Accenture: “eh” performance

My favorite part of writing for Photoshop Disasters is when a company’s claim of high-performance is juxtaposed with a terrible photo manipulation.

Photoshop Disasters

I wonder what this ad is a better example of; accenture’s claims of aptitude with technology or their impressive outsourcing abilities. Besides those shins just disappearing in the not-so-deep blue, the accenture angle bracket logo implies one set of (identical) feet is less than the other. Also, the feet appear to be different skin tones then the legs. Did I miss anything?

Thanks Paul. The original can be found in the London underground.

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

    And the offset of foot to leg, in opposite directions! First off, I don’t think you would see this offset from the angle they’re taking the photo. And second, wouldn’t at least wouldn’t it be in the same direction for both sets of legs?

  • jdm8

    I think the offsets and color tone shifts might be plausible. Because water has a very different index of refraction, you’re going to see shifts like that, the more off-center a lens axis is, the more of a shift you’ll see. Color tone would shift just because of the water’s surroundings.

    • https://twitter.com/BryceBladon B Bladon

      I get the bending pencil argument, but it still seems artificial to me.

      • jdm8

        Yeah, don’t get me wrong, it might be a total fake, but I think there’s room for it to be a plausible photo too. It’s too bad I don’t have the equipment and locale to try it out, I’d be curious if it’s valid at all.

        • https://twitter.com/BryceBladon B Bladon

          You have a commitment to questioning something you found on the internet that’s downright commendable. Kudos to you, sir.

    • http://twitter.com/ClintByrne Clint Byrne

      Thank you I hate when they post pictures that could be real and proclaim it a horrible fail and make fun of it because it proves they don’t have any knowledge about how photography, light, and photoshop works.

  • Brad

    The offset is consistent. The foot appears closer to the camera on both sides. This picture is probably easier to take than to fabricate, and none of the “disasters” are slam dunks.

  • hentailo

    Plausible. The refraction of light in water plays funny tricks.
    Not a PSD

  • Waldobaby

    “Also, the feet appear to be different skin tones then the legs.”

    No duh.

    “Did I miss anything?”

    Everything.

    • Enrico

      You also missed the difference between ‘then’ and ‘than’. Not bad for an internet writer.

  • http://twitter.com/foxnose foxnose

    Also -shouldn’t the copy be “So their guests can go ONLINE even faster”? -If not -what’s so great about going offline faster -apologies for the pedantry.

    • http://www.facebook.com/gravelbox Brian Kelleher

      It’s a hotel, the point is the customers go online to book a holiday where they go offline and relax. You’re missing the point of the ad.

      • http://twitter.com/foxnose foxnose

        Doh!

  • OurJames

    The sandals cast no shadows on the tiles. The sandals aren’t in the same perspective as the tiles. There would be a clear edge where the water touched the legs, and here it’s fuzzy. When you’re underwater and look up, you don’t see anything like what you see here. They had the right general idea, they just got all of the details wrong.

  • http://twitter.com/jamesjdominguez James Dominguez

    I think this is a 100% real photo, made to look weird and fake because they added a bit of extra fuzzy blue behind the text to make it stand out more. The blue fuzz makes the interface with the surface of the water look odd, which throws off the entire image.The lighting and relative refraction all look fine to me otherwise.

  • Raven

    This can’t be an unedited photo. The water is moving and would have left tiny drops on the glass barrier. Also the ground texture shows some inconsistent perspective (single larger tiles in the back). So IF they’re going to ‘shop it, they could as well have aligned the legs so it looks more convincing.

  • Greenhatter

    These shallow water captains should go home, with their worn out flip-flops!

  • Juan Zeta

    From my experience with snorkeling, I would say that this one is not completly a PSD. The image looks plausible to me, though manipulated.

    All you need is a scuba diving mask and a bathtube.

    Compare with these other pictures:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Splitpond.jpg

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pVxrqJHSkpA/TOi-gKK9jsI/AAAAAAAABYc/Ub399QGTQtM/s1600/clifton%20split.jpg

    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/06/04/article-0-137109C5000005DC-311_634x550.jpg

  • http://www.facebook.com/arle.lommel Arle Richard Lommel

    I’m surprised that nobody commented on the tiles being impossibly small (what pool tile would be maybe 1.5 x 0.75 cm?). Real pool tiles would be much bigger and you would see some irregularity in height and some vertical relief with the grout. If nothing else, the entire background of the bottom half is entirely fake, which pretty much demonstrates the image as a whole is a fake since you can’t easily shop out the background of an underwater image and replace it.