Great cutout. Ever heard of masks?
Thanks to Emily and everyone else who sent this in! Image is from here!
Glamour: Magic Wand Not Really Magic
Great cutout. Ever heard of masks?
Thanks to Emily and everyone else who sent this in! Image is from here!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
46 comments:
Feeling dense. Needing some help. No levitating pianos to act as guide. Please advise.
Look at her hair in front of the type. Like they just used the magic wand tool.
ewww...
Okay. But she wasn't really sitting in front of a big poster saying GLAMOUR. You knew that, right?
wv: foutsi
OOOOOOHHHHHHHH *BLARFF*. Awful mask job.
wv: pusnerie
PSD aside, that is a damn awesome dress.
My wife actually *has* this magazine and it is not as bad as this at all.
Looks like www.magxone.com got a dodgy pre-release image or something...
Incredibly shoddy job, I can't believe someone is getting paid for that.
David, I think the point is that it's supposed to LOOK like she was sitting in front of the logo. And I gather it's not actually that hard to get this right, someone decided to do a slap dash job of it.
One for the aficionados. To be honest, the unworldly symmetry of her dress - which I presume is not artificial - bothers me more.
Now now don't let's all go jumping to conclusions. They could also have used the background eraser tool.
Absolutely shameful that these people have jobs. It's akin to walking into a house and noticing that someone stuck the walls up with duct tape. Possibly not as much an issue of human safety, but still a case of ineptitude on a really important job.
To all those "not a PsD"ers out there (eg you, David) - even though this isn't the most hilarious or mind-boggling error we've seen here, this is, I believe, still what this blog is all about: the fact that any idiot can grab photoshop and badly botch up a job, which actually makes it into the public domain, somehow.
It takes, I would say, up to 3 years of doing retouching before you truly master the art of deep etching hair. Why you would have anyone less experienced than this working on the cover of a multi-million dollar magazine boggles my mind...
It must be pre-release as there's no great swathes of text and contents all over the cover as per all their other covers.
In their defense, yes, i believe this was a pre-release and one that was done quickly as a tribute to fashion designer Alexander McQueen. He committed suicide last week and this dress is one of his.
But still, yes this terrible work and hopefully it didn't go to press looking this way.
@DanH
"not a PsD"ers ??!
"Not a person who says 'not a PsD'" to you, mate!
seriously.. I've seen this happen here before, where the version shown here has this major problem but the one in stores doesn't. I think it's what Dan said and that someone released an early version of it before the artist was done. Oftentimes they'll send it to someone for approval before doing all the cleanup work. Then that numbskull sends it out to someone else and next thing you know it's on PSD.
On the bright side, she looks just as surprised as we are.
The magazine is only £2, cut them some slack.
The poor girl's face is melting. Her left eye is in a different part of her face than the other.
I think it's just the hairspray.
I don't think it's a PSD. I suppose it was a "pre-release" version, a fake-cover probably made only to get the approval to the photo.
Bartek said: "Her left eye is in a different part of her face than the other."
I would certainly hope so.
Why would you tell her to wear a mask? She's very pretty!
Wow, this just screams QuarkXpress for some reason! HA!
Pic:
http://www.taylorgifts.com/images/products/P38432B.jpg
Original:
http://www.taylorgifts.com/item/haircut_umbrella/31222
oh Trabalhando, what is seen can never been unseen!! OMG that is hideous
Even as a "pre-release" picture it's still petty sloppy. Not to mention the woman her self looks like hell. She looks like Joan Rivers after being de-aged with CGI and then had a cactus shoved up her bum.
It's not a disaster if it's not the final version, and this isn't the final version. It's a work in progress.
The fInal version is nowhere near as bad as what is shown here.
View actual finished cover here.
I put pre-releases in the same category as me before I get my makeup on: Should never see the light of day because it is clearly a disaster. Also robs the world of a little magic...
@waldobaby: Nice!
Is that Kylie or Dannii?
Wow, is that really a professional job? I understand the difficulties in cutting out a hair with all its curls, I´ve done it many times myself, but these guys did not even made an effort. Magic wand is not the right tool for this job.
>>>>I put pre-releases in the same category as me before I get my makeup on: Should never see the light of day because it is clearly a disaster.<<<<<<
This.
And the final version still is pretty bad.
My magic eraser can better do that. But extract tool make better magic of pixeldestroy. Or what. Poor ps job.
Why do the models always have to have their mouths open catching flies these days? It's bizarre looking.
Looking at the Glamour UK website, they clearly fixed the cutout problem for the final cover. But shouldn't they have done something about the makeup disaster, while they were at it? Raccoon-ville.
@Miranda. She's pregnant. Duh....
There's a shot of the final cover here:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yctm3ke
I could have sworn it was Kylie, but it's actually Dannii, the other one.
It baffles me that they didn't just shave off her hair, and then add a wig as a separate layer in Photoshop. That way, they could try out all kinds of different hairstyles until they found one that looked good.
Given that 90% of the cover images have the model's head in front of the logo, you'd think they would have a 100% efficient solution for this problem. I would be tempted to do most of the shots in front of a backdrop that matches the colour of the logo. Build up a library of facial expressions, and paste the heads (at least) onto bodies photographed elsewhere.
Faces are expressive. Bodies are for the most part just objects. Also, my method would result in hundreds of disembodied Dannii Minogue heads, and the thought of that pleases me. The magazine could fill a page with a 12x12 grid of Dannii Minogue heads. Just because it could.
Transparency? TRANSPARENCY? We don't need no steenking transparency.
Who is this woman? She looks insane.
This is obviously a major fail - interestingly, on Glamour itself, the picture is ok, without that photoshop disaster!
http://davidikus.blogspot.com/
Someone with 2 weeks experience of playing with photoshop should be able to do much better than this rubbish.
I don't even think a better mask was needed here. you probably could have done: command-click layer, selection contract 5 pixels, command-J, and switch layer overlay mode to darken. It would have looked a lot better in about 15 seconds of work.
Oooh my god. There are absolutely no rules to bend. It's beyond the pale. And it's on a magazine cover! Can't believe it.
i think i'm gonna pass out...
I have to think that's a rough comp, something designers (like myself) do all the time; slap a photo in to see if it's going to work in the layout, send it for approval before spending time on the mask.
It's suspicious that there are no story cutlines on the cover. You know - "What he really wants in bed," etc. I can't find the actual cover online, but this banner ad from Glamour UK's web site shows the cover with additional type on it.
Tsk. I hate it SO much when I forget to wash all of the cheese from my hair...
OMG !!!
Post a Comment