Great Og! What the hell was that? I think I’m about to have a seizuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
The "before"picture is a good photo of a very attractive young woman; the “after” picture looks like a bad painting of her with a fancy wig attached. I don’t know why anyone (including the subject) would prefer the re-touched version.
See, now that’s just not right. Those lazy parents should be keeping those kids on a strict gym and skin care regimen to even out those lumpy “baby fat” (yeah right, more like milk binging!) and unsightly uneven skin tones (hello? facial peel). And really, it’s not like those kids are going to be getting pregnant so I don’t see how a little propecia would hurt.
Then we wouldn’t need those silly photoshoppers.
With me, my mind went to Batman instead (after picking my jaw off the floor, of course):
“Hurry, Robin, we’ve got to find out who’s responsible for this… Gotham won’t be safe until this fiend is safely locked up in Arkham. Robin? Oh no, old chum… don’t tell me they’ve gotten you, too!”
It looks to me like someone just discovered the “Healing Brush” in Photoshop…
That’s not the “healing brush”. That’s the “slather on makeup” brush.
Hot to not, indeed.
Ahh… That must be in the Mary Kay signature edition of Photoshop.
Yeah, just think: somebody got a pink Cadillac out of that crappy work.
Now that’s a scary thought. Especially if you combine it with 3-D modeling software like “Poser”.
Geez…dude, stick to your talents – you’re passably good with retouching wedding photos, so stay in your niche.
Exactly. The “after” is just awful. They didn’t just retouch her, they made her look like a bad paint-by-number.
And the re-toucher uses the same doll-eyes for every single person, kid & adult.
Her wedding retouches aren’t bad, but still fake looking. At least she let the brides keep their own eyes.
What the heck is up with the first bride’s dress? She looks like one of those dolls with the crocheted dresses that your grandma used to put over the spare roll of toilet paper.
You may find this amusing: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/legal-threats/crazy-doll-lady.php
If you’re going to replace all the original features in the face, it might be a good idea to learn where they’re supposed to go.
Oh, and can you at least use the gradient tool instead of the paintbucket?
Okay, this one is really, really disturbing. While the link was entitled “Ultra Glamour Photos,” it presents us with these horrifying shots. I won’t mock the ones of the children by saying what I’m thinking, but the adult woman at the bottom? Uh, who’s in line for the next blow job?
And on the wedding photos page – as Dave Barry says, I swear I am not making this up – she includes the following line in her description of what she’s done to the photo:
I rest my case, Your Honor.
OK, those are some of the absoulte worst re-touches I’ve ever seen. The one Redbook did on Faith Hill was far better, and I thought that one was pretty crappy.
Oh, and creepy? Gah! Nightmare-inducing! Stepford Kids, indeed!
The Faith Hill one was creepy because of what it says about objectification of women and unattainable body types (even Faith Hill doesn’t look as “good” as Faith Hill!) But the photoshopping itself, with the exception of the really bizzarely long upper arm and lack of an elbow, isn’t terrible. These kids, OTOH, are just so badly Photoshopped, I can’t even work myself up into a lather about the objectification and sexualization of young children. I can’t get there because I keep bumping up against, “God DAMN, that’s some bad Photoshopping!” And these are, presumably, her BEST pieces? The ones she’s displaying to try and get more business? Damn!
I had some brief hope for humanity and searched and searched to find something saying that her cite is all a hoax on par with the painted cats book. Unfortunately, it appears to be real and legit. :eek:
Was anyone else immediately reminded of when George had to get Kruger replaced in the beach photo after he was airbrushed out?
“Hey, I had to draw that guy from memory!”
These don’t look like re-touches, they look like very bad paintings.
What the fuck?
Those are ridiculous, but that first one, Jesus. It looks flat, and plastic and covered in foundation and lipstick like some psychopath dressed up a mannequin so he could pretend it was his late daughter, who died in a tragic multiple stabbing accident that he’s really sorry for but it’s okay now because she’s back, she’s back, you see? Isn’t she pretty? :: pets wig ::
That third one, too – the retouch looks like pinching her dimples would produce a squeak toy noise.
I think I’m not going to sleep very well tonight.
Yes, my first thought when I saw the pics was of a CSI-type person in a computer lab saying “this is what we think she looked like after the reconstruction.”