E! explores the outer limits of which parts of a model can be moved where (and not in a good way.)
Thanks to Melinda!
Photoshopaholics
Subscribe
Posts
Comments
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
E!: Baroquey Dokey
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 comments:
Her boobs seem a bit awkward..
Hmm...apparently her "perfect life" includes a vacuum apparatus in her abdomen sucking in the front of her stomach or something... I'm sure someone will say it is just her strangely protruberant rib cage, but to me, it looks very distorted and weird.
That's not her rib cage strangely protruding, it's the underwire from her bustier. I'm missing the disaster here, besides the unfortunate wardrobe malfunction.
I think it's her leg that's the problem... Her legs are just cut off at the knees.
Made a contextual error there, so...
Her left arm is really jacked up, but it seems like there are a lot of other things off too.
Her left (our right) hip is present twice.
The top half of the photo probably had her posed on her knees, while the bottom was independent.
Also: "Thusdays"?
Yep, they tried to elongate her torso by extending her hips. It's just that now she has two sets of hips O_o
I guess having 2 sets of hips, one on top of the other is perfectly normal and not a disaster at all. There must be plenty of guys on here who have girlfriends with a double pelvis! Add to that the weird arms, strange legs, and the position the model has contorted herself into and it all looks perfectly normal....for someone hit head on by a truck!
some schmuck had a good time distorting her boobs.
She has a foot long armpit - omg!
@englishwolf
My girlfriend can do that.
@englishwolf
No, it's just that the flaws are invisible to us because we aren't PS experts.
That's not two hips, that's indentations and various layers caused by her lingerie. The bustier ends in lace. The garter belt is made of lace. The underwear is black. All of it makes sense.
Her perfect life doesn't include a designer with PS skills or anatomy notions.
Home Schoolling!
Yessess!
I believe the real disaster here is "Thusdays." Seriously? I bet that will go practically unnoticed. Yay huge breasts.
Also, I think the double hip effect might be the result of that rigidly boned corset, kinda digging in there. I'm more surprised that they didn't smooth that out.
I caught the "Thusdays" thing, but was then distracted by the fact her crotch is wider than her neck.
Look at at the spot where her navel would be and then see how far away her crotch is. That's a fair distance and it's obvious her torso was elongated. In doing this, they completely lost her lower legs. She's posed on bent knee and yet the bottom part of her legs seem to have disappeared into the mattress.
But I'm betting whoever 'shopped this figured most people wouldn't notice anything but the face and boobs.
my gf can do that!! :D
She looks part snake.
38-24-36-36. That's hot!
In the old days, when carnivals and fairs had strip shows, a lot of the showgirls were actually female impersonators, and they would make their breasts out of silk stockings full of birdseed.
I don't know why I just thought of that.
Do the original designers ever see their work on PsD and defend it? I'd like to see that.
But seriously... Thusdays?!?! How is this designer still employed?
I don't see two hips. I see waist fat being pushed around a bit by tight underwear. Maybe that's because I see naked and semi-naked women more than most people who read this blog, but since I can do so conveniently by stripping and checking a mirror, that's not a surprise.
And I suppose if you're used to seeing models with all the fat stripped off and put somewhere else, it would look odd to you. But in the real world, muffintops are common and that's all I see in the hip department here.
It's not a hip indentation, it's her scarf (or whatever you wanna call it - echarpe...) that's twisted around her wrist that is going over (with an angle) her hip. And her legs seem like they're dipped in a smooth pool of golden sheets (were they going for the legs dipped in liquid effect?)...
Looking at her boobs makes mine hurt.
Double hip could be fat, but I doubt they'd leave that in considering the way they've hacked her apart to "improve" her.
Just look at the distance from her elbow to her crotch, and compare to your own elbow/crotch. Either she has the tallest set of hips in the history of humans, or something has been "subtly" *cough* modified in this photo.
Her crotch is wacky-- too low, too wide. Her left thigh seems scrawny, too.
It's as though the pose was considered too 'spread eagle' by E! brass, so the underpants were redrawn to disguise the open legged, gynecological shot.
Her left arm (our right) is not the correct length - as that shoulder is forward, that arm should appear longer than the other, but it looks shorter...also, it doesn't seem to have an elbow. And definitely two sets of hips.
WV: domess, as in "Do'mess wit dat chick's body like dat."
My girlfriend can definetly do that...
Damned if that pillow behind her doesn't seem to continue on through her gut region. It's like a little window has opened up.
Tip: never wear clothing that matches pillows.
As has been said previously; her lumpy ribs are caused by bowed underwiring and her "double hips" are simply the overlap of her black robe causing the appearance of an indentation.
The distance from natural waist to gusset does seem extraordinarily long though.
it sure looks like they pasted her on top of herself: once sitting down (and i mean ass on the matress), pelvis tilted backwards, and then they took the upper part of her sitting up (ass in the air), pelvis straight. definitely, her crotch is way too far away from... the rest of her body. she could have a second set of boobs beneath hers and not look stranger. in fact, the stretch between her boobs and her crotch might then be right!
vw: sadmen. yes, you are!
Please, all you PSD spotters, take an anatomy class and spare us posts like this. Thanks in advance.
"Thusdays" however is funny indeed...
Lol, its not toally obvious, but ye, check out her hips, there's at least 2 sets.
Everything else comes under creative license; adjusting proportions doesn't qualify a PSD unless it makes it look retarded ... like her hips. "her arm ... might ... look 'slightly' off" - thats NOT a PSD ... thats a guess :p
The model, Victoria Silvstedt, DOES have a very long torso, and recently a little bit of bellyfat. (By a model's standards.) The corset is squishing her about, causing the bump over the hips (my corsets do the SAME thing) and she looks like her torso is oddly canted because she's sitting up on the foot that's under her, tilting her hips.
Sorry, but while there's obvious photoshop (boobs) her hips aren't the issue.
She looks like she has a webbed chest to arm thing. My Dad had 2 toes like that.
Herr Goldbach: "Thusdays" however is funny indeed...
We'll spare you our anatomical humour when you spare us your condescending judgement of what's funny and what's not. What is it about this blog that attracts Professors of Acceptable Enjoyment?
Content: Damned if her investment funds seem a bit too far to the right. Could be the corset mind you. I could draw a line ...
very bad photo,
no photoshop at hips - it's the clothes fault.
Either of 2 things: They photochopped 2 sets of hips in, OR they fitted the bustier so badly that it gives even bony models a muffin top. Either way that's a big old FAIL!
boobage looks a bit odd as well.
VW: broqu.
They broqu her in pieces to get the desired image.
I don't care how long your torso is - the distance from your navel to your neck shouldn't be the same as the distance from your navel to your crotch.
Since I haven't seen a visual on here in a while, I made one up. Basically it is showing what happens if you double that crotch-bellybutton ratio. It's pretty obvious something has happened to this chick.
http://domestiquette.net/broke.jpg
I find it amusing that no one has noticed the disproportionately small legs (kinda like Toulouse Lautrec).
Haha! Her left boob kinda looks like a pancake...
at first i thought that it was just the clothes too but when i REALLY looked at the panties, I thought..."self...I dont think shadows fall off in perfectly straight lines" so I looked some more and the details of the panties dont quite match up either. THATS when the PSD of perspective hit me. PLUS the HORRID cloning job on the front of the corset AND armpit. On top of the boob job, "Thusdays" is delicious icing on this Ba-Roke disaster.
No, she's definitely stacked--look at her arms in proportion to her hands. Her whole upper half looks like it's a little smaller in proportion to the lower half. The black cloth covering her wrists does a convenient job of covering that difficult-to-shop arm.
Once you've had double pelvis you never go back!
"I don't care how long your torso is - the distance from your navel to your neck shouldn't be the same as the distance from your navel to your crotch."
Without doubt Da Vinci said something very like this in his notebooks.
;)
I find this woman absolutely revolting. There seems to be nothing real or untouched from her hair on down.
She actually looks like that, or her expensive boobs do. What's disgusting is her hip-to-vagina ratio. Looks like the upper part has been attached to someone elses lower part...
I'm sorry for my bad english, I hope I'll be understood. The big wrinkle on the hip is done by the piece that holds the socks up, not the corselet. What we think is the border of the panty on the joint of the leg is the border indeed, but about 10cm from it, on the way to the middle of the thig. It's like a short. If you open the image in PS and apply the maximum Shadow/Highlight twice you'll be able to see what I'm talking about, you can see the real border of the panty. After seeing the result I no longer believe it's a bad PS job, it's just a bad chosen pose/picture.
To the claimers that the hips are ok.
Its not really the slight bellybulge (which im not convinced on) its the position of the hips that also looks wrong. Legs pivot from the hips, they wouldn't be that high. Simple as.
to Joe, you're a luck man if that's true.
to eloahjames, i'm not a psd expert and at first glance I couldn't see a problem, it was only when I spent a few seconds properly looking at the picture did the double pelvis start screaming at me. The legs look awkward but are passable unless you're looking for problems but the 2 sets of hips both bending differently to eachother is horrible. There's no way it's a bit of fat as someone suggested unless whoever made this disaster has done an absolutely appalling job with the liquify tool. I'll give them a little more credit then that, only a little though.
YOU GUYS
IT'S HER TINY LEG
Her pelvis is weird but the PSD is the tiny polio leg.
Gawd.
to englishwolf - i was being snarky (and not at you). i don't actually believe you have to be a psd expert to see (most of) these errors - a just sighted person =)
wv: intenly - how the person who 'shopped this "thusday" pic spells "intently"
While her clothes are squishing her, the proportions are wrong. If you draw her navel on overtop the image where it should be, her body continues on for too long after that. Seems like they stuck two photos together.
The left arm is also messed up. The scarf hides it a little, but if you really look, you'll see the hand is bent and sitting in the wrong place, it doesn't match up to the placement of the arm above the scarf.
Use a paint program (or photoshop) and trace the model. If you look at the lineart you just made, it really doesn't look right at all.
I think a lot of people are not getting what "two hips" means.
A picture, to show it.
You can see her ribs, guys. Like, the entire detailing of the ribcage. I can see the curve underneath it.
...
It is WAY higher than the fake pelvis than it should be. That's the most massive tip-off.
I can hardly fathom that some people don't see the weirdness in this photo.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, but look at her right leg (our left). Draw a mental line from the visible portion of her thigh to where her hip *should* be.
Still don't see it? You're hopeless and should make more hilarious photoshops for us to gawk at.
I'm a photographer and after looking at this a while, it seems genuine and unaltered. I suggest some people dont study the female body enough or are easily duped by light and shadow effects.
@ Lisa
Mmmm, gynecological.
Here's what was done...
Victoria was shot on this bed but a different
headboard and wall were stripped in and some pillows were added. Lots of "smoothing" was done on the skin but Victoria is from one shot, no stripping together body parts. Her breasts (implants) are pushed up a lot by her bra thingy. In the original, she was wearing a small g-string that had to be doodled into shorts as they were thought to be too skimpy for print ads.
There you go... this site is awesome!
Post a Comment