Jimmy Choo: Choose Better

Oh Nicole Kidman, your natural beauty and refined talent mean nothing to marketing departments.

Photoshop Disasters

Okay, so we have one of the most critically acclaimed actresses and models of the past few decades at our disposal. Let’s give the bokeh a sloppy movement effect, airbrush her into oblivion, and if there’s time, we’ll add her name in the lower left corner so people realize who the pallid ghost looking at them is.

The original was published by the HeraldSun.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • http://snowrollersden.blogspot.com Nicewriter

    She actually looks older here than in real life!

  • OurJames

    I have seen a few of her films and have a fair idea what she looks like. I would not recognize her from this photograph.

  • pointtaken

    No way anyone would recognize Nicole Kidman in this picture. They could have just booked any model if they are going to alter her to the point of unrecognizability. In fact, they probably have.

  • Stella

    This looks like Nicole Kidman trying to look like someone trying to look like Nicole Kidman and failing at it.

  • Waldobaby

    If they need a name tag they need a new picture. Sarah Jessica don’ need no name tag!

    Why is she lying down?

    • ixache

      My guess would be that having her lying down allows to show off the shoes in a more relaxed pose.

  • ixache

    From the original article, the whole series seems like a disaster. In the third one, Kidamn is recognizable (but just barely) but their is no heel in one of the shoes…

    • Andulamb

      Huh? I see two heels. How many heels do you think she should have?

  • Andulamb

    I suspect there is less Photoshopping going on here than you think. There are a lot of effects that can be accomplished in-camera. Such as the “sloppy movement effect.” Not that it COULDN’T be PS — it probably is, because it looks like she was photographed lying down. Or it could have been the camera that was moving rather than her.

    Also, the “airbrush into oblivion” effect could be the result of lighting. There’s clearly a lot of light being thrown on her.

    So I suspect what we’re seeing is mostly the result of in-camera effects, lighting, and makeup. But even if it were all PS, I wouldn’t call these PSDs. When there is no intent to represent reality, how can you call it a PSD? Obviously these were meant to be artistic. Why does Nicole Kidman need to be recognizable? You might think it doesn’t make sense to hire a famous actress to appear in an ad and then PS her so much that you can’t tell who she is. But that happens in movies all the time — actors get made-up to the point they no longer look like themselves — so why can’t it be done in ads? In the end, Kidman is just the model, and as long as the desired effect is achieved who cares if she no longer looks like herself?

    I think these photos are just fine. If you want reality, stick to autopsy photos.

  • setheaster

    Adding my voice to those who say if it wasn’t captioned, I wouldn’t know who this was! Don’t recognize her at all!