Givenchy, Like Dior, belongs to LVMH. It's signature style is Ricardo Tisci's sickly waif look, which now extends to severely wasted limbs. Or possibly wasted retouchers, could be either.
Still, this image is buried deep in Givenchy.com's profoundly annoying Flash site, not on the front page, right? Right? Oh, really? Oh.
Props to Haley Saner! Original is here.
Photoshopaholics
Subscribe
Posts
Comments
Begun This Clone Tool Has
Search
Blog Archive
-
►
2009
(226)
-
►
November
(18)
- 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
- Ralph Lauren: How To Turn A Photoshop Disaster Int...
- Edwin Jeans: Pittiful
- Pet Vet: Crap Trap
- My Life In Ruins: Down With Perspective
- Skintimate: Forearm Funk
-
►
September
(20)
- Bell Internet: Porn For Vampires
- The Gap: The World According To Gap
- Jonah Hex: Stumpy Meets Crazy Corset
- Norma: Rice-epe For An E-Norma-s Disaster
- Amazon: Photoshop User My Ass
- Formoza: We Are Competent Formoza The Time
- Belgian Toy Store: Hmm
- Chevy Chase Bank: And You're Not
- Meira T: Worst Hand Job Ever
- Paula Deen: Is Your Mother Home?
-
►
November
(18)
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Givenchy: Polio Chic!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
115 comments:
Have to call you out on this one. The models are standing on mirrors. The screwy looking place is actually her left foot reflecting in the mirror. Because of the severe angle it looks strange, but appears accurate.
Whatever it is, it looks really scary. I didn't even need it to be pointed out before I saw it. And it creeps me out.
I meant "whatever the explanation for it is"
I don't see how this is Photoshop at all, let alone a disaster. Velk is right; she just has her foot kicked backwards and is standing on a mirror.
I hate to join the haters on this site, but if you removed all the "Photoshop disasters" that were really just bad art direction (like the black woman's head on the "white" body), would this site have any material on it? You really need to tighten your standards of scrutiny.
Some people have a thing for horribly disfigured goth girls. That's obviously who they're aiming at here.
Velk is right, it just looks awkward, but her left foot is stretched to the back of her, and what we see is the reflection of the mirror she is standing on, which makes it look awkward.
"Polio chic"!! I LOL'ed.
Okay, so I'm seeing the toes of her foot and the reflection of the leg, but I'm not getting why the right leg is so proportionately small compared to the reflection and the left leg. Just being stretched behind her wouldn't cause the leg to look like it was 100 yards away.
It doesn't matter if Photoshop is to blame or not, that's a horrible photo. The one on the left looks like an armless sideshow attraction and the one on the right's head is about 50% of her body mass.
She also has some sort of flipper hand which she's hiding in her pocket.
How is this not a disaster? The fact that any human being would think these girls are pretty is a complete disaster!
I don't see how she could be standing on a mirror. How can her leg be so awkward when the girl right next to her has normal legs? People who comment on this page must be blind or work as models... or both.
Their heads could be deliberate, I suppose, though that is troublesome as well. And her waist... well, that's probably hers... which is too disturbing for words.
If you look at other photos under the "Fashion" tab they're all the same. Horribly photoshopped and more maimed legs.
I don't think this is a photoshop issue I think that the woman pictured might actually have a prosthetic leg.
"It doesn't matter if Photoshop is to blame or not, that's a horrible photo."
If it doesn't matter, then why is it the title of this website? The creator seemed to think it mattered. Once upon a time, anyway. I don't recall the name being changed to "Horrible Photo Disasters" or "Poor Art Direction Disasters" or even "Way Too Skinny Goth Girls Disasters."
wow did someone mes that one up. I'd say that was the most screwed up photoshop job i have ever seen. And I have taught it before.
I won't argue that there are some tweaky things going on here (I can't explain some of the lighting and the oddly shaped mirrors or somethings about the carpet) however the ratio of head size to back legs could be distortion from a wide angle lens.
The blond models right (back) leg is also smaller, and we catch both the bottom of her foot being reflected as well as the opposite side in a mirror behind her (shows up about knee high).
Those chicks are beautiful... You guys have no taste! Also, this blog has been stretching it for a while. Bookmarks -> Remove...
iiii dunno. i don't think we can blame mirrors on this one, even if they are present in this image. they photoshopped the shit out of the girls' faces. the least they could do is fix it so the girl doesn't look like she has toes growing out of her knee.
Umm...How the hell could she be standing on a mirror. Forgive me but I do not see how that is possible, when the blond model standing with not even an inch of room to spare next to her has perfectly fine legs, all considered. I can see the mirror behind them, but where on earth is the mirror she is supposedly standing on, making this NOT a photoshop disaster?
Please unsubscribe so the rest of us don't have to suffer through your complaints. I think these are all hilarious disasters. Sure, some of these turn out to be weird photography, but I'd say an inventory of postings show photoshop disasters (and quit complaining what the definition of a "disaster" is).
Who was it who said that Anorexia was the biggest problem with models?
I love this site. Don't listen to the haters. Haters wanna hate, lovers wanna love. I don't want to do none of the above ...
Virtually nothing about this picture makes sense. It is truly a disaster.
that is gross. Is her waist the size or two belt looks? P.S.. Having that handicapped wheelchair next to the word verification isn't too nice. So I cannot read the mess the word verification software spits out and therefore I'm disabled?! going on third time, am I disabled?
Ok, I can see the weirdness in this pic. Eww!
I was checking out the archives and I noticed that on most of the posts you are rather vague about what the actual mistake is. You tend more to simply hint at it with obscure remarks rather than blatantly point it out. Which is all good as far as humor goes, but to the inept eye, it's hard to find the off detail, even with the obscure hint.
By all means, don't stop your remarks - they are the personality of this blog, but please add more clear hints too. The circles are great. But a simple statement of what the mistake is would suffice as well.
This is plane and simple, it's a reflection from a mirror and nothing more.
I do see how it is a reflection, but it doesn't explain why her foot is so thin, and why she has about three toes.
You cannot see from the posted version of this image but if you go through the slideshow there is a much clearer version. The dark-haired girl is standing on the mirror, the blonde has her right foot on it, the left is on carpet.
The photo was taken from above, the heavy lens distortion makes the heads look bigger and the feet look smaller. It's physics, deal with it.
Ergo: this is not a Photoshop disaster so stop trying to find things that aren't there in a hapless attempt to justify yourselves
If it's not PS'ed, how come her dress isn't visible in the mirror even though it comes down to her knee? There's definitely something out of whack with the photo and I'm glad I can come to the site and be weirded out by it.
As for the folks who come to the site just to complain, please do remove it from your bookmarks. I'm so sick of people who think everyone needs to hear how world-weary and jaded they are.
It's not a photoshop disaster. My girlfriend's step-cousin-twice-removed legs look just like that.
whatever,
where the hell is her waist!??
Alex: it is visible, look at the clearer version, because you're looking down at the model, the reflection is looking up her leg and under the dress - it's black and in shadow.
As for people coming here solely to complain: I don't think they do; they may not openly take the piss out of the images like immature school children but instead get riled enough to remark on the lack of observation and misguided commenting that occurs.
Essentially what you are saying is that it's fine to publicly decimate somebody's work but not to defend it. If only everyone thought like that, eh? Until it's them in the firing line, of course.
This is plane and simple, it's a reflection from a mirror and nothing more.
I hope that was a deliberate pun...
"Essentially what you are saying is that it's fine to publicly decimate somebody's work but not to defend it."
Nope, that is exactly not what I am saying. Most people who are posting negative comments on the site aren't saying, "This photograph looks fantastic and the person who created is probably drinking away his hurt feelings," they're saying things like, "This site sucks and the photos aren't horrible enough, I could do better, I'm never coming here again." And then as soon as there's a new post they come back and say the same thing again. It's lame and pointless and trolly.
If you look at the background behind the left model, you can see the walls reflecting. I'm sure there is a ton of photoshopping (maybe some stretching here and there to proportion things more skinilly, but that isn't a left over leg, it's definitely a reflection. There is the possibility that the models weren't even shot together, and there are so many random background bits stuck together it's hard to tell, plus the smallness and graininess of the pic makes it even harder to look at the horrifying details. Now I think some goth fashion looks kinda cool (though I'd never wear it), but this is just kinda boring and pathetic. Funny thing is, hardcore goth girls probably hate models like this.
Hey, if you click on the "fashion" button, it shows more pics of the girls in other outfits, and you can get a better view of the mirror with less grainy pics.
there is also a mirror right behind them, you have to zoom in to the picture under the fashion slideshow. The right model is wearing a black stiletto or whatever, and it's reflecting on the ground and then again behind her. I think the only photoshopping done was cosmetic, no amputations or repositionings. The room they are in has a bunch of mirrors in weird spots, making some crazy reflections that are rather mind bending. It's a little to muddled for my taste, but I don't think I've ever scrutinized a picture as much as this one (and a couple of the other ones as references for the mirror setup). It really got my brain going, and I actually think the photographer did a cool job, if not in taking a cool picture, then in getting me think so hard about it.
I don't think the site is going down the tubes for this, I just think it was an easy to make mistake based on the complexity of the image, and the poor quality of the copy that was used on the site's homepage.
Final word: It's legit.
Can we change the name of the blog to "Comment Disasters"?
People come here to enjoy an argument. That's why people keep coming back. So now I join in the fun!
My 5c is that the idea of having the model pose with her leg pointed away from the camera on a mirror such that it looks like polio is utterly retarded.
For those that keep saying that it's Art Direction not Photoshop, how about you stretch your mind just a little. It won't hurt.
oh. what a feet. haha.
Here's a link to the version from the slideshow, which makes it clearer that 1. she's standing on a mirror, 2. a wide-angle lens was used, 3. she has really skinny legs to begin with, and 4. the weird-looking leg is a result of these, not photoshopping.
That's not a photoshop disaster...someone needs glasses!
My first post: To me it looks like they have taken two separate photos and tried to make them into one. One is of the brunette standing with both feet side by side and the other is of her left leg a little behind the right. The reflection in the mirror however only is of one of the photos.
1. i get the mirror thing
2. doesn't matter to me whether its art direction, photoshop, or elmer's glue
3. it looks bad.
4. but i do think it's funny.
5. like the blog- keep it up.
6. people take a silly fun blog to seriously.
7. i like lists.
<3 photoartshopgluemirror disasters.
The problem with this and many of the other images put on here is they were meant to be viewed at much higher resolution. Many of the mistakes (such as this one) that are put up here suffer from bad scaling and compression which doesn't do them any favors to begin with.
This is not a Photoshop disaster: a photo-choice disaster by the site's designers more than anything. It also doesn't help it by being taken out of context; the rest of the images which have a fairy-tale theme with Alice/surreal undertones.
uhm. it's a mirror. how come i can see this, but some so-called photoshop experts can't? hm.
i love this blog, but sometimes you should really check and see if they really *are* disasters. it's easy to criticize.
Isn't that just a little bit of... CUBISM?
Take a look at the bottom edge of the mirror in the slideshow version at aaron t's link. It's not lying on the floor - it's perpendicular to it. That mirror should be reflecting the carpet and the girls, not the ceiling. Also, the blonde girl's right foot is clearly flat on the floor at a point behind where the mirror is.
Regardless of what you think of the dark-haired girl - though I believe there's a PS-related issue there too - the mirror was beyond shadow of a doubt added with Photoshop after the fact.
perhaps it would have been wise for you to have looked into the main site at the larger image there is of this and it it thane extremely obvious that it is a mirror.
If you look close, you will see that that is not a photoshop disaster, but an optical ilusion, they are standing on a mirror, she has the leg behind and the reflection creates taht effect, you can see that where it looks that she broke her leg its actuali her foot
Ac-tually, the image looks weird because it's been scaled down. And what program might they have scaled it down in? Photoshop perhaps? :p~~~~~
Whether it's a true "Photoshop" disaster or not, it is truly a DISASTER!
It looks like something has been gnawing on her leg.
Who cares how it happened or what the producers of the picture were looking for...it's a ridiculously bad picture, no matter how it was produced!
Keep up the good work.
To everyone who keeps coming here to post how these are not disasters. Please don't take jobs in a field that requires photo editing.
i like her feet. :)
Click the link I added to my name. I don't know why I'm wasting my time here, but I took the liberty of scribbling down some pointer. The picture is full resolution of the original, but that is still pretty small, so i recommend zooming into the picture with whatever device you want. Sorry my handwriting is messy, but I'm still getting used to using a tablet. This picture explains almost everything.
You must have gotten to Givenchy. I've been trying to go to the site for 2+ hours now, and it's down. Good work!
BESIDES THE LEGS.
Who has a waist that tiny with such broad shoulders?
They're heads are massive compared to everything else. It's a disgusting picture.
Anonymous 3:16. The mirror is also on the floor. Look at the other images in the sequence, you'll see for yourself.
"Who has a waist that tiny with such broad shoulders?
They're heads are massive compared to everything else. It's a disgusting picture."
Someone who's had they're [sic] photo taken from above with at close range.
These aren't amateur snapshots, an awful lot of work would have been needed to shoot them, given the surroundings.
lol, what a crappy job on all the levels, ps, angles, the blonde's hovering head, legs defy explanation (and no, it's definitely not just "done with mirrors") the lighting- yikes! no excuses
Lara, you speak with such authority, lol, perhaps you should give Givenchy a call, they're obviously crying out for talented people such as yourself.
If these two girls weren't photoshopped, how come the blond one has two different size eyes, (the right, and don't tell me it's mirror work!)one even missing an eyebrow?!?
Also, just look at the brunettes position. Her left leg (from our point of view) is placed in a way that her right leg just couldn't be THIS far or this way! And if you look at the waves in the skirt, you can see that her leg is actually supposed to be were the polio leg/reflections are.
So...I say photoshop disaster, and a pretty scary if you ask me.
Great site! Always gives me a laugh!
reading up on this amazing blog, its fascinating how often people try to defend the photos. people do not exist that look like this. Whereever that leg craziness comes from, the picture is clearly altered.
Of course they don't exist, this is media, more importantly fashion media. If the point of this blog is to showcase every photo where people had been retouched to the point of not being natural looking, it would bring Google's servers to their knees - reflected or otherwise.
people read what matoro1989 said, don't just post and ignore the rest, he outlined all the legs and shows how the mirrors work.
Whoever said that the site was down, check again, it works fine. Their heads probably aren't that big, this was obviously done with some sort of wide angle lens and it was taken from a downward angle. Also the bad coloring and graininess is the web designer's fault, not the photographer's. Though the pictures are a bit too cluttered for my taste, they were actually very well done and very professional. The colors are vibrant and beautiful on the slideshow. I'm waiting for somebody to show me any photoshop goof ups, because if you look at the slideshow, (and my handy dandy proof picture) you can see it was done with mirrors.
Say what you will about the models bodies (which are only a matter of taste - I don't care for them much, but they aren't that bad) other than cosmetic airbrushing or blurring, this pick is not a botched photoshop job.
and thanks for reading my comment anonymous :D glad someone was paying attention
matoro: sadly, it seems most of the people here don't give a flying futon whether or not it really is a disaster, Photoshop or otherwise, let alone bother to take comments from people such as yourself on board as it simply ends up a cracophony** of people posting their own little pieces of wisdom, disregarding anyone else.
The site owner isn't concerned either, as aside from a self-stroked ego from the witty tag-lines -by the way, if we're going to nit-pick: that should be "Its signature style.."- some dimwit is bound to click on one of his adwords and generate another 0.5c worth of revenue*.
*I'm sure this will return to bite me on the arse when Cosmo7 one day reveals himself to be Scott Kelby or John Nack; though I really doubt that.
** Cracophony [crah-coh-f-on-ee] noun: the disharmonious noise of a large group of anuses simultaneously puckering.
someone please tell me how they acomplished this!
Look, people:
Unless these two are office buildings and that's a fisheye lens we're staring through, the taper-off on those legs shouldn't be so bleeding dramatic. Do you get it now? Or do I have to lock away all your manga and anime until your optical cortex detoxes and you can see how horribly malformed these models would have to be, "Eye-Are-Ell," to look like this on film. Two of a billion stars, indeed, Mr. Le Bon...!
no no no, you guys have it all wrong, peg legs are all the rave! get with it. love the site!
"To everyone who keeps coming here to post how these are not disasters. Please don't take jobs in a field that requires photo editing."
No, please do! That gives the blog lolz for years.
Great site; keep it up!
If only one person thinks this looks wrong the photographer did an awful bad job. It might not be a photoshop disaster but the photographer and the artdirector should be hunted down the road for this.
Haha
Hey people:
if you look at the slideshow, you'll see different pictures of these two girls, all with the same issue. Is it really a photoshop/mirror disaster, or do this girls really have some things on their legs?
Here:
Photo 1
Photo 2
OMG!
The whole Body is a ruin and then 3 legs or what???
They scare, they really do!
Hey timeless,
Thnx for reading. I guess most people aren't willing to pay attention. I'd imagine it would be hard to ignore a flying futon...
And cacophony is an awesome word, I don't have enough opportunity to use it. My dad used to say it whenever he could, though he did relish situations in which it was necessary to use.
To leatherargento: you have not seen enough wide angle pictures. In my dorm/apartment I have one of those little peep-holes to see who's outside the door. I can see right across to the door on the other side of the hall. It's about a yard and a half or two yards from door to door, but when I look through that lens, the door seems about 20 yards away. Give it a try sometime, you'd be surprised what kind of weird and cool warped pictures you can see with no photoshopping.
To Ms. Miss - don't ask questions that have already been answered, read the posts. You'll see a nice little picture by me outlining where the angles are, and what is reflecting.
To everyone saying it is photoshop: notice how I showed how it's a mirror? If you're so set on it being photoshop, show me evidence that it is such: like a tell-tale brush stroke, an angle that doesn't match up (like a cut and paste, rotate, or re-scaling). PROOVE IT TO ME. If you can show me convincing evidence, I'll believe it, but right now, nobody has shown how this was defiantly digital editing, and not just mirrors.
image 2: 1. How did the reflection of the skirt end up BEHIND the girl with the pants? 2. Why is the photographer not in the reflection? He is either very slim or it's shopped.
It looks weird at first sight, but after looking at the (higher-res) picture for an hour or so now, I cannot perceive it differently as a mirror anymore. It's obviously shot from above / front with a wide angle, and that's also the reason why the legs on the mirror, that are a bit farther away than the others, look so short.
"PROOVE IT TO ME."
Hehe. Are you seriously bent out of shape over...this? Either way the picture is f***ed.
Besides, it's so obviously shopped, and so badly, that there's nothing more to say. LMAO
It is so bizarre how that positioning makes the brunette's leg look like it's made out of a broken stick. After a couple minutes of staring I could see how the mirror made the illusion, but it was tough, and it still looks like a broken stick if I'm not trying to see it the other way.
I still can't figure out what's going on with the blond's knee-area, though.
Well, if you click on "Mode" at Givenchy's website, you'll see another flash with 2 more photos with a piece of this girl's leg. So, I really think this is a case of bad photoshop treatment!
anonymous who pointed out "picture 2" It is behind her because there was the reflection in the back mirror, which then reflected in the floor. That's the way mirrors work. Basically, the way to photoshop it to look like this would be more difficult to do than to make this with mirrors.
anniemcphee... You fail to convince. If you can point out a single photoshop error (other than something like "her cheek is a little too white" from photoshop "makeup") I'd be happy with you. But I have been successfully able to explain everything with mirrors, and not a single photoshop person is making any sort of argument. This isn't an obsession over the picture, this is an obsession over intellectual honesty and willingness for someone who posted something without thinking first to either eat a little crow drumstick or correct his mistake.
That really went right over your head didn't it? Sigh.
matoro1989: spot on. Really, the work the photographer did with mirrors in these shots is awesome.
Also, in reply to Anonymous's concern about the photographer not being visible in the back mirror: this could be easily achieved with a perspective control (also known as "perspective correction" or "tilt and shift") lens. Take a look at the Wikipedia article for more information about such lenses. It specifically addresses using them to photograph mirrors.
I'm actually glad this photo was posted. Analyzing at it, and the other photos in that gallery, has been a fun exercise in photography technique.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_correction_lens
bad post. this site is losing it.
anonymous: thanks for the suggestion! i shall certainly try, you never know ;) ps. this is irony
" lara said...
anonymous: thanks for the suggestion! i shall certainly try, you never know ;) ps. this is irony"
No it's not. It's sarcasm.
Timeless, if you're going to attempt to prove you're higher intellect than those who think that this is a Ps disaster then at least attempt to spell cacophony correctly.
I agree that this is not a disaster but I am sick of people trying to use this blog as a means of showing their 'know-how' in the Ps/Art Direction/Photography mediums.
Judging purely on your post (which you may argue is wrong but I have nothing else to go by) you can hardly talk of "ego-stroking".
**your
lol - lizzie, if your going to correct someone's spelling, don't misspell something.
AnnieMcPhee - I understood exactly what you meant. You think I'm overreacting. I'm perfectly calm about this, I just want people to open their eyes and not take everything at face value, becoming a mindless mass of ad revenue for the creator of this site. When I saw the piture (the crappy grainy one posted) - I thought, "hmm that's weird, I wonder what it is" - not "ZOMG - THAT'S NOT PHOTOSHOP, THIS PLACE IS GOING TO CRAP!"
So I looked at the linked site, and thought, "hmm, that's a pretty obvious mistake, not just crappy work like the sunscreen/volleyball ad". So I found the higher resolution, better colored image, and zoomed in on it. First thing I saw: bottom side of toes. The I saw how the leg reflected behind as well. Well, it would take a long time to do that on photoshop, compared to just having those be reflections in mirrors. (and I confirmed my theory by examining the other pictures, which are obviously done with mirrors as well)
THe point is, if they were actually photoshop errors, you'd be able to see where they where one part matches with another (copy/paste). But they don't match up; like maybe it's a reflection of something, so you see it from a different angle. In order to make this kind of "mistake", there would have to be multiple shots from different angles composed together, and cleaned up (notice all the edges of objects are clean, not some jagged leftover from cutting and pasting - meaning that the "photoshop goof" was intentional, and deliberate, not an accident).
If you actually take half a minute to examine the pictures, you can see that it's a mirror, not a goof-up; and if you look at the logic, you can see accomplishing this picture is easy with without photoshop.
What is going over my head is how you are blinding yourself to logic, and considering yourself superior because you refuse to see the flaws in your logic and fail to consider the logic of the other side of the argument.
I'm looking for an interesting, intellectual, art related discussion. It's kind of a one sided discussion right now though, because I'm the only one making assertions and backing them up with facts.
lizzi said...
"Timeless, if you're going to attempt to prove you're higher intellect than those who think that this is a Ps disaster then at least attempt to spell cacophony correctly."
I wasn't intending on writing cacophony so I didn't misspell it. Next time try following the post all the way to the bottom**.
**Or have someone more literate help you out.
How does this get past everyone before it goes to print??
http://death-sentences.blogspot.com/
death (a.k.a the "grim reaper") said...
"How does this get past everyone before it goes to print??"
Because there's nothing really wrong with it and if you saw it in print, you'd most likely agree.
Matoro, I would like to just make another ironic comment (and yes, I was using irony, not sarcasm) but I'm going to make one single serious post for you and then that's it. OF COURSE it's a mirror. I'm neither blind nor stupid. I doubt there's anyone here who REALLY doubts that. But, and stay with me here, it is actually fun when on the internet, to toy with people who take things like this so very seriously and want to have long, drawn-out debates about them, when really? We're here for laughs. When someone ends up taking it so very seriously that ends up *itself* being a source of laughs. So you poke that poster a bit, or those posters, and then laugh that they're still so very determined to be very serious about this. NOT that you were "Zomg the place is going to crap" (though that in itself is funny, if tiring) but honestly, it's like having a laugh with your friends but one of them has no funnybone and insists on telling you in great detail why it's not funny and ruins everyone's buzz all the time. So they end up exaggerating and making even less funny jokes just to see him keep explaining and explaining, meanwhile they're laughing all the harder and he is now the source of humor. You see? That's what's going on. It's not that deep. And after this, I'm not going to go beyond the surface, because this is a humor site, which should be apparent by the commentary the author himself puts below the pictures and as the titles. It's for fun. It's not going to ruin your life, even if you're a photoshopper or photographer or whatever. Honestly, it isn't. Yours nor anyone else's. It's a little blog on BLOGSPOT for chrissake, not exactly known on the internet as being the height of goodness - all the geeks I know HATE blogspot - it's like the AOL of blogs. (Please don't tell me you're on AOL.)
No one is getting rich and famous here, and no one is being ruined, and we can all have a few laughs and make fun of shitty pictures. Like the one in this post. Even if that is subjective.
To recap: lighten up. Or people will laugh at you too ;)
I forgot to mention that I actually DO like to know the technical side - I'm actually glad someone pointed out that it was mirrors, as I couldn't see it at first. Had that been as far as it went and moved on to lolz, it would have been great. (My husband saw instantly, even from the grainy photo in the OP, that it was a mirror.) Anyway, that IS one reason I've been reading the comments. But have some perspective eh?
Timeless: that's odd because your definition of cracophony seems to be very similar to the one of cacophony.
"if *your* going to correct someone's spelling"
Um.
"No wait, I did that deliberately. It was sarcastic irony!" LMAO
lizzi said...
"Timeless: that's odd because your definition of cracophony seems to be very similar to the one of cacophony."
But it isn't is it? Cacophony is a generalisation for any type of loud noise, although most often used in musical terms; whereas adding the r, thus making the first syllable crack, denoting..you know, I really can't be bothered, if you can't see it to begin with, you probably won't.
You carry on picking holes in other people's work, great hobby. A Nobel prize in probably winging its way to you now.
Annie: I suspect the only person LTAO at that comment is you. So sad.
"We're here for laughs. When someone ends up taking it so very seriously that ends up *itself* being a source of laughs"
And there lies the major flaw. You talk about people defending the images taking them too seriously, how about those in the opposite corner?
As an example, take that Cheat book that was recently posted. The Amazon listing now has negative reviews based solely on the cover, one even admits that they don't actually own it and found it on this blog. That's where it stops being funny.
Timeless: I may be picking holes but that's because I can't stand hypocrisy, and cacophony is not 'any loud noise', it's discordant noise, or if you prefer, disharmonious noise as you first defined cracophony.
And you can barely talk about my 'hobby' of picking holes, you appear to take great pleasure in attempting to take the intellectual high ground, first commenting on my apparent lack of literacy and then not bothering to finish an explanation because I'll never 'see it'.
To use your little witticism, the Nobel Prize for arrogance will be with you shortly :].
Anonymous: You get sad on humor blogs? LOL
"As an example, take that Cheat book that was recently posted. The Amazon listing now has negative reviews based solely on the cover, one even admits that they don't actually own it and found it on this blog. That's where it stops being funny."
That's what YOU think. It's getting funnier as it goes, actually.
Amazon reviews? You know - I get such genuine laughs here that it's almost a sin. Some of it is the witty text and some of it is the unintentional humor of anon. I think if you went to 4chan you'd be huddled in a corner weeping uncontrollably. :D
Anonymice, you all might want to consider turning off the computer for a little while. I know it's hard but it helps. Amazon hehe.
I went to the site. I looked at it.
This is the stuff of nightmares alright.
grrrrrrrrrrr someone got paid for this?!?!?!?! grrrrrrrrrrrr
(some of them comments here are hilarious, and lighten my angst, however)
anniemcphee said...
"Anonymice, you all might want to consider turning off the computer for a little while. I know it's hard but it helps. Amazon hehe."
I think I might and please don't LYAO again, spare a thought for recent events in China..
Didn't think fat jokes would be far behind ;) Make sure they're funny. though.
Glad you found the advice to power down helpful :)
anniemcphee said...
"Didn't think fat jokes would be far behind ;) Make sure they're funny. though."
Sorry, and yes, that was extremely cheap. I did have a conscience attack afterward.
Consider your battle won.
That poor, poor girl...
OK, if this is all mirrors, it should be able to "rebuild" her leg the right way, or at least find out where the fuck all the meat went to, right? Can someone get a normal leg out of that abomination somehow?
very nice
Yeah it looks really freaky, but on closer inspection there is actually nothing wrong with the picture.
It was just someone at the Givenchy art department not giving a shit about bad direction.
Just bad, but not an editing mishap.
Mirrors or not, whatever the reason it is, this image was not very well thought out. Period.
The picture looks fine in the actual print of the advert. It looks fine to me.
It's definitely a mirror trick that was executed wrong.
she has legs like the Pale Man in Pan's Labyrinth.
Post a Comment