Saturday, November 21, 2009

A Photoshop Is Worth 1,000 Words

Isn't it just assumed that every single magazine cover out there is Photoshopped? I thought that was a given. I thought we all knew at this point that no one looks like the people that are on magazine covers and that includes the people that are on the magazine covers! So why deny it if you're called on it? Tell you what. How about you get someone who can actually Photoshop worth a damn or you get someone who can copy edit worth a damn and then you won't run into debacles like the W Magazine cover with Demi Moore, OK? OK.

Here's the story: Demi Moore does a cover story for W Magazine. The magazine comes out. People take one look at it and say, "No effin' way." Now, it wasn't a "No effin' way" in a jealous sort of manner. It was more of a "No effin' way" in a "Where's the rest of her hip?" sort of fashion. Behold!

Yeah, that's frightening. How old is she? 47?! Wow. Well, listen, Photoshopped or not, that's a pretty darn good looking 47 right there. But whether or not she looks good isn't necessarily the point. The point is that it seems fairly obvious that this photo was touched up and yet W Magazine and Demi Moore are denying that it was. Here are some of the flaws that I'd like to have explained.

First we have this arm over here. Behold!

That seems like a fairly muscular arm and it doesn't seem to be mirrored in it's counterpart, also known as "Her Left Arm". That could just be lighting, though.

But over here, if you look at the picture from W with this shape made with her right arm (that would be on your left) and you compare it to the picture that Demi (also known, seemingly only by herself, as Mrs. Kutcher) posted on her Twitter account (it's called a TwitPic. It's pics for twits. Catchy, eh?) you will notice that it's not the same. It seems to be a little bumpier in the W shot than in the "original" shot. It's not much, but it's there! But bumpy or not isn't so much the point as is really that it adds to the assertion (by everyone except for W and Demi Moore) that it has been, shall we say, touched up a tad?

Honestly though, are we all really supposed to believe that the TwitPic posted by Mrs. Kutcher is just one of the photos right after the popped out of the lens? I don't think that we are!

But here's the kicker: Where's the rest of her leg? Behold!

Yeah, see, you're going to be needing some leg there. See, that's the main reason people are crying Photoshop because do you see that place where there isn't any leg? But there should be leg? That's it! That's where you're going to need your leg. Where's your leg, Demi? Why does it do that?

Perhaps if she wasn't wearing something that merely resembled a conglomeration of one of Michael Jackson's military outfits and Liberace's drapes, she could explain her missing chunk of thigh by saying that she was wrapped tighter than a tourniquet. But judging from the loose fitting-ness of the outfit there, I hardly think that's the case. Someone screwed up. Someone else didn't catch it. The thing went to press. Everyone else pointed and laughed. Isn't that what happened? I'm pretty sure that it is.

Look, again, don't get me wrong, she looks great. A little thin, but great. But she doesn't look that great because no one looks that great. You know what I mean? Of course you do. Am I saying that people shouldn't look like that because it sends the wrong message? Um, not exactly. I'm saying that I'm not a big fan of the Photoshopping of models and acting like they're not Photoshopped nor freaks of nature. If you're going to do it, at least admit it. But really, if you're going to do it, do a better job at it. Sheesh.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

No comments: