Harry Potter and the Fluctuating Bosom

Cafe Society
41

Honestly, I’m wondering if the picture on the right isn’t the original and the one on the left is the one that’s been altered. In the right picture (the IMAX one) their skin tones look more natural (uneven, not airbrushed), and the lighting looks more realistic to me. I think the one on the left is the “corrected” one. It’s obvious that their skin tones have been smoothed out and Hermione’s hair has been tamed back so that more of Neville’s face could be seen (painted in to fill what was obscured).

I don’t think her breasts were enhanced for the picture on the right–I think they were purposely de-emphasized for the picture on the left! :eek:

It’s entirely possible that someone looked at the original picture and gave the graphics person instructions to make Hermione look a little less… prounounced. It is a family movie, after all. :cool:

[QUOTE=Fish]
You can change many of those things in Photoshop, yes. The question is why anybody would bother spending Photoshop time to slightly adjust the angle of Neville’s collar. Breasts, waistline, hair, yes — collar? That is such a trivial change that it makes me seek a simpler explanation.
[/QUOTE]

Heck, I’m an amateur and I’ve spent plenty of time tweaking little things like that to make a project look just right. And this is a promotional poster for a movie that will earn hundreds of millions of dollars, so I can definitely see someone obsessing over every single ‘trivial’ detail. Neville’s collar being changed is further support for the photo on the left being the more altered version–it looks ‘better’ (more well defined) in the left picture.

42

I don’t doubt it — but surely they took a dozen photos, and could have substituted a more palatable shot. I highly doubt they were all in the same room when that photo was taken anyway, just composite in a different take.

43

[QUOTE=Tangent]
Honestly, I’m wondering if the picture on the right isn’t the original and the one on the left is the one that’s been altered. In the right picture (the IMAX one) their skin tones look more natural (uneven, not airbrushed), and the lighting looks more realistic to me. I think the one on the left is the “corrected” one. It’s obvious that their skin tones have been smoothed out and Hermione’s hair has been tamed back so that more of Neville’s face could be seen (painted in to fill what was obscured).
[/QUOTE]

You know, I think you might be right. The faces, particularly the eyes, are clearer in the picture on the left.

44

Wow she’s hot! How old is she again? I’d lend her my wand anyday, wink wink nudge nudge say no more.

45

All I know is, given how incredibly badly done the (apparently hand-painted) billboard I saw in Cairo for Goblet of Fire was, I’m glad I probably won’t be seeing their version of this.

46

I agree. I read the linked script and thought it was pretty funny and then watched the video clip and the cast murdered it.

47

[QUOTE=Fish]
I’ve studied those [del]breasts[/del] posters side by side [del]at great length[/del] for a while and I’ve [del]come[/del] arrived at the conclusion:

They’re two different completely different shots of Emma.

Look at her hair. In the left photo, her hair is hanging down; in the right, it’s being blown out by a breeze.

Look at her shoulder. The pattern of light and shadow doesn’t match from one photo to the other.

Look at her face. On the left, her philtrum is in the light, as is the underside of her nose. On the right, not so much.

Look at Neville’s collar. He is clearly standing at a different angle in the right-hand photo.

But taken together, you see something peculiar. In the left image, her body is shaded but her face is well-lit. On the right, her face is shaded but her body is better lit. My guess: her right arm was probably at her hip or something, visible in both photos, and it was edited out of the final version of each poster by two different touch-up artists. Whether they changed her waistline in either photo, I couldn’t say, but who knows? Maybe they didn’t have to.
[/QUOTE]

Of course they are two completely different photos…it’s obvious.

Dozens of nearly identical photos would have been taken, with many different but nearly identical posters also made.

I was surprised in looking through this thread how long it took for someone to mention that they are two different photos.

It’s not digital photo editing (though certainly all the photos are digitally fine-tuned); they are two completely different photos taken at very nearly the same time…whether one was chosen b/c it made her breasts more prominent might be a source of speculation, of course.

48

[QUOTE=Autolycus]
Wow she’s hot! How old is she again? I’d lend her my wand anyday, wink wink nudge nudge say no more.
[/QUOTE]

  1. I’m sure there will be a countdown of sorts next year leading up to her birthday by certain umm less refined members of society (as there was for the Olsen Twins).

Well I’m off the mark my calendar…

49

Sure I’m no expert, but it looks obvious to me that those are the same picture that’s been altered slightly. Everyone is in the same pose and has the same facial expression in each. The Imax one looks to be the orginal or at least an earlier version of the photoshopped pics.

They brought Neville forward a little and when they did that they had to “repair” that side of Hermoine, making it look like they downsized her bosom. You can tell the line on that side is too smooth and unnatural looking. They also enhanced the color of her sweater and her facial coloring. They enhanced and softened everyone else’s facial coloring as well. Ron looks a bit too washed out in the Imax one and Ginny, Neville and Luna are a bit too red but everyone is more flesh-toned in the other poster. The background is also much fuzzier in the Imax one. It looks like they paid the most attention to Hermoine, she also stands out more because she’s not wearing dark clothes like everyone else.

50

[QUOTE=Wile E]
Sure I’m no expert, but it looks obvious to me that those are the same picture that’s been altered slightly. Everyone is in the same pose and has the same facial expression in each. The Imax one looks to be the orginal or at least an earlier version of the photoshopped pics
[/QUOTE]

Except here is how those things work:

“Everybody freeze in position… ok… ready…”
camera snaps 20 photos in 15 seconds, nearly identical

the photos are clearly taken at the same time with the same camera, and some parts of the image may be from the same actual photo, but some of the image I think is from at least one other photo taken in immediate succession.

51

[QUOTE=OpalCat]
Except here is how those things work:

“Everybody freeze in position… ok… ready…”
camera snaps 20 photos in 15 seconds, nearly identical

the photos are clearly taken at the same time with the same camera, and some parts of the image may be from the same actual photo, but some of the image I think is from at least one other photo taken in immediate succession.
[/QUOTE]

If Neville’s position changed (and it did) then he actually managed to move his body without changing his body position or changing his facial expression. Damn, he’s good.

52

As I said in my previous post, it’s most likely that they took several shots, then took the best parts of each to make a composite. “So and so looks great in photo 4, but this other guy looks weird, so we’ll take them from photo 7…” etc. Then they could have modified the composite for the two posters, keeping most of one but substituting in bits from other photos.

53

Why? Age of consent is sixteen in England :smiley:

54

[QUOTE=Lute Skywatcher]
Ugh. Good writing, bad execution. Is that SNL or a high school play?
[/QUOTE]

You’d think that with a future-Oscar-winning guest star like Lindsay Lohan, they’d be able to do better. :wink:

55

[QUOTE=MarcusF]
Why? Age of consent is sixteen in England :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

Really? Interesting.

By the way I’ll be busy in the next few minutes buying some plane tickets.

Okay seriously she’s cute & intelligent and seems to be rather independent. What’s not to like?

56

I am familiar with both photography practices (multiple shots) and digital retouching. That said, and assuming expert photographers and editors were used, I don’t think there is any sure way to tell if & how the posters were altered. It could be either. There’s no smoking gun to give either technique away.

It’s only amateur efforts that provide telltale signs.

Personally, I think a combination of techniques was used. The best face, best body, best angle were combined, then tweaked carefully. It’s what I would do. But I can’t prove that theory, either.

57

I agree that it seems likely that they’re composite images and it seems obvious to me that they are also digitally altered.

58

Yes, each person was photographed seperatly. The individual images are all edited and then placed together.
Believe me, there are at least 50 versions of this laying around the WB offices, with the kids in different places and different sizes.

59

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Not much bigger. I say send it back for some more work.
[/QUOTE]

Michael Turner?

60

How is “composite pictures” and “digitally enhanced” any different from “photoshopped” and/or “enhanced”?

Isn’t “photoshopped” used as a generic term nowadays for any kind of image editing, just like Kleenex is used for any tissue?