Comments on: Duff Maxim photoshopping

Duff Maxim photoshopping

marvin — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:29:52 -0800

Pin-up Photoshop fraud. I know Photoshop massaging of images has been posted here earlier (somewhere), but Maxim magazine seem to be getting sloppy. A least Vargas didn't do tiles. (via Mikes list)

By: Dipsomaniac

Dipsomaniac — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:35:43 -0800

Yeesh. Looks like Maxim has a really low-rent graphics department. Even pulling her off the wall onto her own layer would have looked better.

By: elwoodwiles

elwoodwiles — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:40:58 -0800

Tiles? What tiles? oh, those tiles Other then all that, I don't see why this is a big deal. Maxim has poorly executed photoshop skillz? *shrugs* It's not like anyone thinks it has any form of quality anyway. Maxim is a rag, not a bastion of journalism.

By: PrinceValium

PrinceValium — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:47:46 -0800

Why would they actually photograph the model in front of the background? That's usually the thing that's always photoshopped in.

By: lumpenprole

lumpenprole — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:47:57 -0800

Shocked! I am shocked! Crist, what do expect reading maxim? Anybody who reads that crap should either balls up and get real porn, or put it down and read a f**king book. Probably both.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:53:01 -0800

Fools! Can you not see that this is just further scientific proof of gravitational lensing? It is clear that the sheer mass of her pristine, unedited breasts have warped the light reflected from the tiles behind her pristine, unedited body!

By: Johnny Assay

Johnny Assay — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:12:21 -0800

The title of that blog entry could have been uttered many, many times since Maxim's inception...

By: me3dia

me3dia — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:14:13 -0800

The top Google entry for "unedited breasts."

By: birdherder

birdherder — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:14:21 -0800

Dammit the link is ~~farked~~ metafilter'd!

By: mischief

mischief — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:15:05 -0800

The link appears to be fried now. Anyone got a mirror?

By: me3dia

me3dia — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:47:23 -0800

Really, it isn't worth a mirror. Really.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:02:32 -0800

People are outraged when news photos are altered. Boob photos have been retouched since the dawn of boob photos. There's nothing to see here. Move on.

By: Samizdata

Samizdata — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:12:30 -0800

Good one, birdherder... And, crunchland, digital breast alteration is acceptable. The problem is that we'd like the artist to take some pride in his or her work, and not just churn out some obviously false breasts. Ruins the dream, you know? (Actually, not that I'm a real fan of Maxim, but I see their pictures around here and there, and I've not been real impressed with those of "celebrities" I am familiar with. They've been laying on the retouching like Tammy Faye laid on the mascara...)

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:17:15 -0800

I think this ties in nicely with some of the recent Doonesbury strips. I see a lot of guys like that flapping their fingers on the interweb, talking smack about how Halle Berry's fat and old, etc. Because you know each one of those guys looks like a J. Crew model. And what is it with the kazillion shows on TV with flabby guys with potato heads who have hot wives? Between "The King of Queens" and "The World According to Jim" and "The George Lopez Show" and "Yes, Dear"...

By: Orb

Orb — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:19:23 -0800

Anyone who thinks that any woman (and men too) portrayed in any image in an form of media resembles in any way "reality" needs to get out of the house more.

By: muckster

muckster — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:18:16 -0800

sidhedevil, i've been noticing it in commercials for a while now--the average white male joe seems to be the only group they feel comfortable making fun of anymore.

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 16:32:14 -0800

How is implying that unattractive men ordinarily have super-attractive wives "making fun" of them?

By: advil

advil — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 17:52:44 -0800

this might be pretty standard practice. A while ago memepool linked to this site: http://homepage.mac.com/gapodaca/digital/bikini/index.html It's part of a portfolio of an artist who does digital retouching (I think this was for some ad). It allows you to roll over to see the before and after of the image - amazingly different.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 17:53:38 -0800

"McGrady had gotten some rest. He was sitting on a camp chair, reading a copy of Maxim, when Lucas climbed up to the command tent. 'I always liked pictures of sexy women,' he said, almost absentmindedly. 'Like the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. But somehow, after all the liberation bullshit, we finally got around to the point where women have stopped being objects and have become products. Have you ever looked at this rag?'" --John Sandford, Chosen Prey

By: muckster

muckster — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 18:10:02 -0800

Sidhedvil, I misunderstood your post, and I've never seen the shows you mention. But if you assume that people on TV are generally more beautiful than in real life, than the question becomes: why are the men flabby potato heads, if they're not the intended object of ridicule?

By: majick

majick — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 18:24:11 -0800

"And what is it with ... flabby guys with potato heads who have hot wives?" I dunno... hang on and let me go ask her.

By: majick

majick — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 18:25:37 -0800

That is to say: "What's so implausible about that? TV, nothin'! I live it every day."

By: Sidhedevil

Sidhedevil — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 18:38:55 -0800

Muckster, there are plenty of handsome men on TV and plenty of "plain" women. But the "logic" of the casting director seems to indicate that physically unattractive men can easily find supermodel wives. Women who are less than super-attractive, on the other hand, are depicted as either single or with extremely unattractive partners. In the shows I cited, the "flabby potato head" is the hero of the program. His lack of masculine pulchritude is never discussed or ridiculed. (He's not always "white", either--cf. George Lopez.) Google it for yourself and see what you think.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 19:21:39 -0800

A while ago memepool linked to this site... And so did Metafilter, of course, lockstepped. Nothing new under the sun.

By: mischief

mischief — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:00:33 -0800

physically unattractive men can easily find supermodel wives

Wives? Dunno. Girlfriends? Most definitely.

By: transona5

transona5 — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 21:33:01 -0800

Why is this picture such a "yawn"? The fact that one of the most successful magazines on the planet goes to the newsstand with a blatant Photoshop error is really pretty amazing. The "boobies" photo is probably the only kind that publications can get away with significantly altering. When we look at a photo, we think of it as real even if we know it may have been manipulated. And what Sidhedevil said. Usually when television denigrates the intelligence of the average guy, it's to criticize his organization or housekeeping skills. Could they be suggesting that someone should be doing those things FOR him? The oppression, the outrage!

By: crunchland

crunchland — Fri, 07 Nov 2003 22:17:51 -0800

Stavros ... I know it's only your broomstick talking, but metafilter was lockstepped in front of memepool by nearly 2 months. The post on mefi was made on August 9th while Memepool was lockstepping for nearly 2 whole months before they linked to it on September 30th. More of a lazy meander than a lockstep, really.

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Sat, 08 Nov 2003 00:24:39 -0800

Maybe the real problem isn't that they edit their photos, which most people simple accept as a given (though, to be honest, most of the time it's more effort than it's worth to spend hours p'shopping a pretty girl -- there are always prettier girls). In the case of a celebrity it's a different matter, but even then, there are photographic tricks that are simply easier and look more natural than digital editing. That said, I think the real problem is that they did such a craptacular job. Really, a complete and utter shitwreck of a job. Now, think of all the subscribers to Maxim. I'll bet you dollars to donuts, a good percentage of them are male, unemployed (or part-timer's) without girlfriends. Sound familiar? That's right... ex-web designers! The reason this is such an abomination is that any one of their subscribers could (and would happily) take the place of whatever goon did that photo edit, and do a better job at it for half the pay. Or maybe it's just me.

By: mokey

mokey — Sat, 08 Nov 2003 00:50:47 -0800

No, the problem isn't with the photoshopping abilities of the goon in question. The problem is with the editors' thick fucking heads. Those thick fucking retarded pricks are only trying to sell more magazines than the next jerk. That is why they disfigure the women in question. With their diabolical computer manipulation. But they are utterly misguided. In reality, women are attractive to men! For christ's sake! You don't get digital manipulation of your eyesight in real life, and yet you still see sexy women don't you? I don't get this shit. I don't get it at all. Those pricks need talking to. Posted by MOKEY!

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sat, 08 Nov 2003 04:38:17 -0800

More of a lazy meander than a lockstep, really. Fair enough. It goes both ways, granted. Just a brainfart 'cause I'd done the rounds for the first time in a while on a Saturday morning before I got to this thread, and it seemed (possibly spuriously) when I got here that it was all the same blogdexdaypop stuff, and I was grumpy and shit. And sensibleerection wasn't resolving for some reason. Heh.

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:33:40 -0800

You don't get digital manipulation of your eyesight in real life, and yet you still see sexy women don't you? Oh yeah? There's always chemical manupulation.

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:34:42 -0800

Goddamnit. Manipulation. Sorry, I'm feeling a little manipulated right now.

By: uftheory

uftheory — Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:30:20 -0800

I wouldn't say it was a crappy job... I'd say that's exactly what they wanted. The straight lines of the tiles were probably at odds with curves of her body. If you don't look for it, or make a whole web page dedicated to it, it's probably more aesthetic this way.

By: joquarky

joquarky — Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:56:55 -0800

(NSFW) Not all digital manipulation is necessarily bad =P

By: crunchland

crunchland — Mon, 10 Nov 2003 11:59:47 -0800

are you sure that's not really vulcan porn?

By: cowboy_sally

cowboy_sally — Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:17:06 -0800

I recently saw a panel that included Pascal Dangin, who is the photo retoucher's retoucher. He snarked, "Trust me, you do not want to see Madonna without retouching." From the article:

"Basically we're selling a product - we're selling an image. To those who say too much retouching, I say you are bogus. This is the world that we're living in. Everything is glorified. I say live in your time."