Forums > Digital Art and Retouching > Victoria's Secret - Photoshop fail

Photographer

MerrillMedia

Posts: 8736

New Orleans, Louisiana, US

Dang! That girl puts a whole new meaning on "The Gap!"

Mar 16 11 10:46 pm Link

Retoucher

Dimpho Sametsi

Posts: 124

Mochudi, Kgatleng, Botswana

hehehehe!

Mar 17 11 12:50 am Link

Retoucher

P A P A R A Z Z I

Posts: 1070

Chicago, Illinois, US

Jay Check your PM's

As i could state what i'd like to say about your completely misguided statement i'll say what i need to in private there's very little reason for me to put it "out" there

Mar 17 11 09:44 pm Link

Digital Artist

Kamikaze

Posts: 44

Los Angeles, California, US

Jay Wellen wrote:
maybe because you steal other peoples work.. your avatar looks eerrily familiar to a piece that I and Pete harrison did as a collaboration several years ago..

https://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-sf2p/v208/42/67/85500505/n85500505_30558559_2953.jpg

It isn't stealing when your friend 'Pete' decided to willingly upload most of his most popular works as tutorials, meaning that it included the stock image and effects. The only thing that's similar to Pete's original is the stock and the smoke jpegs. I don't even know how you can call it stealing when someone just followed a tutorial and posted the results.

That's some backwards logic. Not only that, but its a ferociously popular style. There are even people that rip the actual originals and just change the lighting and copyright it and try to walk off as artists. Paparazzi always had a glittery style so to speak, all he did was just follow a tut.

All of the effects other than the 'smoke' x 'pretty-generic-stock' are the only things that he used of Pete's are his. Otherwise, you can't try to call it a mindblowing style anymore that isn't easily replicated when everyone and their 13 year old cousin who just started using photoshop is trying to pull off that style now.

That style is only setting up to 3 or 4 colors on screen or lighten with a couple brushes, setting it to high pass and a few miscellaneous animals then BOOM it's a pete-harrison copy. That style is so out of date so it's just really odd that you're accusing someone of copying something that's been recycled since 05 now?

If you're going to come for this guy, might as well spend the next 10 years of your life trying to go after the idiots that try to make a living after using that method to the point where it means nothing.

Mar 18 11 12:35 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Carter

Posts: 7777

Indianapolis, Indiana, US

bobbyp wrote:
Lol, who employs these people?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic … highs.html

Apparently a lot of people do.

I've wondered if those PSDs are the same thing as the FX people at Disney and other animated studies, who sneak stuff in to the movie.

Mar 18 11 12:43 am Link

Photographer

Maria Mylona

Posts: 171

London, England, United Kingdom

Phunke Pixie wrote:
That bullshit just can't be true! For me, it's a stupid sabotage, black humour, joke... or whatever. VS's proved for the ages that at least they have a eye for what is esthetic...
I doubt that the other brands could afford such a failure either!
Don't believe in everything what the yellow press tells...

Actually I have seen the images some time ago in VS's web site! Is true! She actually looks like that... its scary!!!
I can not find it now but if i do i will post the link directly... if it's still there.....

Mar 18 11 05:40 am Link

Photographer

Christopher Carter

Posts: 7777

Indianapolis, Indiana, US

I know for a fact PhotoshopDisasters.com has the Ralph Lauren ones, because they got a cease and desist DMCA notice from RL. And they were down for a few days, but the ISP told RL to fuck off because it was protected usage smile Ever since then PSD.com has been all over RL.

I'm sure the VS ones are on there somewhere too.

Mar 18 11 12:46 pm Link

Photographer

TaylorScott Photography

Posts: 729

Surprise, Arizona, US

I do not know about you but my copy of Photoshop CS5 has a tab to change the models body. In this tab you can choose to have a fat model, a wide model, a thin model, or the bulimic model. However in the instructions it is stated not to use this function more than 3 clicks. Any over useage can and will make your mofel look like a tooth pick.

Mar 18 11 01:03 pm Link

Digital Artist

Marios Art

Posts: 118

Barranquilla, Atlántico, Colombia

Ok, the topic is about Victoria Secret's epic fails hiring retouchers, not about people that learn trough tutorials..Move on..

Mar 18 11 01:07 pm Link

Model

Alina Ambrose

Posts: 34

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Victoria's Secret should obviously just stick to doing what they know best - photoshopping more tits and ass ON.

Mar 18 11 01:26 pm Link

Photographer

catchlights-NL

Posts: 32

Haaksbergen, Overijssel, Netherlands

This is fun indeed...i believe they hire retouchers having absolutely zero knowledge of the human anatomy. ;-)

Mar 18 11 02:13 pm Link

Photographer

Kev Neal

Posts: 35

Stamford, England, United Kingdom

I dont think its always the retouchers fault (though it may be in this case)

Has no one else been in the situation where the client makes stupid changes and you have no choice but to follow their instructions?

I know I have, I'd finished some work to the client recently and they insisted on a terrible change, it instantly went from one of my favourite pieces of work to something that I'd be ashamed to admit I'd worked on, nothing I could do about it if I wanted to be paid!

Mar 22 11 04:02 pm Link