Forums > Photography Talk > Poor Photoshop Work On Sports Illustrated Site

Photographer

John David Studio

Posts: 1724

Fort Myers, Florida, US

I was just reviewing the 2013 online Swimsuit edition.  I happened to come across this page.  Please look at the hair on the two llamas on the right side of the screen.  The image is a composite and look how poorly the hair is integrated into the background.  I cannot believe someone let that quality of work go out.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2013_s … okies.html

Feb 25 13 04:34 pm Link

Photographer

Right Poes

Posts: 952

Colorado Springs, Colorado, US

Seems a little unrefined

Feb 25 13 04:36 pm Link

Photographer

Motordrive Photography

Posts: 3377

Lodi, California, US

yikes I think maybe it wasn't finished yet, and someone posted it

Feb 25 13 04:38 pm Link

Photographer

ForeverFotos

Posts: 6644

Indianapolis, Indiana, US

This is probably just another job that got moved to India. Pretty sloppy, huh?

http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/computer-22.gif

Feb 25 13 04:43 pm Link

Photographer

terrysphotocountry

Posts: 4190

Rochester, New York, US

I am only half ass-ed at photo editing, and I can do better  than that. sad

Feb 25 13 04:45 pm Link

Photographer

Grayscale Photo

Posts: 120

Columbus, Ohio, US

Whoever did the postprocessing for the two llamas on the right also didn't know when to stop with the gaussian blur.  Those are world class beauties with nearly perfect skin.  There was no need to give them the plastic barbie doll skin treatment.

Feb 25 13 04:46 pm Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10573

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

its a banner. they are all cloned in against that background. Not much you can do about it if you are using the images from the shoot.  maybe for emily hyphen they could have chosen a different image for the banner but this was the strongest one. so go with a weaker one against the other 3 and have it look unrefined so us photographers could diss it? or go with the strongest and say fuckit! don' care what the snobs at MM think.

Feb 25 13 04:47 pm Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10573

Gatineau, Quebec, Canada

Grayscale Photo wrote:
Whoever did the postprocessing for the two models on the right also didn't know when to stop with the gaussian blur.  Those are world class beauties with nearly perfect skin.  There was no need to give them the plastic barbie doll skin treatment.

if you look at the originals in the shoot, it was fine.  they just changed the curves on the images when they cloned them in.

Feb 25 13 04:51 pm Link

Photographer

Kelvin Hammond

Posts: 17374

Billings, Montana, US

Images in the SI Swimsuit mag have been horrible for years...  but I've seen better reproductions in books. I can't figure out why they don't make the magazine prints better quality.  You'd think better quality translates to more sales, no?

I've only bought one copy in my lifetime, and that was to show a model how to pose in a swimsuit, not because the issue thrilled me.

Feb 25 13 05:08 pm Link

Photographer

L A U B E N H E I M E R

Posts: 8832

Seattle, Washington, US

Smedley Whiplash wrote:
Images in the SI Swimsuit mag have been horrible for years...  but I've seen better reproductions in books. I can't figure out why they don't make the magazine prints better quality.  You'd think better quality translates to more sales, no?

I've only bought one copy in my lifetime, and that was to show a model how to pose in a swimsuit, not because the issue thrilled me.

so you're saying better quality porn will translate into more sales?

tongue

Feb 25 13 05:13 pm Link

Photographer

Kelvin Hammond

Posts: 17374

Billings, Montana, US

Mark Laubenheimer wrote:

so you're saying better quality porn will translate into more sales?

tongue

Probably. But really, it might just take the porno equivalency of Netflix. (and a mute button)

Feb 25 13 05:16 pm Link

Photographer

Gatsby

Posts: 2

Clifton, New Jersey, US

Post hidden on Feb 25, 2013 06:16 pm
Reason: violates rules
Comments:
Unsolicited Critiques are not allowed.

Feb 25 13 05:19 pm Link

Photographer

Brandon Rittenhouse

Posts: 116

State College, Pennsylvania, US

You're surprised? Look at the entire website, it is pretty terrible.

Feb 25 13 06:12 pm Link

Photographer

Art Silva

Posts: 9526

Santa Barbara, California, US

Probably a case of a rush deadline that didn't have time to refine the graphic.

Feel bad for the graphic artist on the job;
http://th754.photobucket.com/albums/xx184/kelsit_ca/StickMen/th_bloody_computer.gif

Feb 25 13 06:45 pm Link

Photographer

Marin Photography NYC

Posts: 7307

New York, New York, US

That's pretty bad, I'm not great at it but I am sure I could do better.

Feb 25 13 06:51 pm Link

Photographer

Mark

Posts: 2893

New York, New York, US

this one is unbelievably bad, well except for the camel toe

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2013_s … ock_2.html

Feb 25 13 10:27 pm Link

Photographer

L A U B E N H E I M E R

Posts: 8832

Seattle, Washington, US

Mark wrote:
this one is unbelievably bad, well except for the camel toe

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2013_s … ock_2.html

wow. just wow.

Feb 25 13 10:34 pm Link

Photographer

David J Martin

Posts: 458

Amberg, Bavaria, Germany

Cool, the standards have dropped, there's a chance I'm going to be a high-end retoucher after all!!  I'll just apply to SI.

Feb 25 13 10:57 pm Link

Photographer

Robert Jewett

Posts: 2481

al-Marsā, Tunis, Tunisia

I clicked thinking I would say, "it's not really that bad". 

Well, yes.  Yes, it is.

This is actually embarrassing.

Feb 26 13 12:24 am Link

Photographer

Philipe

Posts: 5222

Pomona, California, US

Its SI and though they have deep pockets to hire some top llamas its not Pirelli.
Commercially SI is big.... But SI is not even in the same league as Pirelli..
SI is American, so its more business than art and fashion, so they kinda don't care as long as they make $$$$.
Unlike the Milan Italy head quarters of Pirelli that have different standards on the "look"..

Feb 26 13 12:44 am Link