airbrushing / photoshopping things to hell

[fyo]

Why do big companies do this? I get the light airbrushing and even a bit of minor alterations, but why do major outfits (any outfits) do this? It looks fake, it looks stupid, it looks ugly.

I read an article online last week on "photoshopping gone bad" and there were some good examples (and a lot of, IMHO, bad ones), but you really only have to look around at posters, billboards... and covers of movies.

For anyone who knows Firefly / Serenity, try guessing who the person on the cover of the DVD is. The image is the same as the one below (the actual cover has some scene stills as well):



Okay, so it's not that difficult by process of elimination, but... seriously, that photo looks NOTHING like the person its supposed to be. I think, possibly, the chin is hers, but the hair, eyes, eyebrows, nose, lips, even the shape of her head... all completely redone and nothing like her (contrast to the last image link in my rant).

There's a newer cover out that uses a completely fake image of her (as in loosely resembling something from the movie, but not really) which is somewhat similar: http://www.dvdactive.com/images/news/screenshot/2006/1/serenity2d.jpg

The BlueRay cover (same image of her as on the Collector's Edition DVD is a lot better -- at least you can tell who its supposed to be -- but still not exactly brilliant: http://www.whedon.info/local/cache-vignettes/L309xH440/serenity-movie-blu-ray-cover-024e4.jpg

The original DVD cover had her on it, as well as Nathan Fillon, and that's pretty much what she looked like in the movie (Nathan, on the other hand, is pretty well botched on that one): http://homepage.mac.com/merussell/serenity-DVD-full-cover4-11th.jpg

Seriously, I don't get it. It's insanely dumb and looks like shit. It's bad enough when a cover completely misrepresents the type of movie or shows fake scenes from the movies, but why photoshop the actors beyond recognition?

[Dave Gray]

Yeah, she does look like a different person.  I just actually started watching Firefly again last night.

[Sunstroke]

That photo looks like River Tam after a reeeeeally bad visit to Glamour Shots...

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Why do big companies do this?

I have never seen this particular actress before...but looking at the three photos.

The why is pretty obvious.  In the other two shots her hair looks like she got caught in an expected rain storm.  And in the other one she looks like she has no breasts. 

So to answer your question...because sex sells. 

[fyo]

So to answer your question...because sex sells. 

Hey, I'm a big fan of sex. I have no problem with companies using sex in pretty much all shapes and forms to sell their products.

The problem here is that the picture is in no way sexy. It's disturbing in an "uncanny valley" kind of way. I'm not saying they can't use a different image of the actress -- even one not from the movie, if that's what they insist on (especially when they don't make it seem like it's an action shot, like the one where she's holding the sword and axe). Summer Glau isn't exactly my type, but there are certainly some hot pictures of her:

The glamor shot (still over-photoshopped, but at least it still looks like her and not some plastic freak):


Girl with gun:


Casual / hot girl next door:

[Sunstroke]

That first picture is downright droolworthy...even if River Tam is a dangerous psycho.

[Phishfan]

^^^ That china doll looking skin got me going as well.

[bsfins]

While I agree I hate bad photoshopping...

Some of your concerns umm yeah I have a hard time agreeing with your up in arms over a movie from 5-6 years ago.......

Modified to add, you can see alot of the different covers I've linked too through images 20-41 on the IMBD link,it has most of the pics of the links below...

I did a quick Google search,the picture is a couple of Widescreen serenity DVD cover...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B000BW7QWW
http://www.moviebs.com/index.php?s=72&pn=22

In the picture you've posted they didn't change her face,they over color corrected trying to remove the writing...Then tried to make the picture wider,cropped the bottom....While this version shouldn't be on universalstudios site,it's not like it was the one (you've posted) that was distributed....It looks like some fan twisted creation....

There are lots of different covers,for this movie,where she looks different...
http://www.covershut.com/DVD-Covers/28524-Serenity-2004-Dutch-Front.html

(The German version I found looks rose colored)
http://www.movieposterdb.com/poster/32f21af0

The IMBD cover,looks bad too but you didn't complain about it?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379786/

The making a "collage look" was a trendy thing in around 2005....(I wasn't a huge fan of this type,but did do some of it....)

Saw this just for kicks...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/film-reviews/serenity/2005/10/04/1128391220719.html

[fyo]

In the picture you've posted they didn't change her face,they over color corrected trying to remove the writing...Then tried to make the picture wider,cropped the bottom....While this version shouldn't be on universalstudios site,it's not like it was the one (you've posted) that was distributed....It looks like some fan twisted creation....

Her face is the problem and her face is exactly the same in the link you post (widescreen dvd). Her face is photoshopped to hell, completely fake, completely beyond recognition... and not sexy in the slightest.

Oh, and the IMDB cover looks reasonable to me. Not great, but decent enough:

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTI0NTY1MzY4NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTczODAzMQ@@._V1._SY317_CR0,0,214,317_.jpg

While I agree I hate bad photoshopping...
[snip]
a movie from 5-6 years

I just happened to come across the Serenty one almost right after seeing the movie again and honestly couldn't tell who the f*ck it was supposed to be -- and that was less than a week after reading a long article on misadventures in (professional) photoshopping. The mangled poster-ads all around annoy me, but they're a lot harder to show in a forum than linking to a pretty egregious example.

[bsfins]

^^^ I'm sorry you couldn't whack off to the picture.....Bad photoshopping is 3 arms, one pant leg blue,one red...Bitching about some fan,playing with a DVD box cover,then it gets posted on some site by accident is idiotic....Sorry... I'm not gonna waste anymore time....

[fyo]

Bitching about some fan,playing with a DVD box cover,then it gets posted on some site by accident is idiotic....Sorry... I'm not gonna waste anymore time....

Then by all means don't. I'd just like to point out that you are talking out of your ass when you're claiming its fan-created. The image I have a problem with is the face on the official DVD cover, which is also the face in the image I included.

[bsfins]

Yeah, because all my DVD covers have absolutely No writing (besides the title) on them either,and in the wrong aspect ratio,and have the whole bottom picture missing ....I'm talking out my Ass... The picture you linked too someone tinkered with,off of a DVD box,some other picture...

You picture...is from here.....
http://www.universalstudiosentertainment.com/serenity/

If you don't like the "whole" box cover fine...I get that...It's not bad photoshopping..YOU are using a BAD photoshopped pic of a DVD box cover.

You keep saying you couldn't recognize her,she's not sexy....Doesn't qualify as bad photoshopping.....It's just not your taste....

Bad Photoshopping....(I never noticed the Doctor who one)
http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/52-worst-photoshop-mistakes-in-magazines/

[Sunstroke]

They should have had you do the photoshopping, B...I know your work well enough to know you probably would have made it look a heck of a lot better.

 

[fyo]

If you don't like the "whole" box cover fine...I get that...It's not bad photoshopping..YOU are using a BAD photoshopped pic of a DVD box cover.

The girl on the DVD cover... the face... it's totally mangled -- nothing is hers anymore. The nose, the eyes, the eye brows, the hair, the lips... everything. Completely ridiculously photoshopped. Clearly BADLY photoshopped. Creepy as hell and COMPLETELY beyond recognition. How is that not BAD?

[bsfins]

I'd call it someone who has a personal problem,that can't distinguish between bad photoshopping, and style of photoshop that they don't care for....

Your "official photo" there chief still has the photoshop guides in the pictures,and you can see where it was badly cut from another source....(and that's taken for your picture you posted)

As for her mangled face....It's the same picture (facially wise,the arm postition different they moved her arm down(same shadow on both pics)) almost aligns exactly with the 2004 dutch cover,and the Blu ray cover,and the disk.....Hair for hair,chin for chin,eyes place,nose,same dress,same beads on the dress,boobs... ...The same person...The colors are different,where they played with the color,the levels,the curves,and played with the color channel....She's not a chopped up parts of other pics....She's one picture,used multiple times....

Look you want to post pics of this woman,cool, talk serenity,firefly...great...but don't label it as bad photoshoping..It's not...It was the popular style in the Photoshop community...There are tons of styles I hate,but it's not bad photoshoppng....

They should have had you do the photoshopping, B...I know your work well enough to know you probably would have made it look a heck of a lot better.

  Thanks,but I couldn't photshop me in to a wet paper sac anymore!