'll read other people's comments). I say ignore the mean comments about your captions and write more!
@homeschooled offendees
That's what's known as a callback. It's a reference to a past humorous moment. Don't get your panties in a twist.
The purse is probably the only thing in the photo that hasn't been retouched, and even with that I have my doubts...
Sit up straight, girl!
Sit. Up. Straight!
so, it's not a disaster, if the people who made it WANTED IT to look like a disaster?
let's see:
"i'm not good with photoshop anyway, so i'll just make it intentionally bad".
that's understandable, but:
"this is so bad it's sure gonna end up on the PsD blog!"
and then someone says
"it's not a disaster because it's intentionally bad, so it doesn't belong here!"
do you have any idea how much you hurt the feelings of that por guy, who INTENDED IT to be a PsD? how can you be so cruel??
i'm unsubscribing.
Holy shit! And I see they have replaced the small owls with large parrots! At least the purse is complete. lol
I wonder how much bird poop they had to 'shop out? 'cause those things are ALWAYS crapping.
Whoa! Salzano, baby, take a chill pill! This *is* a snark site. Don't be all delicate 'n' shit. Dude who runs this place gets bitched at no matter what he does. Give the guy a break!
Where are her adorable freckles?
http://stylefrizz.com/img/julianne-moore-vogue-paris-may-2008-hq.jpg
The left foot is... haha. It's great.
The arm holding the bird freaks me out the most. Is there another elbow tucked in behind that burgundy mane?
I'm the "Mel" who sent in the image last night. I saw it on a two page spread in the lastest issue of Vanity Fair and it just jumped out as being all wrong. But what really surprised me is that a major brand like Bulgari would let such a disaster slip through on such a major campaign and that a magazine like VF would publish it. I can't help think the industry is so used to photoshopping that they've lost the eyes of the ordinary consumer who will look at this and go "what the %¤&/!!"
Gawd I love this multi-faceted blog!
DanH you win the "best comment summation" comment.
I don't understand the point of photoshopping out freckles It's not as if they look bad. They add a little character, I think. I guess I don't understand why you would hire someone famous for a photo shoot and then make them unrecognizable. Isn't the point that you recognize the person?
if she doesn't eat something soon she's going to shrivel up and blow away.
This is a great blog, but I agree that it's hard to know what's wrong with the photos sometimes, since not all of us are PhotoShop experts.
The pinky finger on her left hand is all shriveled up and discolored. It looks like it belongs on the Crypt Keeper.
waldobaby, i need to say it: i like you. not only because of the amount of text you wrote (i never dare to write such detailed replies to other commenters, even though i'm often incited to) but also because of the insight of your answer to daydreamer.
wv: noses. whaddaya say to that...
WHY ARE THEY DOING THAT?! ?! ?!
That fist that's supporting the bird in front of this bird: I can't get my hand to do that! Can anyone? Anyone's girlfriend?
Nice comments DanH and Waldobaby...
I think Hannibal Lecter left her dismembered...
*AND* Here's an idea: If you get offended by the captions...don't read them. Alot of people on here are barely literate anyway, so its cool.
Wouldnt it be a hoot if you guys found out that this photo pose was pretty much through the camera and not PS?
It's not an impossible pose, just a difficult one. Sorry, not buying that this is a "disaster". It's well within the realm of possibility (and yes, folks, I know what a human body looks like, thanks).
I agree, Sean. Probably possible. Not every odd looking pose is a PSD.
"Sean Martin" & WDI, sure, maybe there is someone out there who can pull off that pose although I'm pretty sure they'd had to be a contortionist. But I doubt even their feet look like these do...
Well, just for laughs, I tried it, looking at myself in a mirror. I'm no contortionist, and it's difficult to hold. But it's not impossible. FWIW, I used to work in advertising, back in the day *before* Photoshop allowed such wholesale manipulation (I know, we're talking prehistory here for most people who frequent this site), and photographers then would force their models into "artistic" poses that would result in more than a few aches and pains afterwards. This, from what I can see, is little different from those much more innocent days. Yea, there's been a great deal of clean up on the shot. But to claim it's just an assembly? Sorry, I'm not buying that. If that's the case, then someone in Bulgaria is a master artisian, and we should encourage this talented soul to move to New York.
hhum.. I know what has happened!!
They've hired Picasso as the photographer.
That's what happened when you do that. Poor Julianne
tsc tsc
OK I can buy that the pose itself is possible, but that doesn't explain how the entire front of her torso has mysteriously gone missing! I know she doesn't have a giant chest, but clearly it's been either photoshopped right out, or it looks missing because in fact her torso has been pieced together with her arms and legs from different poses or different models or who knows what. Also her hands and feet, and missing freckles.
I imagine the real reason they take out freckles is because they're too hard to work with when "smoothing" out skin tone while photoshopping (ie, plasticizing people). You'd have to do some tricky cloning to make it work and the freckles would end up all cut into pieces and overlapping, so they just remove them entirely. I think it has a lot more to do with laziness and cost-effectiveness than actual ideas about beauty.
If that was my bulgari bag, Id kick the shit out of that parrot scratching it.
It's not photoshopdisaster - you can easily put your body into that position.
People, if you saw this photo on a magazine, like I did, you wouldn't think it's not a disaster! On the printed page it is obvious that the left foot has been replaced by a fin, the right shoulder must be three times as wide as the left (the angle of that arm is impossible) and the back looks at best patchy
Sorry, Sean Martin, but I don't believe you. You tell me you're able to pose in a way that both your right shoulder blade AND the front of your right shoulder are visible? There's no way in this universe this could be possible, at least not in the first 3 visual dimensions.
Maybe you're overseeing that the joint of her right shoulder is located right under her chin, only covered with hair (if you look at the position of her arm, that's just where her shoulder IS). But at the same time, we see her right bladebone, which means that she's showing hus her front and her back AT THE SAME TIME!
If you can really do that, then, I'm afraid, you are no longer alive but resident of an autopsy room and being cut in half.
Nina, sorry you cant do it. I can. And I stand by that. Frankly, sometimes this site is just a little too overactive in looking for things it considers "disasters". Yes, plenty of them are, but let's not just plunk down on everything because it *seems* that way.
Limber up a bit, and you'll indeed find that the position can be done... in the real world.
Sean Martin "..then someone in Bulgaria is a master artisian, and we should encourage this talented soul to move to New York."
Bulgari is the name of the brand, not the country... As I'm sure you'd be aware of if you'd worked in advertising all those years ago.
Sean Martin, Pics or it didn't happen!
Perhaps you're seeing the position in a slight different way to how most of us see it. I'm seeing it a bit different today, but still unlikely.
And yes, Bulgari is a very well known brand of luxury watches and accessories, and it's actually Italian.
I can now see something odd with her back (I was concentrating on her shoulder before) but I still don't see her right shoulder blade as Nina states.
I'm still clinging on to possible, but only just.
@Nina you are my hero. Seriously, what is up with these people?!
Those of you threatening not to return, please make that a kept promise effective today.
Forget Bulgari. It's vul-gari.
Oh come on. I don't want to be one of the "easily offended" folks, but home-schooled children? Really? I was home-schooled, and have been making a 6-digit salary since a month after graduating from college. In fact, after home-schooling for 2 years, I had to skip a grade because all the school-schooled kids were now too far behind me. Home-schooled != stupid.
Oh, Jeez; the home-schooled debate continues...
@Sean Martin
Don't worry about these people ranking on you for assuming the post was from Bulgaria instead of Bulgari
I was wondering what Bulgaria was advertising, I've never heard of Bulgari.
No c'mon WDI, the home schooled kids want to start up again, let's hear them out ;-)
My girlfriend can't do that. Maybe I should dump her.
I went to public school my entire life but, the fact that you make fun of those that were homeschooled really rubs me the wrong way. You're being a douche, and it's not remotely funny.
This appears to be a witty distortion as an echo of Ingres' "Grand Odalisque" - note the similar furnishings. His deliberately baroque anatomy is there for a reason.
Verification word: scheopr
You guys, it's not a PSD, I saw a clip of the making of... It's only a second or two long, but at the beginning you see video footage of her during the shoot, and she looks exactly like on the ad picture. Also, to everyone wondering where her boobies went? It's just a case of unlucky lighting, because she has the cloth covering the front of her torso, although it looks like it's part of the couch. The purple cloth actually goes under her right arm and hair, but comes back over her front, and again under her left arm. And the freckles might have been painted out, or they used a lot of foundation, because in the video you se her at the promo gala nd her skin is also spotless. Her legs may have been 'shopped, because they *are* very streamlined, but she might just have thin legs. And if anyone wants to question my authority, whatever you feel like.. But I'm an illustration major and figure drawing is one of my strong suits :) Hope the comment shed some light, and I hope I didn't offend anyone. Peace.
Post a Comment