Mmmmmm mmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm hmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. No.
Thanks to Victoria! Original is here!
Photoshopaholics
Subscribe
Posts
Comments
Monday, May 11, 2009
W: As In WTF
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
126 comments:
Damn. For a while I thought it was her horrifying face, but then I saw her banshee claws.
Also,
FURST!!!
Ohhhhhhh Nooooooooo
It is the attack of the long-fingered-impossibly-large-ass-woman.
Disgusting.
Quick! Call the Exorcist!
That looks pretty normal to me, nothing that's too unbelieva gaaaah!
Maybe this one should be a "when you see it, you will shit bricks" crossover.
ummm, wow! That is creepy!
Why would you want to wear horsehair???
She looks like an angry cat/seal/toy doll hybrid. And I mean that in a nice way.
Don't care whether it's a PSD or not, it's blinking HIDEOUS!
...She must be very popular with the ladies.
...Or just a mutant.
She is damn ugly, but then maybe she was the only model they could find with MASSIVE FINGERS!!
Notice how it actually looks like she's sitting on the rock, facing the other direction. Was it not for the claws, twisted neck and feet pointing the wrong way.
FYI, I may be wrong but my guess as to how this happened is it looks a bit like a bad liquify job in the bottom left corner, perhaps there was something they wanted to crudely push out of the shot and they hadn't discovered the clone tool yet.
Forget the fingers, these people are on a retainer from Gaultier's competitors.
haha, her face looks like something out of THE HILLS HAVE EYES. You know, those scary mutants that kill and eat humans.
I'm sure to have nightmares.
and the broken spine? cringe.
there should be a montage from the same set
http://www.wmagazine.com/fashion/2009/05/sixties_beach?slide=7
At least her yoga classes are paying off.
Maybe she was born like that.
Don't judge.
It could be a sensitive topic for her.
It could also be a really horrendous looking model and a really horrendous photoshop.
for me the scary fingers look as the distortion effect of a wide angle lens.
Wow! That entire photo shoot is just awful! Awful I tell you. It all looks so fake, even if it isn't. Wide angle lenses may look good on landscapes but when they distort the body like that it just looks wrong.
I don't see it. This is just a normal picture of a walrus.
That poor girl looks hideous... and very angry. And her long, spindly fingers frighten me.
Nothing says sexy like that "Come closer so I can eat your face" stare.
when I opened the full sized image all I heard was.....
"I WILL SWALLOW YOUR SOUL!!!"
THEN I HAD TO THREATEN TO CUT OFF MY HAND TO MAKE SURE NOTHING THIS BAD EVER CAME FROM MY FINGERS..
UGH.
Is it just me, or do the finger shadows not match the fingers on this shot:
http://www.wmagazine.com/fashion/2009/05/sixties_beach?slide=5
Clearly this is a take on the classic work of art, Persistence of Memory.
Oh HALE NO!
That makeup reminds me this: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/127293441_2dfa51f44f.jpg?v=0
Yikes.
Hey, I saw that episode of Twilight Zone. She was in that one with the masks that became the people's faces, right? Or was she that nurse in that other one?
In this image http://www.wmagazine.com/fashion/2009/05/sixties_beach?slide=8 she transmorgifies her hands into microfists of rage. Also, it apparently took three peole to photograph and then apply some sort of "design" to the layout.
And at this one
http://www.wmagazine.com/fashion/2009/05/sixties_beach?slide=7
the simple explanation for her hands becomes apparent; they're in fact replacable parts, just velcroed on to the end of whatever sleeves she's wearing.
As to the original picture, maybe it's just a lack of imagination on my part, but I don't see how her legs could be in that position and her feet could be visible in that way without one leg being several inches shorter than the other, or her ankles being fabricated entirely out of a space age liquid.
I didn't notice the hands until reading the comments - I was still trying to figure out where her legs and her torso meet. I mean, some of that is the dress, but not all of it, surely?
I can do that.
I think her legs continue horizontally into the dress, with the dress hanging down below. You can see a faint silhouette if you look carefully.
Rosemary's Baby... D:
...20 Years later!
AAAH! Holy crap!
Um, I'm gonna have nightmares.
Whoa, Harly is right. The original model was sitting with her back to the camera. A body does bend *that* way. And if you look, you can see the butt-shape where the dress meets the ground.
You can see the elbow where it ought to be for a back-to-the-camera shot, too. It's definitely not aligned with the hands where they are.
Was the original model crossing her legs, maybe, to create that bulge in the dress?
In slide 8, her head is huge compared to her body and her hands have transformed into tiny tiny balls. The only explanation is that she is a shapeshifting alien. Yep.
She's absolutely hideous but the distortion is just an artifact of using a ultra-wide angle lens.
Somehow I don't remember Brigitte Bardot having a badly-repaired harelip.
She tried out for a roll in Star Trek, but they had already met their creep alien quota.
These monsterclaws by way of wide lenses are apparently the photographers' trademark. http://www.wmagazine.com/fashion/2009/04/stardust?slide=8
The model gives "upward facing dog" a new meaning.
I'm afraid she is going to eat me. After she dismembers me with her claw-like distended fingers.
Is she supposed to be selling a dress or scaring children?
I just don't care about the PsD's! I feel like punching right on her face!
Isn't it from new movie X-Men Origins: Deathstrike?
Thanks to that photo, I may not be able to sleep for days.
Haha, funny though.
If the long fingers are an artifact of a wide angle lens, then why isn't the little white speck in the crack in the rock, right between her hands, elongated along the same axis?
Hell, I don't remember Brigitte Bardot being so butt fu&*ing ugly!
Wow, that whole set is... unfortunate. Who whought that makup job was a good idea?
Also; http://www.wmagazine.com/fashion/2009/05/sixties_beach?slide=9 showing her having to hoist the garment up is never a good selling point. What were they thinking?
Anyone else reminded of the alien looking thing in the video for Aphex Twin's 'Come to Daddy'?
Her face is a genetic disaster and the Slender Fingers of Despair a photoshop disaster but I think you're getting a bit over-excited if you think her pose is photoshopped.
creepy !!
http://code-heaven.blogspot.com/
in case anyone forgot what beautiful Brigitte Bardot actually looked like:
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/923/03918543brigittebardotnc6.jpg
this person has a lot of hair, black eye makeup, bushy blond eyebrows... (and claws)
I think that, were it not for the fingers, this is actually a very good photoshop job at achieving something hideous but exactly what the commissioner wanted. The joins between the three different images that form the 'woman' (legs and backside, torso including second backside, head) are not that easy to spot. Credit where it's due for that.
That said, yikes!
My girlfriend can do this.
My girlfriend, the gargoyle.
C'mon, folks, it's not that had for people who can do this http://www.pajuaba.com.br/news/ (the 12th picture from above) - but she's ugly, anyway (and the picture too!!).
Holy hell, fetch the seal club!
I remember when I was a little girl and I wanted so much to be a model, so I'd wear beautiful clothes and people would think I was more beautiful than "common women"....
W.V: cologre
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OH MY GOD!!!
I CAME HERE TO POST A NEW DISASTER AND FOUND THIS S...........T!! HOLLY MF.......!!!
IM SCARED OUT OF MY PANTS!!! :S
Im really scared!!
Maybe she's born with it, maybe its Maybelline?
I hate to say it but the large butt, impossible waist and position are not photoshop disasters. The skirt is rigid, like a hoopskirt. Looks weird, yes, but naturally so. On the other hand...are ghastly long fingers.
.... what in the hell?!
word verification: jewsital
Guys, be nice. You don't want to piss off her boyfriend, Jake the Alligator boy:
http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//post-2057-1138675214.jpg
Some people really don't know how to use a wide angle lens. I've learned after taking a photo of my ex-GF where she ended with gigantic rabbit feet.
No excuses for the makeup artist though.
Seriously, someone should be taken out and shot for this. Let's start with the model.
That model is Lara Stone, and you people should learn to hold your tongues.
http://images.google.com/images?q=lara stone
Thanks for that, Gabbi. Confirmation, if any were needed, that she probably lives under a bridge and eats passing goats for breakfast.
I didn't realise it was her fingers at first... I thought she had no eyebrows and her legs look twisted!
Have you seen the CD art for Flo Rida's 'Right Round' something does not look right with the fingers. You can find more pics on the web but here is a product link.
http://www.amazon.com/Right-Round-Flo-Rida/dp/B001UEFGQ8/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1242141522&sr=8-4
This is so spectacularly awful that I gotta believe it was done intentionally. I just can't figure out WHY.
Guys, I'm really impressed! The model is *clearly* a transvestite, and no-one has called her a "him" yet. That's very open-minded and progressive of you all.
@heidi: she doesn't have eyebrows, you were right about that! that with her low forehead and the black mascara that's used in "i mistook coal for cucumber"-fashion doesn't help.
but her finger are just too long to be healthy. she could make shashlik on those. whether its PSD or wide lense or whatever.
At risk of repeating myself.
IT'S NOT A WIDE ANGLE LENS!!!
"If the long fingers are an artifact of a wide angle lens, then why isn't the little white speck in the crack in the rock, right between her hands, elongated along the same axis?"
oh my god.
at first i couldn't see it but AAAARGH.
There are three disasters here, mainly the way too long fingers, then the ugliness of that model, and then that this was done by inez van lamsweerde and vinoodh matadin who are, actually, good photographers.
The 'ass' is a petticoat/boned undergarment. Turkeys.
My goodness.
She looks like she's doing a bad impression of a seal.
Maybe that was the point? She is on the beach.
This is what the model really looks like:
http://images.fashionmodeldirectory.com/model/000000050737-lara_stone-fullsize.jpg
Blame the makeup artist and photographer.
Send it back to its home planet, stat!
Wide angle lens, no PSD.
Looks like the people from that Twilight Zone episode "Eye of the Beholder"
Finger-strecher lens. Not PsD.
What. Is. With. Her. Lip.
Maybe she's born with it,
maybe she's that mutated bawling horsebaby from Eraserhead. NOT A PSD OMG.
Make me unsee it!
I thoroughly expect to have terrifying nightmares about this on a regular basis.
Even when "glamorous" she's scary
http://www.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/01/fashion/lara.190.jpg
check out the first picture:
http://www.wmagazine.com/fashion/2009/05/sixties_beach?slide=1
I'm sorry, but that waist is anatomically impossible. Barbie much?
@mshanai Trademark born out of an accident is my guess. Also, LMAO at "upward facing dog".
you guys are retarted... this is NOT a photoshop disaster, its called using a WIDE ANGLE LENS... RESEARCH
Linnea--I bet she's wearing a corset. Her waist is really cinched in on a bunch of these.
Although, can I just say WHOA--slides 7 and 8 from the spread are freaking bizarre. A cookie for whoever can explain the floppy arm weirdness in slide 7 and a drink for whoever can justify the sickle-shaped thigh in slide 8.
This creep-fest is making me think about drinking. At 7:46 am. >.<
Victor, you need to pass on the research and study the photo more.
(see my two previous posts concerning "
Wide angle lenses", and why this, ain't the cause of her fingers)
Holly shit! This may be not a PSD, but it's quite awful anyway...
So with all the photoshopping, why do the hose have huge runs in them in slide #1? They couldn't fix them?
Way to start off your spread with a bang, folks! I'm sure the hose company is happy to have their product shown this way.
wv that should be a word: whifters
insanely horryfying
Is it Halloween already? She's creepy...
She was originally not a gorgeous model, but at least she's decent looking enough.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zGE1U60bgIk/SaOyZJuXFiI/AAAAAAAAAN4/3vxF0r_4PGM/s400/000000126705-lara_stone-fit.jpg
The makeup-artist should be run over for creating those eyes. NO ONE would look good in those eyes. & Lara's lips look especially upturned in this. -__-
wv: strosti
crash test dummies video?
'Gaultier to supply wardrobe for latest Bride of Chucky movie.'
That's fucking hideous.
@Gabbie
Yes she the model Lara Stone, and she does have pictures where she looks beautiful (even with her natural gap between her teeth).
But by the photoshop gods - her picture was raped at this shoot.
So we're not critisising the model but the photoshopping that was do to it - try to grasp the essence of the topic of this site next time you pop round.
This could quite honestly be the worst photo that's not actually a photoshop disaster. You almost need a different category for this kind of photo.
That face is crawling out of my monitor. Seriously, I'm going to have nightmares about that thing.
This one is just too horrifying for words-- she looks like something that could be used to promote dire warnings about the potential catastrophic effects of pollution, climate change, and nuclear fallout...
I'll concede that she's corseted for this photo shoot... However, as an avid yoga enthusiast and former Goth kid, I will swear up and down that you can't bend that way in a corset. *You* might be that flexible, but that doesn't matter when your clothing *isn't*. And, if she isn't cinched-up for this particular shot, it's a terribly awkward pose that doesn't allow her freakishly thin fashion-model figure to demonstrate Gaultier's frighteningly hideous frock to any advantage what-so-freaking-ever. Bad photo composition, shockingly revolting make-up job (seriously, it just seems to emphasize the model's worst features)... I'm going to go ahead and say, again, that if this isn't photoshopped, it's still a PSD-by-omission. Maybe some shopping could've at least tried to save this trainwreck.
She looks like one of those people in an episode of The Twilight Zone:
http://www.echonyc.com/~ngraham/uploads/beholder.jpg
this is so hideous i had to comment... this is my first comment in PSD ever! lol
She looks like those people in an episode of The Twilight Zone:
http://www.echonyc.com/~ngraham/uploads/beholder.jpg
don't you guys remeber that there where no photoshop in the 70's ?!
it's like hey why do prehistoric men don't do hunt coordination throught talkie walkie !!
ok the makeup is messed up. i agry with that
ok the back is in a strange creepy position but no need to use photoshop. what makes you think that it's backward is the shoulder detail that make think it's a booby
ok the finger thing is ewwwy but it's only due to the use of a very wide angle lens (gives that kind of blurry image extention thing) and if there is no such things in the other corners, it's just because the picture was croped (yes, you can crop without photoshop)
Hahahahahahahahahaha!
Oh lord it's been ten minutes and I'm still laughing my ass off.
I wouldn't even let my dog hump that. (btw, if he'd hump her, she'd probably kill him with her freakydeaky fingers)
She reminds me of a walrus with anorexia. Like, to a frightening degree.
I don't think she's ugly. She has an interesting face.
But that one finger on her right hand is fugly.
I don't think she's ugly. She has an interesting face.
That one finger on her right hand is fugly though.
Nasty.
THOSE are scary and possible for nightmares?
http://thebosh.com/upload/2008/02/27/lara_stone_vogue_paris_march_2008/Lara-Stone-Vogue-Paris.jpg
Good Lord.
No photoshop disaster here. I am almost sure the hands look distorted because the wide angle lens used to take the photo. The right side isn't distorted because the image was cropped. Aside from this, the position isn't impossible.
As for the hideousness of the clothes, make-up, etc., this is the trend in fashion photography: the more alien-looking and shocking, the better. But that's about aesthetics, not about digital retouching techniques, so this photo has no place on this blog.
Nosferatu´s bride!
She looks like a man in this one http://www.wmagazine.com/fashion/2009/05/sixties_beach?slide=9
this is exactly how i look when i goto the beach...
She looks as if she is at a 90 degree angle.
And her fingers are daaaaamn long!
Omg look at her fingers!
the same girl, another disaster:
http://www.wmagazine.com/fashion/2009/05/sixties_beach?slide=8
this is what happens when a drunken sailor has his way with a sea lion.
And they even compare her to Brigitte Bardot... but, what part of Brigitte? The warm smile, the Marilyn Manson-like eyes, the frog hands or the contortionist capabilities? Oh dear, I think I'm gonna have nightmares tonight...
PICTURE OF THE YEAR, ALL YEARS!!!
Ooooooooohhhhhhh, whaaaaaaaa!!!
There are so many things to look at... her fairy-like hands, her lovely smile, the contorcionist skills of the lady... but it's a bit difficult to me to say which of these things is going to cause me more nightmares.
ahahahahahhahahaha
hahahahahahahahaha!
Post a Comment