Chanel: Chameleon Woman

reflection

A lot of people can look in two directions at once. Its called strabismus – not a PsD just a versatile model.

Thanks Rachel! You can see the original here. If you can’t see the PSD, please check out our red image gallery to see a marked up version.

  • http://twitter.com/Alasska11 Eliza Roche

    she is obviously lookin at the cam thru the mirror…. i dont see a PSD nor a ´versatile´ model as u called her.

    • http://twitter.com/violetfrosting Kate Fowler

      The reflection in the mirror shows her looking towards the camera with her eye looking to her right, while the left eye (not in reflection) is looking ahead slightly to her left

      • Magee

        Except it’s mascara.

        • GoodnessGracious

          So, you apply mascara directly to the eye surface? Doesn’t that hurt? (Hint: Her lower eyelid is visible outside of what you call “mascara”.)

    • Shakudo

      He called her versatile, because, taken at face value, her eyes appear to looking in opposite directions. But it’s possible that the advertiser meant to have both the model and the reflection looking at the camera. I wouldn’t call this a PsD.

  • uninvited guest

    What’s that below her elbow in the second mirror pane from the left?

    • Bob

      It’s a bit hi-tech, it’s called an arm. Ancient legends say they used to connect to elbows, but that was before photoshop was invented.

  • Pah.

    Not a PSD I’m afraid. As a photoshop user I’ve taken the image and applied a brightening curves layer. Her eye is definitely looking at the mirror, she’s just got loads of mascara on.

    • Bargonzo

      Sorry to repeat myself, but mascara on the eye surface? go check your “brightening curves”. I applied one myself and it might be shadows and reflections instead of iris and sclera. But definitely not mascara…!

  • http://www.facebook.com/gabi.garcez Gabriela Garcez

    Definitely not a PSD. And I’m not even being ironic.

    • Phynneas

      Of course not. You are just being a douche.

      • Lohp

        Ironically, you’re a douche too.

  • Testy

    The disaster is that if Chanel spends $$,$$$ on a photograph (with lots of eyes reviewing each photo – art director, publishers…. ) that will be reproduced in many places, it might as well be correct or they could even try to take a real picture.

    the eyes are pointing in different directions

    • http://www.facebook.com/gabi.garcez Gabriela Garcez

      Seriously? I think you should check if YOUR eyes are ok.
      This “pupil” or whatever it is that you’re seing is just the result of black makeup, tons of mascara and shadows around the eye area.

      • Bob

        Mascara on the eye surface? I hope you don’t do that yourself, too…

  • Kat

    Weak, very weak. Maybe zoom in a little bit before you call disaster.

  • 1234emma

    It is soooo not a photoshop diaster…

  • http://www.facebook.com/frans.vandergaag Frans van der Gaag

    I agree no PSD just tons of mascara and dark shadows

    • Bargonzo

      If you brighten the picture you can clearly see there is no mascara involved in the illusion. Here eyelids are clearly defined against the eye. However, her “iris” and “eye surface” could be a weird combination of shadow and reflection instead. Or she could be looking outwards with both eyes. Still, a very tiny PSD.

  • cessout
  • Starlitskyy

    Ummm, regardless of her face, the purse reflection (first and second mirror panels from the left) is definitely a disaster. To get that perception of the purse, the mirror would have to be facing the purse from about the same angle as us, the viewer.

    • eye

      it’s not 1 mirror, it’s several mirrors skewing towards the camera. Which is why there are 3 purse reflections each facing different angles. No photoshop disastering there

  • Kikai_saigono

    I would actually say that they did this on purpose (if she is indeed looking two different ways). It’s like her reflection has a mind of it’s own and is looking right at the camera, even though the “real” model is looking away. It feels like they were just going for an eerie and mysterious ad…

  • pheeze

    I honestly can’t see that that’s mascara. The darkness of her iris/pupil joins directly to the makeup on her bottom eyelash. So unless her eyelids have three edges and she blinks sideways like that guy on Men in Black, it’s certainly unorthodox.

    Whether it was intentional is another question.

  • Electro_Jones

    This used to be a much more fun site. Now, any time any artist or studio does anything out of the ordinary it’s a “disaster”. I don’t think this is a standard photograph as much as it is a subtle photo illustration. It’s not meant to be a perfect reflection. This is just dumb.

  • Chucky

    I don’t see any mistake, actually. In which direction does she have to look to be right? If her reflection looked into the “real”camera, then she would have to look into the reflection of the camera, which is in the mirror. So she has to look into the mirror.
    If she looked into the camera, then her reflection would not.
    (sorry for my English, I’m German)