Phun with Photoshop

For the most part, I don't understand why people get upset when a magazine cover or advertising image has been through the Photoshop wringer. That's like getting upset with a painting because it's rectangular. These days, just about every image on the newsracks has been "improved" in some way.

What bugs me is when the "improvements" are stupid. Quite a few people are talking about this ad featuring Emma Watson of Harry Potter fame...


Poor Emma looks as though she need no longer buy shoes by the pair. "Kneecapus disappearus!" And why is one pant leg so much shorter than the other?

What really bothers me are the bags under her eyes, which are about as large (and ugly) as the handbag in her hand. What, is she using? Has her boyfriend been abusive? I mean, if you are going to slather on the P-shop, wouldn't it be a good idea to make your model look like she's had some sleep within the past 72 hours?

Here's one that no-one else seems to have noticed. The DVD of the Sandra Bullock vehicle All About Steve has two different covers, one of which is reproduced below:



Uhhh...Sandra? What's with the elbow?


Here's a publicity shot for the new American Idol line-up. A lot of people are wondering whether this one was Photoshopped. Hey, it's not even a question: Look at the face of Ellen Degeneres, and take special note of the direction of the light. Now look at how the shadows fall on all the other faces.


Changing the light direction on a face is one of the most difficult tasks that any Photoshop retoucher will ever encounter -- often, the job is simply impossible. In this case, the artist did not even try.