Photoshop makeovers and the butchers that perpetrate them

jqp · « **on:** 3 Jul 2008, 02:56 pm »

Yes she can't seem to act that well and she kind of waddles like a duck. but they didn't have to Mutilate her so badly.

Notice that not only is the waist clearly carved up, but her left arm has clearly shriveled (for example compare fingers on the hands). Or has the right one been stretched?

mcullinan · « **Reply #1 on:** 3 Jul 2008, 03:20 pm »

Shes got a beer belly. Yeah! That means I could potentially get her!!!
Mike

nathanm · « **Reply #2 on:** 3 Jul 2008, 04:09 pm »

Photoshoop?

Scarlett doesn't need any artificial enhancements, just watch Ghost World. I don't think they had a budget to CGI every shot of barely legal nubile hotness in there. It looks all real to me. Besides, everyone can take a crappy snap where you look like hell no matter who you are. (not that she looks bad in either shot) The fashion mags enhance beauty, the tabloids enhance ugliness. But when you average out all the photos you still must come to the conclusion that there are exceptional looking people out there and it's not all just a big illusion. Photography, still or motion, is just the paint. Unless you see her in real life you have to look at the paint, there's no escaping it. You cannot avoid looking through the filter.

jqp · « **Reply #3 on:** 3 Jul 2008, 06:22 pm »

Quote from: nathanm on 3 Jul 2008, 04:09 pm

Photoshoop?

oops - fixed it

Imperial · « **Reply #4 on:** 5 Jul 2008, 09:06 pm »

It's actually rare to see such a bad photo shop Job as that Johansen picture...
I mean how hard can it be to keep proportions and angles right? Very hard obviously!

Imperial

jqp · « **Reply #5 on:** 15 Jul 2008, 05:42 am »

I knew there had to be at least one site like this

Photoshop Disasters

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/

TONEPUB · « **Reply #6 on:** 15 Jul 2008, 06:29 am »

You know, at least half of that was done with lighting, makeup
and duct tape or surgeon's tape. You've obviously never been
to a fashion shoot.

I can see where they definitely shrunk her waist and tummy a
bit, but even the chin thing is a result of harsh bank lights
(probably that big Broncolor light that looks like an 8 foot wide
slide projector bulb) combined with shooting with a 2-400mm
lens from a bit above nose height.

That dress with no bra = about a 2-3 inch boob drop too.

They might have really cinched her up with one of those
new space age girdles from Victorias Secret, leaving less
photoshop work.

It's not even uncommon for actresses/models to not eat
for a week before going on a big fashion shoot like this.
Spend a day at Fashion Week in NYC and you'll see what
I mean.

In the end, Cosmo probably paid about 20-50k (maybe
more) for that cover, so I say bully for anyone who's still
making that kind of dough with a camera these days.