Photoshop of Horrors: Vogue Mag Forgets Body Parts, Do You Care?

Happy Friday. Over at Vogue magazine, it seems the retouching crew was a little remiss with Mario Testino’s shot of Kate Moss and her daughter Lila –seems they…er…left off a few of her daughters fingers. Or worse, that her daughters fingers actually fused into her mom’s back.

So, we all know Photoshop happens. They’re in there taking out zits and making people skinnier than they really are, and taking out wrinkles and on and on. Yes, yes, we all “know” this. But is “oops, I just left off a few body parts” excusable? I don’t know where I stand on this. It’s a beautiful shot, but the sophomoric blunder isn’t lost on me.

Do YOU even care, or is it just expected that there will be some mistakes and faux pas along the way, so we should just get on with it anyway….?

(faux pas via Jezebel)

You may be interested in:

87 Responses to Photoshop of Horrors: Vogue Mag Forgets Body Parts, Do You Care?

  1. theChipmunk August 19, 2011 at 8:48 am #

    Okay, maybe I’m being really stupid here, but what exactly were they adjusting when they made that mistake? I’m assuming it was the positioning of her hands or the curve of her mother’s back…?

  2. Richard August 19, 2011 at 8:49 am #

    Inexcusable.

  3. Bluestill August 19, 2011 at 8:49 am #

    Interesting. However because sometimes the position of the fingers can sometimes give perceptions, I always try to give little instructions when shooting to clear up these perceptions. This could be a photoshop blunder as stated, or perhaps the child had the last two fingers tucked/folded under. Of course I am viewing it from my iPhone so maybe you can see it better on a monitor or the actual magazine photo. To answer the question, ido think it matters and I’ll say ” tsk tsk ” if this is a blunder.

  4. chinedu diala August 19, 2011 at 8:50 am #

    I know everyone makes mistakes but for a huge firm like Vogue, they should be on top of it. A mistake like this shouldnt have made it to the public so yes it does matter cos it came from a huge company like that. There is absolutely no excuse

  5. Sam Taylor August 19, 2011 at 8:51 am #

    I think we should get on with it.

    You’re right the shot is beautiful. And honestly i probably wouldn’t have noticed the girl’s fingers unless you mentioned it.

    If this was a cosmetics advert trying to sell me a cream that removed fingers, then I would complain, as its obviously fake. Otherwise, it was a mistake and i feel the image probably called for retouching in the first place, and if that helps finish the photograph off then its a job well done.

  6. Travis Lawton August 19, 2011 at 8:51 am #

    I would say with the image’s final destination being one of the biggest fashion magazines in the world, I would say this is NOTexcusable. Although I must say I would have probably missed the error if it hadn’t been pointed out to me and enlarged in a separate image.

    I hope we don’t get to a point where people don’t care about these kind of things. The word “photoshopped” is already beginning to be a bad word and these would just add some fuel to the fire.

    • Tyler F August 19, 2011 at 6:10 pm #

      I agree, for someone so big, a mistake like this shouldn’t happen – when I am editing, I know exactly what I edit, and I would defiantly know if I edited a photo and accidentally removed someone’s hand – you would go back and fix it. But I would have also probably missed it – unless it was a large poster advertisement.

      Photos that have been awkwardly edited in Photoshop annoy me the most – mainly removing backgrounds from people, when not on a clear background, so the editor does a half-arsed job and it has rough edges, part of the background, or bits that are just missing.

      I think too much is down to the editor now – its cheaper to quickly snaps a load of shots in an hour, then spend hours later, than it is spending hours getting it right and just a small bit of re-touching later.

  7. Tom Varden August 19, 2011 at 8:51 am #

    I think this is a lesson in Gestalt psychology. Obviously there are talented people at work here, but there something to be said about the disconnect between zoom states. When you go from retouching an image at %100, then step back, its easy to miss the details in the 100% view. Perhaps giant monitors is the way to go?

  8. Michael Bowen August 19, 2011 at 8:51 am #

    This is evidence of the use of photoshop going too far, and yes it is a problem. Its just a little creepy and doesn’t speak well for beauty mags or the photographer, Mario should be pissed!

  9. Rob King August 19, 2011 at 8:52 am #

    I will go with… how on earth did someone not catch this before it went to print??

  10. Freggio August 19, 2011 at 8:55 am #

    Explains why they both look so miserable :)

  11. Kris Mitchell August 19, 2011 at 8:56 am #

    If it wasn’t for the odd photoshop abuse we wouldn’t have fun websites like Photoshop Disasters!
    Seriously, I do basic retouching and am fully aware of how much I have to learn (my focus is taking the pictures, not the retouching) – but there are some people, PROFESSIONAL people, who make me look like a freaking genius!

  12. Chad August 19, 2011 at 8:57 am #

    Seems like the equivalent of a typo. Stuff happens. Still looks like a pretty nice picture….

  13. Leonardo Martínez August 19, 2011 at 8:57 am #

    The ones who made the mistake are Testino’s retouchers, Vogue doesn’t edit the photos…

  14. Trevor Dean Photography August 19, 2011 at 8:58 am #

    Photoshop.. Of course we need it (it’s just an extension of dodging and burning in an old darkroom).

    Retouching.. Sometimes sure. Maybe the photographer didn’t use as flattering of light as he could of and there’s a few more pores showing than a fashion magazine would like.

    But a mistake like this that I would literally expect from the work of a 14 year old learning photoshop.. Is totally inexcusable. I mean did they forgot the keyboard shortcut “cmd + z”

    I believe that photoshop, lightroom, aperture, whatever your choice of tool, is absolutely most of the time nesacssary to “finish or finesse” a great image that was shot in camera. I mean really it’s the photographers vision that matters and let’s face it, no matter how sophisticated, a camera is still just a big chunk of metal and silicone that captures light. It is extremely limited. I doubt there were any if not very very few slides that Ansel Adams didn’t spend time dodging and burning to represent his vision they way he saw it.

    I’m just not okay with the fact that vogues retouching team is I’m sure not starving for a paycheque and yet they’re making/not catching a mistake like this! I think society as a whole has come to expect that photoshop will be used, but gives those of who use it to finesse, a bad name when they see something like this.

  15. Sebastian August 19, 2011 at 8:58 am #

    I am not very happy with ppl. photoshopping too much for magazin covers or else. But since it looks like we get the retouched pictures everywhere and everytime, I think we can at least expect to get perfectly photoshopped pictures. So in my opinion: It is a bad mistake and really sheds a bad light on Vogue’s photoshop-”artists”.

  16. Josh Petersen August 19, 2011 at 8:59 am #

    the fact the someone got paid a ridiculous amount of money to make a mistake like that is just plain said. Not to mention the art director that allowed it to go to print. Pure laziness and lack of attention if you ask me.

  17. Andrew Tomkins August 19, 2011 at 9:00 am #

    WOW! Talk about amateur hour! I’m sure the average consumer might not have even noticed, but that is pretty pathetic that the retoucher, photographer, and photo editor missed that!

  18. Neil Rasnick August 19, 2011 at 9:02 am #

    This is slipshod retouching. Let this pass and i think it sets a bad precedent. I saw this on psdisasters and in all fairness i didn’t notice until it was pointed out.

  19. Eduar August 19, 2011 at 9:03 am #

    As a professional I care because I see this as a damage to the image of Kate Moss, her child, the magazine, the photographer, etc. The problem is that as professionals we have to deliver a great photo but also the retoucher should be professional enough to do a good work, not a half assed post processing like this, the magazine should be professional enough to meticulously check their editorial and advertsing photos and those who don’t comply with a standard of quality to be rejected and sent to be corrected.

    Why would it be different for us and the people that works with us than with a writer with poor grammar and spelling, a doctor that prescribes the wrong medicine, an accountant that did a mistake with a tax calculation, a manager who didn’t sent the important cargo on time, etc.? there isn`t a good reason for this to happen and if there isn’t then we need to shake up and DEMAND a tighter quality control for ourselves and those who work with us

    It is amazing that NO ONE catched this before it went to print, how could you miss it?!?!

  20. Mike August 19, 2011 at 9:04 am #

    It does make you wonder why they had to work this image so hard that fingers got lost along the way.

  21. CA August 19, 2011 at 9:08 am #

    It seems that maybe the whole forearm was added (or repositioned) because it looks incredibly long compared to the top of her arm. It is a gorgeous shot and I doubt that the average reader looks close enough to notice the fingers going off into nothingness. It happens. But I do agree that with all of the people this shot had to pass by, someone should have caught it before it went to press.

  22. Rick Lewis August 19, 2011 at 9:08 am #

    It looks a little like “Little Shop of Horrors” to me. The lighting is great, the pose is nice, the expressions horrible, and the “oops” moment, as one poster above me stated, “inexcusable”. But, thats just me.

  23. Laurence Hardy August 19, 2011 at 9:08 am #

    All I’m going to say is.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA what foooools!!

    I’ve just spent a day trying to photoshop an image and keep going back and forth because it doesn’t look natural and then vogue puts this out. hahahaha

    Laugh or cry people laugh or cry.

  24. Mark Levesque August 19, 2011 at 9:09 am #

    This is a magazine cover, not a tiny, overlooked image. The cover shot is THE singular shot of the entire issue. There’s no way it’s an oversight. It was a deliberate choice. A WRONG choice, IMO. I’d love to see the original, but it’s hard to imagine there was no better way to complete the image.

    As a portrait photographer, I often use photoshop to create somewhat idealized images of my clients. But you have to have a sense of proportion and taste, and balance the idealized with reality. This image fails on that count. it’s a beautiful image, unwisely or perhaps unskillfully retouched. It’s hard to say if it’s the retoucher’s or the editors fault for making it that way (if the editor instructed the retoucher, the editor is responsible), but the editor is ultimately responsible for the cover…

  25. TimR August 19, 2011 at 9:09 am #

    It’s a little creepy. Maybe they outsourced it to a far away land and didn’t have time to fix it. The problem with retouching, like with things like drawing and painting too, is knowing when to stop.

  26. Daylight August 19, 2011 at 9:10 am #

    I do not care… becos it is not my photo :P
    If you guys feel really disturb by the image, please contact Vogue directly.

  27. Kathleen Smith August 19, 2011 at 9:12 am #

    This is a perfect example of why most teens ignore fashion ads. They have all been overthought to the point of being weak. Just yesterday my child was thumbing through Teen Vouge & commented, “By the time stuff gets to the magazines its not cool.”

  28. Kathleen Smith August 19, 2011 at 9:14 am #

    The stuff is not the problem. All kids like lots & lots of stuff. Its the photos. They live in the real, raw world & can spot a snow job a mile away.

  29. Doug R August 19, 2011 at 9:18 am #

    too much PS. Just because you can does not mean you should. Clean up and retouching is not reforming someone. It does bother me. Greatly.

  30. Simon Banthorpe August 19, 2011 at 9:20 am #

    Completely amateur and inexcusable. Why? Because I can’t imagine how much the person’s getting paid working for Vogue. Otherwise I don’t care that people treat images in Photoshop THAT much. It’s their choice.

  31. Wailly August 19, 2011 at 9:27 am #

    Let me see… could this be some sort of one-button-retouch-plug-in that trying to fix the two fingers, which were extruded beyond the mother’s back? (If so, I have no idea why they don’t remove the other finger of opposite hand just below.) Or they just overlooked (at like… oh, I don’t know… 500% zoomed in maybe?) while trying to smooth out every inch of the skin. Oh, but I can think of better ways to do skin retouch without accidentally removing body parts… Whatever the reason, whoever did the post process seemed to be in a hurry, and didn’t zoom back out to check the big picture.

  32. jonny August 19, 2011 at 9:33 am #

    Eh, this shit is purely for entertainment purposes. If this was The New York Times, or The Guardian, then i’d be concerned. Nothing else in Vogue is real either, why should we care that the photos are retouched?

    From a professional level, this is pretty badly done. But then again, the moron who misses a mic boom when editing Transformers IV would probably get fired too.

  33. Chase August 19, 2011 at 9:38 am #

    Its a fashion magazine, with super tight deadlines, art directors & photo editors approving things faster than the speed of light. The crap they do in fashion, this is just an oversight.

    You have seen “The Devils Wears Prada” havent you?

    I couldnt care 1 lick.

  34. Tarik August 19, 2011 at 9:42 am #

    Happy World Photography Day!!

    Who cares about the hands..important thing is that they are nude, really everyday situation mam feed her 12y old child. :)

  35. Will August 19, 2011 at 9:42 am #

    It looks like a mask over the daughter wasn’t “cleaned up” enough, I can easily see how it would happen but as has been said, its the cover of one of the most well known magazine’s in the world, if it wasnt checked before publishing, someone didn’t do their due diligence to ensure it was print ready.

  36. Paff August 19, 2011 at 9:43 am #

    lol… I can’t see what were they doing for this to happen. What were they retouching there?

  37. ben August 19, 2011 at 9:45 am #

    Looks like the photo here (http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/kate-moss-kiss-me-kate/#/magazine-gallery/kate-moss-wedding/3) is a little bit better……..

  38. Martin Beebee August 19, 2011 at 9:48 am #

    How can that possibly be a mistake? Those fingers had to be deliberately removed (probably to keep mom’s back line smooth and continuous — looks like the fingers would have broken the line). I don’t see how this can be anything but deliberately removing the fingers and hoping (a) no one would notice and/or (b) no one would care. Sloppy no matter what.

  39. Michael August 19, 2011 at 10:28 am #

    wow, wonder how could a company as huge as vogue could have let something like that slip…i used to work in a magazine too, but my magazine is a long long way from vogue, but my magazine even it is a small company have tight guidelines regarding retouching an image, there are checks and double checks from the photographer, editor, and the digital artist. to me this is plain sloppy work

  40. Mario August 19, 2011 at 10:28 am #

    Vogue needs to contact: Ralph Smith Photography, Digital Department.

    • Dragana August 19, 2011 at 11:05 am #

      It’s a classic sign of the times – “it’s good enough”. Ralph Smith Photography would have done a far superior job!

  41. Andrew Livelsberger August 19, 2011 at 11:13 am #

    OK…a few things….

    (1) – we do not know if this was a mistake just not caught, i.e. – accidental clicking of the clone/healing tool kind of thing or a repositioning that was never completed properly. Only way to know that is to ask the retoucher if they remember.

    (2) – Fashion is a very different animal that many others….I personally am not a fan of the “Photoshop the model to look perfect” look. No one is perfect, but some very impressionable people read these sources and take what they see very seriously. Taking out a blemish here or there I can see, but photoshopping body parts to look thinner or larger than they are…I’m not a big fan.

    (3) While we all do make mistakes, I won’t go so far as to say this is inexcusable, but definitely not acceptable and should have been caught by a proofer or editor.

  42. Brian C August 19, 2011 at 11:15 am #

    I don’t think this is a photoshop mishap at all. It looks like her last two fingers are tucked under her hand. The line on Kate Moss’ back is created by those two fingers adding pressure to her skin.

  43. Ben August 19, 2011 at 11:34 am #

    Wow… There are a lot of people on this forum who clearly have never made a mistake at work before… I bow in reverence to your collective perfection.

    Honestly… stuff happens… No biggie. Like one of the previous posters said, it’s the equivalent of a typo. I seriously doubt a simple mistake will do anything to alter people’s opinion on the “to retouch or not to retouch” debate.

  44. David August 19, 2011 at 11:39 am #

    Let me be the one to go out on a limb here.

    Who cares!
    Normal people dont look at or read Vogue, statistically the vast percentage of serious readers are described as caterers to the the market that puts anorexic models on the runway and call it beautiful, and accepts without reservation the retouching of every image to ensure a blemish free world. These people do not operate in the real world, they demand perfection beyond that which is possible in the real world, and within a mag like this … they will get it. Real people don’t read Vogue.
    So who cares!
    For as long as the market exist that demands that the mom and daughter above NEED retouching to be used in the magazine, it will occur and mistakes will happen. I honestly don’t care about the error, but care more about this girls sense of self while her zit-less face is plastered on news stands around the world. With this image, she just began her quest towards accepting who she is and how she appears, and this image will forever stand as the testament, of what she can never attain. The question will become, does this image become both her nemesis, and the want for other young girls? How much damage has it done?
    So … who cares about the fingers, when the real problem is the alteration of reality via retouching. The problem is the people that will look at this image and accept that they are seeing “the real thing”, and use it to define beauty.

  45. Mathieu Wauters August 19, 2011 at 11:51 am #

    Bam. Before you know it, you opened Photochop instead of Photoshop!

  46. Kim August 19, 2011 at 12:03 pm #

    Vogue is a big enough deal I’d think no mistake like that should go “un-caught.” That being said, if it does, at least if it’s a web blunder it can be caught and fixed relatively quickly – although even the web is getting less forgiving these days – but print. Ouch. Wouldn’t want to be the editor or art director in the shop today!!

  47. Amber August 19, 2011 at 12:05 pm #

    Personally, I couldn’t care less. But professionally, as Vogue Magazine, they should be on top of this shit. It’s just sloppy work. I wouldn’t even deliver a photo to my portrait clients like.

    • Eric August 19, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

      I agree with Amber. Vogue is not a high school newspaper.

  48. James August 19, 2011 at 1:09 pm #

    Hahaha as a retoucher who has worked on vogue covers, here is my take…

    The photographer and editor have requested a new arm or hand or something dropped on, plus cleanup and balancing. They have then said that the deadline is in two hours but have only agreed to pay one hour of retouching. The retoucher does not work for free and as such has to pack two hours work into one hour of retouching. If you were driving on a freeway and had to double your speed, how long do you think before you would make a mistake.

    The real source of the problem is vogue being a tightarse. If the retoucher had an extra half hour, the mistake would not have slipped through

  49. Craig Murphy August 19, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Maybe they did it just to see if anyone noticed. -)

  50. Pratap Ramamurthy August 19, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    Would you like to get more visitors from New York?

    Submit your blog in zeole.com/nyc . This is a one time submission. This would automatically submit a preview of your future blog posts in New York, with a link back to your blog.

    Enjoy more traffic from New York :-)

  51. Thomas August 19, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    There’s more here ;-)
    http://www.photoshopdisasters.com/

  52. Mark Schueler August 19, 2011 at 4:36 pm #

    I think it’s definitely pretty inexcusable in a major publication like Vogue. I know they probably have tight deadlines, but that’s pretty obvious and awful. I have seen a similarly poor photoshop of an Emma Watson portrait that was also published. It sort of blows my mind.

  53. Chris Trafford August 19, 2011 at 5:07 pm #

    Sloppy, however on the other hand I now do not feel so bad when I accidentally clone the same hair or blemish. I would have to guess its that unreasonable deadline the mags work on.

  54. Yani August 19, 2011 at 7:19 pm #

    If this got published, you know there’s an art director at Vogue having a life-size cow!

  55. ROGARITA August 19, 2011 at 11:50 pm #

    A huge mistake… But what if… the fingers missing are just connected with mom’s back, like trying to make a bond, a connection between mother and daughter!! THAT COULD BE A GOOD EXCUSE. But getting back to business i just thing photoshop its been abused this days!!!

  56. Stephen August 20, 2011 at 12:27 am #

    If I did this I would care. a lot. Come on. Let’s just call this fiction. There is journalism, editorial and then this, fiction. If I want fiiction, I am ok with anything goes. This is published as editorial photography, but I don’t buy it.

  57. Thomas Mangieri August 20, 2011 at 1:22 am #

    Hmmm. Makes me wonder exactly who did the retouching. Vogue’s in-house retouchers? Testino’s staff retouchers (he must have them)? Or an outsourced free-lancer?

  58. Danny Tucker August 20, 2011 at 2:25 am #

    People, it’s a non-story. A wind-up. You’ve been sucked in!
    http://www.vogue.com/magazine/article/kate-moss-kiss-me-kate/#/magazine-gallery/kate-moss-wedding/3

  59. fas August 20, 2011 at 5:39 am #

    Photoshop fail at its best.

  60. Russ Rowland August 20, 2011 at 6:07 am #

    I think it’s a nice note of imperfection in an industry that trades on unattainable levels of perfection for most people…

  61. michael murphy August 20, 2011 at 6:42 am #

    s**t happens but on the Vogue level, they should have a person specifically hired to make sure s**t doesn’t happen. People to watch over people who watch over people. Not big brother ish but again, it’s Vogue, they shouldn’t have to worry about such an amateur mistake.

  62. Sandy Gennrich August 20, 2011 at 7:14 am #

    I wouldn’t have noticed if it weren’t pointed out to me. But I do think it’s inexcusable. Vogue shouldn’t allow it to happen, and neither should Mario.

  63. MissyG August 20, 2011 at 8:51 am #

    I think the photo is beautiful and would love to see it without such extreme photoshopping. I am one of “those” people who find pores, flaws etc beautiful in people and wonder why it has become so important to say beautiful is minus these things. I am curious what the photo looks like before it is photoshopped and would like to know if people would still find it beautiful. I not only have a hard time with the message we are sending when a woman is photoshopped to be flawless and thin but what about the message when we do this with children? More and more I am seeing eye colors enhanced and made to be a little more “sparkly” because we are eliminating what are considered flaws. Are children not beautiful? This may not be what you are seeking as a comment but what strikes me is that this photo needed so much work to be published the touch ups started to erase. Maybe that is the new beauty?

  64. Tim Skipper August 20, 2011 at 9:38 am #

    What bugs me is they will print a huge mistake, but then tear up a photographer’s portfolio for even the smallest infraction. Just saying, don’t seem fair. :)

  65. Matt Dutile August 20, 2011 at 11:00 am #

    Testino and Moss are both amazing in their own right. Why did this requiring the poor Photoshoping in the first place?

  66. Juli L. August 20, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    It is a beautiful photo, but no it isn’t excusable. I don’t think I would have noticed it if it wasn’t pointed out, but I would have noticed it if I was the one editing it…at least I sure hope I would’ve. :)

  67. JJ August 20, 2011 at 1:06 pm #

    Maybe it’s time for “truth in advertising” , namely, when a photo has been enhanced, perhaps it should be so noted.

  68. Shellnz August 20, 2011 at 1:36 pm #

    It just goes to show how much of a lie the whole fashion and magazine industry is – portray people as they really are and stop feeding us images that are so called ‘perfect’ but completely untrue! I would frankly rahter see a woman with open pores and blemishes that looks more like the real people I encounter every day than these so-called perfect illusions of haumanity! I believe photoshopping encourages people to lie, and I don’t believe any picture I see anymore unless it’s one that I have taken and know is the true depiction of the subject! Otherwise, you’re just selling lies!

  69. Jan Oscarsson August 21, 2011 at 4:23 am #

    I am wondering why anybody would retouch an image of a mother with her child in the first place, except maybe to take away something like a zit or a bruise that isn’t supposed to be there…

  70. Andreas August 21, 2011 at 5:13 am #

    I don’t know if it really was published in vogue or if it is a fake ?

    On the vogue website you can find this normal version: http://media.vogue.com/files/2011/08/16/img-0911vowell10201_162835286745.jpg

    Only on the fashiongonerough blog is the photoshopped picture: http://imagesgonerogue.com/images/2011/8/1/kate-moss4.jpg

  71. Matt Needham August 21, 2011 at 7:56 am #

    Removing fingers seems a bit extreme, or maybe sloppy, but next time you are at a museum with classical art take a good look at the statues from the Romans. They often removed the coccyx, because they found it disrupted the flow of body lines, and they found it aesthetically displeasing.

  72. Oliver Edwards August 21, 2011 at 11:17 am #

    I find bad photoshop work and retouching mistakes quite amusing and often check the photoshop disasters blog for a laugh.

  73. Tony August 21, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    We all make mistakes. Even Chase does…

    Mistake one. Explain error and remedy.
    Mistake two. Take issue.
    Mistake three. Tell the person they need to find another job.

  74. Martin Wolf August 22, 2011 at 3:46 am #

    That is not excusable. I’m not a huge fan of too much Photoshop work when it comes to forming the body in new shapes, but I can live with it. But cutting off fingers or something like that is one step to much which shouldn’t happen in an professional environment.

  75. Belinda McCarthy August 22, 2011 at 5:17 am #

    Considering the fine detail a shot is examined when editing in Photoshop (or, at least, shouldbe, if the user has anything about them), I don’t think this is acceptable. I feel that it’s more a case of the editing team cutting corners, feeling that the average punter won’t even notice. That’s even less acceptable, as it’s treating the reader like an idiot.

  76. Gav August 22, 2011 at 5:25 am #

    Considering how much they charge for the editing it is terrible! It shows a lack of respect to the client and in this case models too.

  77. Bogdan August 22, 2011 at 6:40 am #

    Well, mistakes happen all the time… however, I sure that images went trough more than a couple approvals before printing and no one saw it … . I do not think that any one would do that on purpose or it shows lack of respect , it is just a mistake …

  78. Juan Rubalcava August 22, 2011 at 12:39 pm #

    ouch… someone lose a great job.

  79. Marius August 23, 2011 at 1:58 am #

    I once heard from a famous photographer that you should picture what you see. How could he miss the fingers?

  80. Anthony August 24, 2011 at 8:43 am #

    Job opening!

  81. David August 25, 2011 at 9:18 am #

    I recently did a group shot of over 150 people for a camp I go to. I do this for every camp session, which adds to about 7 or 8 every summer. I obviously can’t get everyone to smile and not blink in one shot so I take several on a tripod and layer them to get everyone looking. Well on the last one of the year I had two shots, one where a mother was holding her baby as it was turned around, and another where the little guy was looking at me. I guess I wasn’t paying enough attention and accidently gave the kid 3 legs. But this is a shot 150+ people in by an semi-amatuer photographer in rural indiana. Only the people at this camp will see the picture. No one looked at it before it was printed except me and the guy at the print shop. This vogue image was probably looked at my a dozen editors in preperation for a world-wide distributed magazine. Shouldn’t they be paying a little more attention?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Vogues photoshopmiss | FotoSomHobby - September 8, 2011

    [...] Att de stora modetidningarna retucherar sina bilder det vet vi sedan tidigare, men exemplet som visas upp på Chase Jarvis sajt är nog det slarvigaste exemplet på photoshopretusch, se själva här! [...]

Leave a Reply

Highslide for Wordpress Plugin