Duff Maxim photoshopping
November 7, 2003 1:29 PM   Subscribe

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)
posted by marvin (35 comments total)
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.
posted by Dipsomaniac at 1:35 PM on November 7, 2003

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?


It's not like anyone thinks it has any form of quality anyway. Maxim is a rag, not a bastion of journalism.
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:40 PM on November 7, 2003

Why would they actually photograph the model in front of the background? That's usually the thing that's always photoshopped in.
posted by PrinceValium at 1:47 PM on November 7, 2003

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.
posted by lumpenprole at 1:47 PM on November 7, 2003

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!
posted by brownpau at 1:53 PM on November 7, 2003

The title of that blog entry could have been uttered many, many times since Maxim's inception...
posted by Johnny Assay at 2:12 PM on November 7, 2003

The top Google entry for "unedited breasts."
posted by me3dia at 2:14 PM on November 7, 2003

Dammit the link is farked metafilter'd!
posted by birdherder at 2:14 PM on November 7, 2003

The link appears to be fried now. Anyone got a mirror?
posted by mischief at 2:15 PM on November 7, 2003

Really, it isn't worth a mirror. Really.
posted by me3dia at 2:47 PM on November 7, 2003

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.
posted by crunchland at 3:02 PM on November 7, 2003

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...)
posted by Samizdata at 3:12 PM on November 7, 2003

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"...
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:17 PM on November 7, 2003

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.
posted by Orb at 3:19 PM on November 7, 2003

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.
posted by muckster at 4:18 PM on November 7, 2003

How is implying that unattractive men ordinarily have super-attractive wives "making fun" of them?
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:32 PM on November 7, 2003

this might be pretty standard practice. A while ago memepool linked to this site:


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.
posted by advil at 5:52 PM on November 7, 2003

"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
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:53 PM on November 7, 2003

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?
posted by muckster at 6:10 PM on November 7, 2003

"And what is it with ... flabby guys with potato heads who have hot wives?"

I dunno... hang on and let me go ask her.
posted by majick at 6:24 PM on November 7, 2003

That is to say: "What's so implausible about that? TV, nothin'! I live it every day."
posted by majick at 6:25 PM on November 7, 2003

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.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:38 PM on November 7, 2003

A while ago memepool linked to this site...

And so did Metafilter, of course, lockstepped. Nothing new under the sun.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:21 PM on November 7, 2003

physically unattractive men can easily find supermodel wives
Wives? Dunno.
Girlfriends? Most definitely.
posted by mischief at 9:00 PM on November 7, 2003

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!
posted by transona5 at 9:33 PM on November 7, 2003

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.
posted by crunchland at 10:17 PM on November 7, 2003

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.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:24 AM on November 8, 2003

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!
posted by mokey at 12:50 AM on November 8, 2003

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.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:38 AM on November 8, 2003

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.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:33 AM on November 8, 2003

Goddamnit. Manipulation. Sorry, I'm feeling a little manipulated right now.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:34 AM on November 8, 2003

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.
posted by uftheory at 2:30 PM on November 8, 2003

(NSFW) Not all digital manipulation is necessarily bad =P
posted by joquarky at 11:56 AM on November 10, 2003

are you sure that's not really vulcan porn?
posted by crunchland at 11:59 AM on November 10, 2003

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."
posted by cowboy_sally at 12:17 PM on November 10, 2003

« Older Ten years of therapy in one night   |   Florida's New Senator Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments