While the general public may be less focused on the technical details associated with an image used for an album cover on Pop Singer Ariana Grande’s “My Everything” album, the Internet’s Photoshop police are suddenly calling Photoshop fail. What do you think?
We as photographers and digital artists have become pretty good at identifying what some may be less attuned to: blatant Photoshop failures. The latest image in question, one taken several years ago, portrays popular musician Ariana Grande posing comfortably on a stool. The image is harmless enough, only there seems to be a slight problem: people seem to think there’s no way the attractive singer could be curled up the way she is while sitting on a stool. Some are going so far as to say that it’s impossible.
The image is suddenly gaining attention as the Internet expresses their confusion over the pose.
https://twitter.com/McJesse/status/919615711026302976
Others seem to think the pose may be possible and have gone as far as to recreate their own version of the image.
The star in question has caught on to the attention and responded.
https://twitter.com/ArianaGrande/status/920034943291592704
While there’s nothing other than the size of the stool that makes me question the legitimacy of the portrait, I’m sure someone else will be able to chime in and help us all determine whether or not the image in question is legit, or if the stool was Photoshopped in later. What are your thoughts? Photoshopped, or an awkward balancing act made attractive by a cute girl?
Who cares if the stool was in camera or Photoshopped after the fact?
It's the cover for a "flash in the pan" artist that won't make it to 2025... No one cares except click fisher's at Fstoppers.
Actually, it’s click “anglers”. Get it right.
Oh I'm not that serious about it, Dusty. Angling is an overstatement for me. I'd say Phishing, cuz honestly I'm a huge fan, but that has other meanings online. And what is your problem sharing a candid photo / retouch related article online? What's wrong with you? EVERYTHING IS CLICK BAIT YOUR LIFE IS A LIE.
Also, whats up man?
Nino’s back!!!
If this was photoshopped, I will no longer listen to her albums. It matters and I need to know!
russians hacked that too ? someone call hillary
she seems to be leaning against a wall . . . nothing is 'impossible' in post process - maybe even in camera
We just live in a day and age where people are so hung up on details that they can't appreciate how simple and attractive the image is as a whole.
Artists have to remember that they're not creating works for other artists to be impressed with. They're creating something for the client who, most of the time, doesn't care about frequency separation or dodging and burning, etc. They just know how they feel about the image as a whole.
In this case, I guarantee most people will have to look very closely to find anything wrong with it. Details are important, but not more important than the overall impression of a piece of work.
Great article for discussion.
If it takes an actual physical demonstration to determine whether or not it's been 'shopped, then it is NOT a Photoshop failure. If it looks unreal but you still have to ask "if," then it's a Photoshop success.
Isn't she about 5 feet tall? Seems like she would fit on a stool...
No one else thinks her elbow looks pretty unnatural too?
Given that probably 90% of commercial advertisement images are composites, I don't see what the problem is. The general public doesn't look at images in the same manner as a photographer does, so I doubt if there's many who would notice or care. Looking at the image, she's appears to be sitting on her left leg, and with the proper weight distribution I think this may be possible.
One you can not determine the size of the stool from the image and two she is smaller than a hobit, just with sexier feet. Unless you're into harry feet. "Not that there is anything wrong with that." (Name that 90's reference)
It looks to be more of an angle thing between the stool and her position. That still looks to be a hellofa balancing act. But it's not like it would be the first time that a support, stand, brace, what ever was hiden behind something in an image.
Hell, it's not that hard to have her float above the stool "in camera". It's called a practical effect and props.
So what....
I couldn't care less whether the image is realistic, or possible. I think it is odd that anyone would care about that.
It's an album cover, not photojournalism, not nature. No reasonable human expects a recent album cover photo to be realistic, because realism is not normal or expected for that genre or usage. If I were the guy doing the Photoshop work, I wouldn't even bother trying to make it realistic looking, because looking realistic is not even desirable, in this usage case.
It's weird that some people think things matter that don't matter AT ALL.