Tkklhth: Look! Another human artefact!
Rgdgdg: It appears to be a wrapper for an optical disc.
Tkklhth: What can it tell us about this culture?
Rgdgdg: That they were often deformed, with their faces a bit too small for their heads?
Tkklhth: Or perhaps they were crap at Photoshop.
Embiggen. Props to Antony.
Photoshopaholics
Subscribe
Posts
Comments
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Groundhog Day: "Special" Is The Operative Word
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I dunno, Bill Murray has always had a pretty big forehead.
I really love this website, but with all your trash talk, I would love to see some of YOUR amazing photoshop work. You must have some with all the bashing you do of other people's... :)
I love this site too, even though my own Photoshop is awful. But since these are rather high-profile commercial examples, the embarrassment factor is higher!
It's amazing to see how many mistakes professionals in this line of work make. I've seen amateur photographers doing these types of things for fun on their personal blogs and doing a way better job than most of this crap...
Cheers for the awesome blog, though. I laugh every time..:-)
@HRBC
You dont have to be an amazing photoshop artist to know good work from bad work. I don't design fonts but I can tell a good front from a shit font on a daily basis.
I absolutely love this blog. :D
Congratulations. I come from Buenos Aires, Argentina. I like very much your work, you make me laugh with your choices and your words. Thank you, and go on like this, you are in the good way.
-Sorry for my writing, I'm not very used to write in English, I just read it every day. Thanks.
maybe this picture is fromo over 15 years ago when the movie came out and they didnt have photoshop back then
His face is not only too small -- it's rotated! It should be a degree or two clockwise.
I dunno, I think that if our eyebrows grew that close to our eyeballs, we'd all be pretty pissed off.
You misspelled artifact.
Fair enough it's badly done, but who in their right mind cares about this sort of thing? Nobody with any sense would give a flying f*** about how bad Bill looks here. It's a DVD cover. You're interested in the film, right, or do you just stare at the cover for 90 minutes wondering why it's so bad? Actually, I bet that's exactly what you do. This site has some great entries, but also a hell of a lot of dull entries. "Mmm, this picture is badly manipulated" is not reason enough to feature it here. Please try harder in future.
I think this site is awesome (even the dull entries). People are paid shedloads of money for this stuff, that fact in itself is enough to give people a right to nit-pick IMO. :)
Always nice to see a pedant fuck it up, ellecee. Artifact is just a variant of the correct spelling of artefact.
artefact isn't misspelled. It can be spelled either artifact or artefact, depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on/what you like best. I'm an archaeology graduate AND a museum curator in the UK, if you doubt my authority. And yes, I realise this adds little to the discussion, just wanted to clarify :0)
maybe his head is just naturally munted?
you know what, i think many movie posters are made to look somewhat surreal on purpose. i like the big hand and the strange forehead. and the actual movie is very good too!
/swede
seeing how groundhog day came out in 1993, that would be Photoshop 2.5
Damn, I'm pretty sure Bill Murray never looked like that, exactly...he looks too young and smooth...certainly doesn't look like that in the movie. It makes him cuter, but it's sloppy.
its actually my favorite movie of all time.
Post a Comment