At the risk of sounding re-all-y stu-pid, I have no idea who Lily is, but it's kind of cute that despite being in a lonely booze hell on account of her secret heartache and bizarre behind, she can still smile for the camera merciless and shameless photo butchering.
Thanks to Jonny!
Photoshopaholics
Subscribe
Posts
Comments
Monday, June 2, 2008
Lily: Like Paris Hilton Without The Gravitas
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
What's the disaster?
I don't know much about Hollywood, so maybe I sound just as stupid :P But isn't she from Beverly Hill 92010?
Damn, wasn't it 90210?
Lily Allen, she's a singer/songwriter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Allen
No, I think she was one of the kids on The Beverly Hillbillies
"What's the disaster?"
Are you serious????
BTW Lilly is a Brit celeb singer, famous daughter of yobbish actor genius Keith Allen.
Gary
Isn't it the same head just with another dress?
yeah i don't see the disaster either. looks like a good photoshop job to me.
I think the disaster is that More has shortened her chin, given her a slight eye lift, evened out her complexion, and changed her into a black dress. It wouldn't be a disaster if Look hadn't used a less-retouched version of the picture on their own cover.
It looks like 'More' has the original pic (black dress), but they really cleaned up her face. You can see on the 'Look' cover (near "Shock New Pics!") that Lily seems ready to blow chunks while wearing a black dress, same hair style.
Not the biggest Photoshop disaster (I wouldn't qualify it as one myself) just an unfortunate coincidental choice of photo.
yeah, but why did she spend 30,000 quid on prostitutes?
I like the replanted head onto another body thing.
It's sexy
I'm kidding you know.
looks like a very different neck on the cover of More. I dunno why but I'm thinking the one on Look's the original? More looks very, very photoshopped, but which women's mag doesn't do that?
Ha ha... it doesn't say "bizarre behind." It says "heartache behind bizarre" but is cut off. :)
But, yes, she is a British singer. Her most famous song is "Smile." She recently had a miscarriage, which is probably what the heartache is all about.
Where's the disaster?
It's a disaster in that both photos become laughable when placed next to one another on a news stand.
MORE is Photoshopped. Her right collarbone vanishes.
shot is the same, different clothes
Good grief people. You guys really need to stop complaining about the semantics of "Disaster".
If they couldn't whine they wouldn't exist. Complaining is their art.
For all you fruitcakes the disaster is that photographs of women have to be butchered before they are allowed to be displayed. It's a SOCIAL disaster. You know, that thing that happens away from your computer screen?
I think that maybe you should change the name of the blog so that people can stop obsessing over the exact definition of "disaster." You could change it to "Hilarious Photoshopping Errors" but then people would probably argue that they didn't on purpose or that it's not really to the point of hilarity. Just a thought.
These magazines sit on the same shelf in the newsagnets- or thereabouts. The disaster is the effect of seeing them together, as even the slack-jawed drooling idiots that buy this crap will be able to see what's been done
sadly enough, al... they don't notice they are the same.
most people could not tell you they were the same image.
and it is a disaster, if one of the art directors or the other bought what they thought were exclusive rights to it.
nah, it's not a disaster
"...slack-jawed drooling idiots that buy this crap..."
I see you've met my girlfriend then.
The one on the right has the real body. The left one is pasted.
LOOK MORE !
For sure...
"These magazines sit on the same shelf in the newsagnets- or thereabouts."
Look closer. The disaster image isn't a composite to contrast the two covers. It's an actual photograph of the two magazines stacked adjacently.
be sure to check out this: http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/
The disaster is that they changed her body, the real one is on More, the one on Look is way too skinny to be hers.
But you can see she also have different eye color, blue or brown, I don't know which one is real.
Meh. You can't label everything that's been photoshopped as "photoshop disaster", can you? It's an industry standard nowadays, you know.
I read this in the blog description: "If it is commercial and awful then please let us know!"
This hatchet job is definitely commercial and certainly awful. Looks like it qualifies; everything else is semantics.
The disaster, at least to me, it not that the Photoshop job itself is THAT bad. It's just that the same photo was doctored and ended up on two different covers right next to each on the newsstand.
Bill In Asheville: "and it is a disaster, if one of the art directors or the other bought what they thought were exclusive rights to it."
True, although I doubt they'd have much legal recourse. The sheer amount of alterations that went into producing the second photo could qualify it for "fair use" as a photo montage. At the very least, it's enough of a gray area that it would not be worth fighting. It's a clever - if unethical - way to rip off someone else's photo.
Mike Brady, you're all sorts of wrong. "Fair Use" doesn't even apply here, the images were certainly licensed so nothing was ripped off, and neither of these magazines licensed exclusive rights for this shot. When weeklies license images (I should know, I sell them), they don't buy exclusive rights unless it's a highly lucrative photo for them to run that would ell many copies (generally wedding and baby photos, or shots of a new couple seen together for the first time). Generally art directors simply keep an ear to the ground to find out if any competitors are running a similar story on the cover, because competition actually hurts both magazines. The only error here is in the running of the same story in two rags, not anything having to do with the image or its licensing.
That being said, when it happens this way, it is funny.
Thank you.
"It's an actual photograph of the two magazines stacked adjacently."
No, on the left is a stack of 'Look', and on the right is a stack of 'OK' with a 'More' placed in front of it to compare covers. Same news-stand, but they're not sold side-by-side.
"bloke confession: Why i spent 30,000 pounds on prostitutes"
mildly ammusing....
Here's a link to the original picture:
http://jezebel.com/5012600/photoshop-of-horrors
Lily Allen is a British singer! Hahaha!
And if it weren't because they photoshoped the rest of her body, I'd say that she has that "Paris Hilton one pose face". But no, her body was photoshoped and she has some talent... unlike Paris (who wouldn't even know how to pose any different than what she always does!)
as the taker of the photo, i just thought i'd mention that the link to me is broken. www.adnauseamblog.blogspot.com is the one.
never mind, works now!
This is funny -- More used to trumpet how fair it was about different body types and ages and skin colors and so forth, but here we are, with Lily Allen getting so severely chopped that she subliminally calls to mind publicity-maniacal Aaron Spelling's damaged little girl, Tori.
oooh i was going to send this in but i couldn't get my mobile phone to co-operate with the computer!
saw it in sainsburies... there they were, side by side...
"This hatchet job is definitely commercial and certainly awful. Looks like it qualifies; everything else is semantics."
Wrong! You forget that awful is in , italics. It may be awful, but it's *definitely* not awful. Hehe.
very nice
Lily Allen is a huge British celeb, not a micro-celeb, as you so kindly put it. And enough Americans know about her, as well.
This is not a disaster. 'More' actually made her look better.
Post a Comment