- What will your baby be like? Will she have any legs?
- Ten things you can do that don't need a lower body.
- Half the child, twice the fun.
Photoshopaholics
Subscribe
Posts
Comments
Begun This Clone Tool Has
Search
Blog Archive
-
►
2009
(241)
-
►
December
(14)
- Azzaro: Stumpy's Last Gig
- Microsoft: The Ironing Is Delicious
- Kenwood: The Right To Bare Arms
- Takko: Mmmm mmmmmm mmm mmm no.
- E! Online: Kardashians Polio Chic
- Janet Reger: Regrettable Hand Job
- JCPenney: You Broke The Baroqueometer
- Playboy Poland: THE BELLS!
- Life & Style: Kardashian Diet Secret Revealed
- Elle: Shoulder Woulda Coulda
- All About Steve: BUT I USED FEATHER!
- Graphis: Undetectable Comping
- PES Soccer: World Keepy Uppy Champion
- Adam Lambert: For Your What?
-
►
November
(19)
- Axelrod: Aquaplaning!
- Wgate: Demi Moore, Demi Anja Rubik
- Vizio: Your Experience May Vary
- Swedish Taxi: Hard To Handle
- Georg Jensen: Breast Not To Talk About It
- Hardwired: That's Some Jawline
- Ana Maria: The Lady With The Bezier Shoulder
- Leave It To Lamas: No Mas!
- The Spy Next Door: Pull The Other One
- Express: Things That Make You Go Hmm
- New York Lottery: In Dog We Trust
- Morning Musume: Arms Reduction
- Armani Exchange: Going Out On A Limb
- Austrian Newspaper: The Clone Arranger
- Campari: Incampariable
- OSS117: Those Legs Will Take You A Long Way, Lady
- Digital Photoshop Disaster Of The Year, 2009
- Wella: No More LSD For You
- Boots: Huh?
-
►
October
(22)
- Victoria's Secret: Mostly Invisible Handbag
- Everybody's Fine: No They're Not
- Solidea: Detachable Pelvis
- Gap: Wristful Thinking
- Victoria's Secret: Sexy! Convenient!
- T3 Magazine: Trying To Titillate
- Some Dentist: Learn How To Smile Again Again
- Brothers & Sisters: Footloose!
- Victoria's Secret: The Awful, Awful Secret
- buycostumes.com: Bring Out The What?
- JVC: Gonks Love Headphones
- Ralph Lauren: The Hits Keep On Coming
- The Star: Back Handed
- Blick: Stunning Photographic Proof
- Carl Zeiss: Lose Canon
- Oriflame: Symmetry? PAH!
- Mega Magazine: Worst Hand Job Ever
-
►
December
(14)
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Parenting: All The Fun Is In The Top Half
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
59 comments:
Now that's awesome! Science invented the daiper-free baby! I want one!
This is no disaster. The baby is just being held horizontally.
Could be held horizontally...
Touche anonymous...
is this "photoshop disasters" or "questionable editorial calls"?
this post and the lady on the curves box hardly seem like "photoshopdisasters" rather bad judgement on the picture used in the end.
I got this magazine and definitely thought the baby was being held horizontally. I think it's more of a bad pose than bad photoshop.
The baby *could* be held horizontally, but I doubt it. Her upper torso is far too vertically oriented for her to be held horizontally unless she has incredible upper-body strength (not likely) or she's pushing herself up with her hands/arms - again not likely, since she's being held.
Anyone with kids will not find the photo the least bit odd, only its inclusion on this site.
If you have to argue about whether a photo could possibly be altered (as opposed to whether it could possibly be real), it's probably time to move on to lower-hanging fruit.
This baby is being held horizontally. My Dad called it "airplane". The parent is holding up the child's lower torso/legs. It's just somewhat of a bad photo angle. However, most parents or former children (wink) would immediately see a fun "airplane" ride as I did. :)
i'm brazillian
Great blog!
I became a fan!
He is being insured horizontally
The real disaster of the photo are the eyes of the baby
I doubt the baby is being held horizontally, the baby would have to be really arching it's back for us to see that much of the chest. They thought they could get awy with it, but I give this point to team PhotoshopDisasters.
ROFLMAO TIS BLOG IS AWEZOME!!!!!!!!!!111111
is it just me or does it look like the baby is a ventriloquists puppet?
The amount of upper body strength necessary for this is certainly possible. I have a 6-month-old son and he regularly picks his head up without the use of his arms.
I still got a kick out of the post, even if I'm not convinced it's a Photoshop issue.
I have docens o photos of my children in that position and in that angle and I can say that is a totally normal photo.
Just use you brain a little more before insulting the profesionals that made that magazine.
I agree. She's being held horizontally.
horrizontally? maybe? Consider this though,
Where is the adults other arm?
Why isn't there any body part in the background?
Here is what I think happened..... The baby is held at the best angle to take the "Cutest" photo. The only evidence that is needed to show that the baby is being held is the front arm of the adult.
The rest of the scene - baby feet/adults other arm have been removed in PS and replaced with your stock blurred vegitation (clone/blend/maybe smudge)
On a design note:
People looking for cute baby stuff are going to glance at the cover for less than 5 sec. and see the baby on the cover - That is all. It does not matter how the rest of the scene looks - just do what ever you have to to make the baby be the subject.
sorry this was so long - but alot of the comments appear to not understand basic graphic design/PS - i'm just trying to help explain
You're linked to on Jossip!
http://www.jossip.com/even-without-legs-this-baby-looks-less-alien-than-j-los-20080404/
Who cares if it's "disasters" or not, it's not your blog, and it's still interesting enough to visit...right?
The baby is clearly being held at a horizontal angle and whomever tried to explain that it was photoshopped because clearly he/she knew better obviously didn't seem to understand camera angles. The camera is below the baby and looking at it with such an angle that the parent's other arm and the rest of the baby are being blocked. They are there, you just can't see them because of the angle. Kudos for the photoshop knowledge dude, you just seem to forget that before computers we did all have a basic knowledge of something called perspective! Next time, check the ego at the door and think about what you are saying.
One arm, under the chest, the other arm under the legs, baby being held horizontal. Are you even trying to find photoshop disasters now? There's enough of them without having to resort to making them up...
ego? yikes! perhaps you missed where I said I was trying to HELP explain.
Sure we can all say "PS disaster", but what about actually discussing WHY/HOW this was done that leads to a better understanding of the blunder?
no ego - just want to get into further discussions of design with the comments-not just one line non-informative statements.
Opinion does not equal ego.
Is this beacuse it's a photo of a baby that people got so mad?
Cmon, there's only on arm, and by the position of the baby's upper body there should be something of him/she showing under the adult arm.
And ther's no need to keep defending it, people make mistakes, big deal!
awesome! a awesome baby handpuppet!
You've never seen a picture of a baby like this before? My mother has one of her that looks very similar to this pose taken in 1953-4.
I don't think they had PS on ENIAC.
I think the "technical" term is doing the airplane. Find a kid, they like things like this. Really, they don't bite.
The baby may be held horizontally, but I doubt it. The adult holding the baby appears to have only half a lower arm, so something has definitely been cut out here.
honestly i had bookmarked this blogged but it just too obvious its not as good as i thought.
its PERFECTLY possible the baby is held horizontally, and to say no its just a way to feed this fairly poor blog.
nice idea on the blog, just poor making it real.
Firstly, why would they have erased the lower part of the image? Secondly, try holding a small child/sack of potatoes/etc. with your arm at that angle without additional support; not easy.
The child's legs are being held horizontally across the person's chest, out of shot.
Perhaps someone should start a splinter blog: Photoshop Disasters Disasters.
NOT a distaster, PLEASE remove !
This is what happens to once-interesting blogs. They've used up all the good content, so they have to start stretching for material. This doesn't come close to qualifying as a PhotoshopDisaster.
If you have nothing interesting to post, don't force it.
NOT DISASTER!! Sorry.. he is horizontal
Sadly, I can attest to the fact that baby who looks like she might need a skateboard to get around is actually real. Her lower half was not photoshopped out. It was a fluke of the photo, as the model swung the child around to make her laugh.
I'm giving a huge bronx cheer to this blog. There are a couple blunders, yes, but this one is so clearly not the inteliigence of the poster is now in question. Babies often arch their back like this, it is not at all uncommon. The other arm of the adult is holding up the rest of the kid. It's like you have no spatial imagination.
Hi. I'm Tom McCarren, and I'm a photo assistant at Parenting.
I was at this photoshoot, holding some of the reflectors.
The woman holding the baby (an associate editor) was holding the child on its stomach, with her right arm supporting the baby's legs.
There was photoshopping done on the image, I'm sure, for color etc. But there was no actual change of content. The baby is held horizontally. If you don't believe me I could ask the photo editor to show you other shots taken from the side with the baby in the same position. They must have shot that kid for 40 minutes before she actually started smiling.
Look Marge! Maggie lost her baby legs!
It looks like the sunlight on the childs head is coming from an angle that differs from lighting in the rest of the photo, including the parents arm. The mothers arm also appears too short, and from this angle I would think her hand should be visible. With only one arm used to hold the child horizontally under the midsection, there is not sufficient leverage for the child to hold the upper body upward at that angle while keeping the legs straight out behind, so the legs should be visible. I believe that this photo is faked entirely and poorly.
"It looks like the sunlight on the childs head is coming from an angle that differs from lighting in the rest of the photo"
The lighting is consistently coming from an upper left (as you look at the photo), and that's pretty clear.
Here's a larger scan of the freak baby, as found on eBay.
Applause is in order to the four previous posters! It's quite something to write misguided comments when there is nothing to prove or disprove the validity of an image but when someone Who Was Actually On The Shoot posts an explanation and people are still questioning it shows supreme IQ deficiency. Bravo!
Yeap this is no photoshop mistake. The adult is holding the baby with both hands. That's why you can't see it's feet, cause the baby's body is horizontal.
I'm going to start my own website called WebsiteDisasters, and this website will be my first post. It is obvious that the baby is being held horizontally, and that the black woman is wearing an undershirt.
God. People need to think before they post things. I'd say that more than 90% of the images on this site aren't bad editing jobs. It's been said several times in this comment section already, but let me say it again .. the baby is being freakin held horizontally. D-U-H!
"Applause is in order to the four previous posters! It's quite something to write misguided comments when there is nothing to prove or disprove the validity of an image but when someone Who Was Actually On The Shoot posts an explanation and people are still questioning it shows supreme IQ deficiency. Bravo!"
You're having a go at people, by believing that an anonymous comment on a board with no verification needed is actually who they say they are. Grow up.
Yours,
The Queen.
pretty skinny/flexible baby if you can't see any of its lower half. could be horizontal, but get real; the baby is completely hidden by that woman's arm?? i say disaster.
Regardless of whether it's bad photoshop or just a bizarre looking picture, it's an odd picture to use. It does LOOK like the baby has no legs.
Holy crap!!!!I get this magazine,and I didn't notice that until now!!!
My nephews get into awkward positions alot. This isn't photoshopped. The baby is being held horizontally.
the airplane as many previously said.
where are the legs when u need them??? im not sure about twice the fun but im sure about twice the trouble... sad sad
Hey, I'm the baby on that picture and I can assure you that I wasn't being held horizontally. They actually had me hovering on an air vent, then they photoshopped the rest in.
Little Lucy, aged 1.
Once again, anatomy problems... Babies are bulky, unless they're dying of hunger (not the case). They have big asses, further augmented by diapers. And if that baby can bend so much that you can't see the big diapered ass, she'll need a wheelchair all her life, poor thing, cause her back's broken!
Biggo, and Helena, you are hilarious! The photo is a crock.
I've found the original photo to this image. It can be found here; http://pratt.edu/~cpalacio/julia/pic14.html
The source makes a hell of a lot more sense than the after-effect which makes the whole thing look like a bisected infant. Or one that King Solomon got a hold of an actually WENT AND DID IT.
Besides excellent work finding the source of the image (mind bogglingly well done!) - we can see that more than a "little retouching" (as claimed by the "anon photographer" - aka: "airplane troller" most likely) took place, with utterly hilarious results.
I was hoping it was some kind of spinal disorder personally.
Sure! You can tell that mother loves her new half-child by the way she slings her over one arm!
OOH! Let's play find the hidden image!
Where it says "GRAB MORE WEEKEND FUN", you can sort of see a blured out image of a mini/crossover SUV in the background, seemingly inside of the shrubbery! That's great, a genocidal mom whose driver's liscence was revoked 15 years before the photograph was taken!
I agree, this doesn't look like camera angle was at fault.
You are STUPID.
The mom is holding the baby with her other arm... HORIZONTALLY.
Imagine the baby was lying on the floor on her stomach and the mom just picked her up like that.
And that's why the baby's legs aren't visible, you freakin idiot.
Oooopsi, someone is trying to convince their friends that they got a baby, but infact it is a puppet!
Okay, folks--can I just point something out?
Even if the baby is being held horizontally, in an "airplane" position...
IT. LOOKS. WEIRD.
Mmmkay?
Even if the baby was being held horizontally, she wouldn't have the strength to stretch out her legs straight behind her. They would be curling upwards, and so visible. Either this is a horrid photoshop job, or the angle is just absurd; either way, the overall composition is odd. (Funnily enough, my MOTHER couldn't figure out what was wrong here. Hello? Child-legs=bad, mom?)
Post a Comment