Bad Photoshoppery.

June 18, 2002 6:39 AM

Bad Photoshoppery. When graphic artists go bad. VERY bad. Way stinky bad.
posted by rushmc (22 comments total)

Heh! What fun. All that's needed now is a Lens Flare Abuse Hall of Fame.
posted by brownpau at 6:54 AM on June 18, 2002

The message from the "Green Motherf-kkin' Giant" made the link all worth it...
posted by kaibutsu at 7:05 AM on June 18, 2002

Um, graphic artists? Sure about that, are ya?
posted by birddog at 7:09 AM on June 18, 2002

CryptoTroll alert ?
posted by elpapacito at 7:24 AM on June 18, 2002

i don't undertsand ... what is technically unadept about these photoshops? esp. e/arrr and the skunk head?
posted by danOstuporStar at 7:30 AM on June 18, 2002

well, anthony edward's hand on e/arrr looks very superimposed, so does the hat, there also seem to be a theme of trite and/or tasteless subject matter.
posted by elle at 7:36 AM on June 18, 2002

Not sure that "graphic artists" would be the best description.
posted by Spoon at 7:37 AM on June 18, 2002

sigh. 15 minutes of my life wasted going through every page...
posted by sixtwenty3dc at 8:43 AM on June 18, 2002

Oh, come on, this stuff isn't intended to be high art. It's supposed to be entertaining and funny. Indicting the quality of the work sort of distracts from the point.
posted by shagoth at 8:44 AM on June 18, 2002

My favorite....
posted by mkelley at 8:58 AM on June 18, 2002

on another note, this graphic straight off cnn.com is downright ugly
posted by sixtwenty3dc at 9:03 AM on June 18, 2002

I dunno. These don't seem bad enough to be laughably bad, nor good enough to be genuinely funny. He seems to have staked out the thoroughly uninteresting middle ground. (Which didn't stop me from looking at every cat-flabbin' image ...)
posted by Shadowkeeper at 9:18 AM on June 18, 2002

I agree with you Shadowkeeper. I also found it ironic that the creator's web site design sucks. The page isn't really that great looking in and of itself. I don't see where he/she gets off ripping on other people's work.
posted by banished at 9:22 AM on June 18, 2002

banished, s/he's not ripping on anyone else's work. The "WTF" link at the bottom of the front page leads to this:

"What the hell is badphotoshoppery.com?
This site is an image repository for the many stupid images I have made. Most of these images were created in the context of something else, don't get hung up if you don't get the joke."
posted by some chick at 9:27 AM on June 18, 2002

My bad, that explains it all now that I know it is not explainable and everything is an inside joke. Now I guess since I have nothing to argue I can rip on rushmc for a poor link and a misleading description of the link. GRRR!
posted by banished at 9:32 AM on June 18, 2002

Ha! The Green Giant one was indeed hilarious.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:39 AM on June 18, 2002

Banished, yeah, I too was excited by a repository of bad photoshopping until I hit that link. :) Seems to be some sort of somethingawful inside jokery.
posted by some chick at 9:41 AM on June 18, 2002

Now I guess since I have nothing to argue I can rip on rushmc for a poor link and a misleading description of the link.

Fair enough, I jumped the gun, looks like. :(
posted by rushmc at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2002

Well, he is taking submissions. I have just the thing. (self-link) ;)
posted by brownpau at 1:25 PM on June 18, 2002

Really, really nice work here: Who let the dogs out?
I think they're doing the Electric Slide (super lame MIDI file)! Woogie woogie woogie!
posted by bradlauster at 1:34 PM on June 18, 2002

Just look on Fark for a lot of bad photoshoppery, but they're usually funny taken in context. As for the badphotoshoppery site, it needs better navigation links.
posted by ArkIlloid at 9:12 PM on June 18, 2002

I'm almost certain this is the work of one (or more) of the SA Goons. Those guys rock my twisted photoshoppery world, and have provided many many a belly laugh when I most needed it.

Long may they push pixels.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:54 AM on June 19, 2002