Instyle: Amy Adams: I’m Stumped

Of course it’s entirely possible that Amy Adams does actually only have one leg and no one has ever noticed.

Thanks Kay! You can see the original here.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • Sunjo

    OR these are some sort of pants open on the sides

    • gbear

      not a disaster: pants.

      • LtPowers

        If those are pants, it’s still a disaster — a fashion disaster.

    • heroofthebeach

      This occurred to me too, but pantgowns don’t exist (at least not in InStyle), and there’s some weird perspective stuff around the butt that says there’s no left half to this.

      It’s a Disaster.

      • peachfish

        Sadly, they DO exist, in many incarnations. I say this can’t be ruled a disaster until we see the front.

        • heroofthebeach

          I know they exist, but on Amy Adams in a supermarket checkout magazine? They’re way outside the mainstream. And you still have the fact that the depth on the inside inside looks like it goes to what looks like the far end of her pelvis, with no room for another leg (with more fabric) on the other side.

          Too much weirdness required for it to be real. I’m going with Occam’s Razor on this one.

          • Tyler Durden

            Occam’s Razor? So you think that someone spending hours perfectly photoshopping out a leg for no apparent reason is a simpler explanation than ‘she’s wearing pants’?

          • Jonn W.

            “Someone accidentally shooped out her leg”
            “She’s wearing some unusual, unpopular style of clothing that would be remarkably difficult to so much as walk in, while appearing in a fashion magazine.”

            See? I can rephrase things too!

          • Tyler Durden

            Because wearing odd, impractical clothes in a fashion magazine is just unheard of.

            What would someone be doing to accidentally shop out a leg in this picture?

          • Waldobaby

            Mmmmmmmmaybe the photographer forgot to shoot the other leg? Yeah! That’s it! No PSD!

            Also the dress does not fit her.

  • Craig

    awful, uh, pantdress?

  • Madmolecule

    Trying to sex up Amy Adams is pretty misguided anyway. She’s so wholesome (and awesome):,18554/

  • Rai

    It’s not a pant, you can still see a bit of the other leg by the calf.

    • Circularfile00

      Maybe it is a pant, but the crotch is a few inches below the knee.

    • Tyler Durden

      Unless she’s severely jaundiced, that’s a shadow.

  • Vernon

    Just to let you know PSD couldn’t find anything that suggested this was a pantsuit. Every reference we could find suggested it was a dress.

    • Tyler Durden

      Just like you checked every reference for the bridesmaid one?

      • Whiny_Little_Snot

        This is old and possibly unwanted, but I have to say it: I give up.

        In defense of the current masters, artless art mavens all, Cosmo7 obviously worked in the field, had a shitload of contributors, rejected a shitload of contributions, set a standard baseline of incompetence, defined the genre, had an actual sense of humor, drank Scotch vigorously, never entered the fray as an admin, never defended her/himself, nurtured the concept of SNARK, understood that art was attitude more than anything else, and in fact made the site his and his alone.

        On the other hand, the artless masters have none of that. I am truly sorry. I am very much sorry. Yet it is true.

        On the third hand, everyone here worships the ghost of Cosmo Topper, dooming this hand-off venture right at the get-go. They expect the “real” psd (the acronym being in itself a twist) to continue under new management, when it wasn’t management that made it the premium such site in the world in the first place.

        It was art, and art is now in the hands of people who don’t feel art. I give up. Hasta luego, mother fuckers! You guys are great. Unsubscribbelating.

        • Whiny_Little_Snot

          An added thought. That does not mean I am taking my ball and going home. I will leave the ball. Have a blast!

    • Waldobaby

      EDIT: fraud! major lameness! The Dolce and Garbanzo picture two posts ago was definitely not a PSD. Go back and look at my corrections there.

      • armadillo_in_furs

        Working as intended.

    • Ethyl Mormon
      • Ethyl Mormon
        • Bob

          Mystery solved, I guess.
          But I call understandable PSD mistake. I’d never have guessed it was such a twisted thing when it looked like a simple dress.
          One day I’ll understand how women know how to wear some of these things, and also I’ll try whatever these designers are on, because that’s some hardcore stuff…

      • Tyler Durden

        I wonder if I can get this comment printed on a T shirt.

      • Waldobaby

        How’d you find that?

        • armadillo_in_furs

          • Waldobaby


      • Ergle

        Good catch. Walking in a dress like that calls for a gait that swirls the hem out of the way, flashing quite a bit of leg in the process – which is kinda the point. Also, what it doesn’t do for her bust, it makes up for with leg flash, and in her case the derriere. I’d hold the door for her so as to walk behind her!

      • Jennifer

        You are correct. It is a very silly pants suits. But her leg was not removed with photoshop.

    • Gabriela Garcez
    • Korscha

      Sorry to put you in evidence, but… It’s a jumpsuit. The magazine scan reads: “Max Mara crepe jumpsuit”; a little bit of Google magic and voilá, I got a nice pic and a video from the catwalk for this piece:

      (Video coming on next reply)

  • Felipe Edoardo

    Here’s my two cents: what I think PsD often fails to take into account is that some of the questionable disasters would be so incredibly hard to simulate in Photoshop that it doesn’t make sense to be Photoshop at all.

    That defeats your Occam’s Razor right there: it would me much simpler for her to be wearing a pantdress or whatever that’s called than for someone to have painstakingly removed one of her legs in Photoshop while still making the fabric and the shadows look realistic.

    And what’s more important: to what end? “Oooo let me spend a few hours removing her left leg to see if someone notices”. Sorry, I don’t buy it.

    • greennotGreen

      By your application of Occam’s Razor, most of the real PSD’s shouldn’t exist because it would have been easier to take the right photograph the first time.

      Whether these are pants or not, I blame the Art Director again. Can anyone imagine trying to walk in those shoes in that outfit without a quick face-first dive to the floor? And that pose and/or bodice is not flattering to Ms. Adam’s bosom at all; she looks shapeless.

      • Tyler Durden

        I don’t think you understand Occam’s Razor. It’s about coming up with the simplest theory to explain something, in this case, a picture of a woman with one leg visible. Saying that it would be easier to have taken a better photograph is nothing to do with Occam’s Razor.

        • greennotGreen

          Yes, you’re right. It’s easier to take the right picture than spend a long
          time trying to create it in Photoshop, but that doesn’t have anything to do
          with explanation of the existing product. Sloppy thinking on my part.

    • Gabriela Garcez

      That ‘shopper is trollin us all! Removed her leg just for the lulz

  • Bob

    Not a disaster. This site actually seems to get more wrong than right these days.

  • kleenex

    The video posted with the link is a complete bust….

    I say that is one BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTT ugly pant suit.

  • Molly

    Even if it was an ugly pants suit, her leg still looks modified, and thin even for her size.

  • Beth B.

    I’m more concerned that they didn’t correct whatever it is that makes it appear that her left arm was hacked off then tacked back on. I can’t tell if it’s a shiny bit of her hair, or if there is some sparkly thing on the back of the left shoulder that isn’t on the right side, or what exactly is going on. Looks gruesome, though.

  • gem

    The actual magazine cover they go with seems off to me. Certainly feels very flat. She is so much more attractive in the little video they have of the shoot than she actually appears on their cover.

    I was going to post that this might have been some crazy trouser dress that would trip you to walk in, but as a JOKE. I am surprised so many people truly don’t think it’s a PSD of a dress.

  • viOlator

    Not dress, not pants. Overalls. Definetly NOT a PSD.

  • Gabriela Garcez

    The funny part about the joke is that they actually have someone whose only and exclusive responsability in this website is to come up with witty and funny jokes.

    That’s why I don’t pay my taxes!

    • Molly

      Your taxes go to the dude who comes up with “witty” remarks?

      • Gabriela Garcez

        Of course, or do you think he does all that wonderful job for free?

        • Whiny_Little_Snot

          You are a dangerous woman.

  • Unnamed Fight Club Character

    In the last month or so, there’s been accusations of intentionally manipulating images and posting them as PSDs on four posts (D&G, Industry Week, Fallout and Facebook Bridesmaids). This should be something the site owners need to address, don’t you think?

    EDIT: This comment was in reply to Waldobaby but it’s already been deleted twice already. An admission of guilt? They’ve also banned me from commenting twice now as well (good job with that guys). Nice to see that when someone raises a genuine concern over the credability of the content, without resorting to foul language and the like I might add, this is how the site owners choose to address it. How pathetic.

    • Waldobaby

      get used to it.

    • Rhino

      This site is for fun. Not “credability”, which by the way is spelled “credibility”. This is not an industry peer review site. Go masturbate somewhere else.

      • Unnamed Fight Club Character

        What’s fun about a site that says “Look at all of these terrible photoshops! (that we did ourselves)”? It’s only a fun site if the PSDs are commercially published.

        Also congratulations of correcting a dyslexics spelling. Out of the 106 words I self consciously triple checked for spelling errors it appears that I let one fall through the net. If you prefer I can pretend this is any other internet comment thread and type like a retard in future, it’ll be a lot less effort.

        • Unnamed Fight Club Character

          I also pointed out in the first post which was deleted that they really need to make sure it doesn’t happen again, and not just for their ‘credibility”. Given the past lawsuits that this blog has had filed against it, or at least attempted lawsuits, they really don’t want to be going and posting a manipulated picture from a company like, say, Ralph Lauren. Whether it is the site owners or the people submitting them who are doing the manipulating, it will be the owners who are held accountable so it really is in their best interest.

        • Rhino

          Oooh, playing the dyslexic card, now? Too bad the internet is not for made for sympathy whores, actually. Thanks for the congrats, always happy to oblige.

          • Unnamed Fight Club Character

            You used an erroneous comma between whores and actually.

  • mitocondria

    Oh my god! She is a monster!!

    • armadillo_in_furs

      You are an example of everything that is “right” with this site.

      • Abzong

        Go away. Seriously. You are not contributing anything meaningful.

        • armadillo_in_furs

          You’re right. Unlike your comment, mine wasn’t “meaningful”. Perhaps if I added. Seriously.

          And. Seriously. If people who aren’t “contribuing anything meaningful” (as opposed to the automatic “lulz @ PSD” without even looking at the image) leave, this site will be as bland and boring as staring at a wall. Perhaps that might appeal to you though.

          As a side note: who are these people that feel the need to defend some website owners who make money off our clicks even in the face of all evidence? Do they derive some benefit out of the blind loyalty? (I use blind here literally — you have to be blind to insist this is a PSD after all the evidence to the contrary). Or are they the site masters in disguise? Or some mentally disturbed sycophants? I’m at a loss.

          • Waldobaby

            Hey, Little Furry Armored One: I defend these guys all the time. Do you think I’m shilling for them? They are not here to raise the bar on the “art” of shopping by showing us how horrendous trivial mistakes are, they’re here to get paid. And rightly so. That’s why most of us go to work, innit?

            Since they can have no effect on the mentioned bar-raising no matter how whip-crack sharp they continue to be, that leaves only spite or entertainment. If they don’t entertain us masses, they’ll get spite spit back at them. That’s happening. Now. Unless it’s about French mimes, it’s sad to have a site that brings you ridicule.

          • CaptainO

            And yet, armadillo-baby, you keep coming back and paying them? How generous. Seriously. Since you lose so much money here.

          • Unnamed Fight Club Character

            AdBlock Plus. No money made from me I’m afraid.

          • Roo0

            Wow. Just wow.

          • Roo0

            I agree with Roo0.

  • Lisa

    Pretty sure it’s just an ugly pantsuit with split legs. I’m sure it’s been ‘shopped, but I don’t think it’s a PSD.

  • Kat

    Dear people who think it’s not a dress:

    1) It does not look like a pantsuit, even a horrifically ugly one, and no one splits pants up the side like that. What a skanky outfit that would be!
    2) You can see a bit of her left leg behind her right knee.

    Poor Amy Adams, she’s so beautiful and she looks like butt here.

    • CaptainO

      And you can see the tip of her left foot halfway up her right instep. Definitely not a pantsuit.

    • Jennifer

      Kat: read all the other comments. It is, in fact, a horrifically ugly pantsuit. Many other comments have posted links to photos and videos that make it clear.

  • Ratava

    PsD Fail.

    • Spong

      Oh, how creative.

  • CaptainO

    Not a pantsuit. You can see the tip of her right foot halfway up her left instep.

    • CaptainO

      left, net right. and right, ot left, of course. So, let’s just say: You can see the tip of her OTHER foot halfway up the instep of her VISIBLE foot.

      • armadillo_in_furs

        Not sure what you’re seeing exactly or if you’re in fact looking at the same image as everyone else but I wish to congratulate you. We will persevere in believing in our own truthiness in the face of all facts and evidence. Well done, sir, well done!

        The “artless masters” apparently attract “artless followers”.

        • Sockpuppet

          Apparently, you seem to enjoy wallowing in this filth. OK, for those with eyes: Find her right foot. OK? Now fond her right toes. Right? Now slide your gaze slooowly up the front part of her foot. You’ll notice her left toes about halfway between her right ankle and her right toes. Got it? Her left leg might be cleverly hidden behind her right leg, or it might’ve been doctored away, but traces of it can e found if you take the time to actually look instead of falling off bandwagons.

      • Waldobaby

        @CaptainO: no you can’t. Now we’re BOTH expert analysts.

  • Anellia Stefcheva

    It is, indeed, a pantsuit, not a dress. It’s part of the Max Mara Spring Summer 2011 collection.
    Just checked it on youtube – those were horrible 9 minutes, but yeah.

    You can see the yellow…thing that Amy’s wearing at 7:50 here:

    Still, awful photo; but it’s the photographer+stylist’s fault this time 😉

    • CaptainO

      She isn’t waering the same shoes in that video. She might not be wearing the same dress or “pantsuit” as well. This evidence doesn’t hold.

      Or maybe I’m just playing with your mind?

  • Guest

    Another not-a-PsD post. Just check this video:

    What did you do with the good old one PsD?! I want it back!

  • Viola

    I’m amazed with the bunch of readers whose only motivation is complain about the site. Go away, pests!

    This website needs new readers… Seriously!

    • Guest

      This website needs new editors not new readers.

  • Holabgeorge

    I am amazed a the amount of sheep here, they could post anything here and convince you it was a photoshop disaster. I hope none of you “Ohh look it’s ‘shopped'” people are actually trying to earn a living in the design field, not if you can’t tell the difference between a bad photo and bad retouching.

    And please stop using the made up adjective ‘shopped’, it just reinforces the notion that you have no idea what you are doing.

    • Viola


  • Leujin

    Well, whether it’s an ugly pantsuit or an ugly dress, I think there’s two things we can all agree on:

    1) Seriously, that is an ugly ass outfit.
    2) Not a PSD.

  • JohnS

    I vote for clothing design failure rather than photoshop disaster. It is a skanky pantsuit.

    • yo momma

      Who gave you a vote?

    • your name

      It took me 5 seconds to figure out the same thing.

  • Francescbb

    Excellent blog!!! Salut!!

    Francesc, Barcelona


  • Retrodav

    I think that is a pant suit? Right? Not a Photoshop mistake.

  • Mónica Schweppes

    This is not a PSD! =)

  • Bel Air

    està con pantalones .. ilusos !

  • Maria Karampalasi

    She wears trousers!!!

  • Ana

    It would be a legless pic if the outfit weren’t something like a fullsuit with pant open on the sides instead of a long skirt dress, that’s why the other leg is not showing

  • Junrey Sarahina

    not a PSD… the guy who posted this is an absolute paranoid!