Justin Bieber is no stranger to the being in the media, whether it’s for any of his numerous tasteless stunts or even his interactions with photographers. This time it’s his most recent photoshoot for Calvin Klein that has the celebrity blogs buzzing, where an allegedly leaked, unedited photo shows major differences in muscle mass and body hair among other altered features. However, the question still remains: is it real?
A recent photoshoot for Calvin Klein features Justin Bieber undressing and posing half naked alongside Lara Stone. After the release of these photos, Breath Heavy, a popular celebrity gossip site claimed to have an unedited photo from the photoshoot that was sent to them by an anonymous source that was supposedly involved in the shoot. The photo, seen below compared with the published ad, shows significant manipulation to Bieber’s dimensions including the near doubling of his arm mass, additional muscle enlargement in his back, pecs, and thighs, and the enlargement of his hands, butt, and bulge.
This, of course, left numerous tabloids buzzing and even inspired a hilarious parody photoshoot. However, Pratik Naik, head of Solstice Retouch isn’t convinced by the so called “original”. When I talked with Pratik, he pointed out several flaws in the leaked image.
Overall, just looking at the image should tell you that this isn't the unretouched file. What file out of our cameras look like this to start with? Sure, it could have been a preset but since the person doing this wasn't as knowledgeable, you can tell they tried to undo the contrast and went too far to give the illusion that it was some sort of “original” image.
1. The areas where the bottom of the underware meets the leg was done very poorly. You can tell this is where the logo was on the original and they tried to clone it out. The inconsistent patterns and odd textures don't match up. Anatomically, even the leg (camera left) doesn't match up to the rest of his frame well.
2. The odd highlights on the arm were the biggest giveaway. To make it “look” unretouched, they tried to bring the white and black point back to a way where it looks like contrast wasn't applied. The downfall of this is that the highlights stayed identical to the after due to a lack of detail in the highlights on the original “after” file.
3. The same about the waistband, you can see the black levels couldn't be brought back to a point that matches the overall tonality of the shadows in the image.
4. They tried to liquify the image back to what it would be like if he didn't have as much muscle mass. However, the anatomy now is inconsistent. If you check out his tricep, the indention, or dip, now doesn't make sense. Nor does the remaining volume still present on his upper back.
5. The terrible job on the liquify work is present across the frame. If you want to fake a leaked image, the anatomy will give it away.
Pratik included this image with the message
Pratik’s observations of a poorly altered fake seem to indeed be correct, as well as the dimensions of Bieber’s body matching in the published photos and the videos also included in the ad campaign.
It seems as though with the “unaltered” image indeed being altered the celebrity gossip world was abuzz over nothing. What do you think? Was the photoshoot tasteful? Did you like it? Do you think the images were altered? Let us know with a comment.
Good point.I can't argue it and I am not exactly anti-GMO by any means.
Point is that it is an argument that can't have a correct answer (on the tattoos at least).
As for GMOs, they haven't really come up with a solid answer that yet (to my understanding). I am just used to thinking "GMO bad" because of the surrounding of hippy mentality around me
Read my reply to Terry.
Not enough testing can be feasibly done to claim saftey of GMOs before they are allowed on the market. That's the problem with GMOs. That's how it could be ruining your body.
It's not hard, or that expensive, to go organic and non-GMO, at least for your produce. Eliminating pesticides on your produce should be a given.
Read the response I wrote to Greg. No one can logically argue against it.
I can logically argue against it....
Any tattoo I ever got I put a good deal of consideration into, and indeed I do know how I'll feel about them later in life. You are in absolutely NO position to tell me otherwise, period. #1.
The clothing comparison is silly. A better comparison would be to something like freckles. You going to wear those every day? Uhh... yeah, you are. If I want to chose my "freckles", who are you to tell me I'm doing something wrong? You're nobody, that's who. #2.
Any person who has regrets over their tattoos indeed has an unfortunate situation don't they. But that's their problem. It is nowhere near indicative of all people who get tattoos. Suggesting so is closed-minded and ignorant. This is true of a lot of things of course, not just tattoos. #3.
At the end of the day, your opinion is yours, an that's all it is. Passing your judgement on others for their choices says WAY more about you than it does them.
And there's your logical argument. :-) As a side note, I'd like to see you offer your opinion to a Māori and see what they have to say about it.
#1- Are you the same person today as you were when you were a teen, a child? You can not predict that the choices you made when you were young will sit well with you when you are older. In a nut shell, you can not predict the future.
#2- You can't compare the natural body function of freckles to getting a tattoo. Freckles come from a genetic predisposition that one has no real control over. A tattoo is something one is **choosing to do** to their bodies.
The clothing comparison also makes perfect sense. After all, most of us are seeking to create an aesthetically pleasing appearance for ourselves, and others, when we buy and wear clothes. The same applies with tattoos, except that tattoos are permanent, and clothes are not.
#3- I never said, or even suggested (feel free to quote me), that "all people" that get tattoos will regret them when they are older. But the fact is, most people do.
My "judgement," my opinion, in this case, is based on logic and facts. Respectfully, your rebuttal is not based on any logic or facts whatsoever.
Hopefully the simple things I have said gets through to some people reading it, especially young people, so they so they don't end up doing something that they will likely regret. I've already, and very quickly, changed the mind of a lot of younger people I know saying the same things. It's as if a lightbulb was turned on. That's the typical reaction, especially amongst young ladies.
The Māori (I'm guessing those people from New Zealand?) are doing something based on tradition, not reason and logic. Traditions often go against reason and logic. Their tradition is no different.
As I said earlier, I think temporary tattoos are pretty cool, for the obvious reason of non-permanence.
Yes "the Maori" are from NZ. Do you have a problem with culture as well?
That's not a reasonable question based on the focus of my comments.
Now do I have a problem with particular aspects of say my culture, that I see as harmful? Of course. Why wouldn't I? I would be remiss in my duties as an American.
Strictly within the context of your remark... Your duties as an American are to leave people alone to live their life as they see fit. The end.
Then you would also be telling the citizens of any other country that they should have no say in how their country is governed, and have no input on how it's culture develops and is maintained. That is not in harmony with someone that respectfully brings up the tattoo tradition of the Mauri.
Besides, everything I have mentioned is not preventing anyone from making their own personal choices on how to live their lives.
Not even remotely close to what I said. The only duty you have *as an American* is to respect other's freedom. Your duty is not to govern them, but to see that they are as free from the intrusions of gov't. IE. Leave *people* alone.
Good grief. I'm done chasing my tail here. I'm going to my photoshoot.
How am I governing people by simply sharing my view on tattoos? I am giving my input on things that affect my society and my culture, just as I'm sure the Maori do. Nothing I have said affects people's sovereignty over their own body. Clearly they can still go out an get a tattoo.
#1- You're in no position to tell me if I am or am not, or if I will or will not. Absolutely none at all.
#2- What I meant with freckles is that I take them with me and cannot take them off. If I want to put ink on my body, I take that with me too and cannot take it off. If I so choose that, that's my choice.
#3- I've inferred it from your overall tone. Possibly I'm wrong. You have however made several declarative statements that are in reality not facts, but opinions at best, and baseless assumptions at worst. For example, you said "most people regret tattoos" and purported that to be a fact. There is no possible way that you could know that, unless you know most people with tattoos (which would be very impressive if that is actually the case). So no, not fact.
Then as to the Māori, you're telling me that their traditions trump logic, and thus implying that their traditions are not logical? I'll admit I'm making an assumption about your meaning there, but if that is what you mean... WTF? (<-- Rhetorical) I get that you are entitled to your opinion (and it is an *opinion*), but jeez... that's a doozie of a judgement on an entire group of people, if that's what you meant. If not, well, what about sailors? They have a tradition of tattoos too. Hm? Or Spec Ops soldiers? Or the military in general for that matter? The Japanese have *many* tattoo traditions as well. I can go on and on about traditions. I hope you're not suggesting all of these people are illogical and unreasonable.
But I digress. Let me tell you the only fact you need to know. And trust that it is a *pure* *unbiased* *fact*... what anyone (outside of maybe your loved ones) does with their body isn't your business to judge or prevent.
Me, for example... you don't know me at all outside of this discussion (fact), how many tattoos I have (fact), what they are (fact), where they are (fact), how old I was when I got them (fact), why I got them (fact), or how I do or will feel about them in one year or a million (fact). Such commentary on your part is your opinion, not fact (fact). And it's not your business to be passing judgement on me over it in any case (fact).
So by all means please express your opinion. But don't try to pretend your opinions on tattooing are facts. They are nothing of the sort.
A better idea might be to just have a live-and-let-live attitude and leave people alone to be who they want to be, so long as it doesn't impede on your freedom to be who you want to be (which as near as I can tell, tattoos do not).
#1- Reason and logic, not to mention freedom of expression and the purpose of a forum, puts me in the position to say that you can not predict the future. You can not know for sure the man you are going to become many years down the road.
#2- One is a natural skin condition and the other is a choice, as you said, to radically modify your skin. Your comparison is fatally flawed.
#3- Yes, you are obviously wrong. There is no tone, or actual content, in anything I have written that is not based on logic and reason, and that would have you thinking I even suggested "all" people that have tattoos will come to regret them as they get older. Most does not equal "all."
And yes, polls have shown that most people come to regret at least some of the tattoos, if not all, that they got when they were younger. I have also lived more than long enough to see that common regret amongst people I've known throughout my life. "I got that stupid tattoo when I was....," or other close variation, are common phrases amongst older people. It should then come as no surprise how much the tattoo removal sector in plastic surgery has grown, and continues to grow.
Clealry I don't find tattoos to be logical, so why would you think I would exempt those New Zealanders, or anyone else, from the truths that I pointed out, especially when the reasoning in those cases is based on something often even more foolish, tradition?
As for my judgement that people have mutilated their bodies by getting tattoos, by the defintion of the word mutilation, they most certainly have. If some people see value in that mutilation, they are free to do so, but mutilation it is.
I'm not preventing anyone from doing anything to their body. I am merely stating my view on the matter of tattoos, based on facts, reason, and logic. I also see it as a duty and a responsibility, as an elder, to share that view with younger people. Do elder Maori not share their teachings and values to their young? What people ultimately do is their choice, as you say.
You say live and let live (which I am obviously doing), but anyone who truly believes in that will not try and stifle other people's views and opinions. The better thing to say is that you simply don't agree with me, whether you wish to explain why, or not, and then leave it at that.
Hmm. I think I see. You're that 'for-their-own-good' guy.
Nothing I said is fatally flawed. <LOL> But alright then. Have it your way. I'll just ask that you stay on your side of the room and away from me and mine please. We don't require your deliverance.
I already explained to you why what you have said is fatally flawed. Responding by simply telling me I am wrong doesn't add anything to the discussion, or the debate.
The term "'for their own good'" implies forcing someone to do something, as in the way a parent would. Clearly such a thing does not apply to anything I have said.
Stay on my "side of the room?" Well, the room in this case is this forum, and in forums people are always going to say things that you may not agree with. If you try and stifle and ignore that then that goes against the definition of what a forum is.
You disagree with me, and that's fine, but keep in mind that while I have disagreed with you, I have not tried to stifle your expression in this forum. I have reasonably, logically, and most importantly, respectfully, shared my views and opinions. I encourage you to also, and always, do the same.
I think I have said all I need to say on this subject. Have a nice evening, or whatever it is in your part of the world.
Heh. It's pretty clear neither of us are going to change our mind. I see issues in your position, you see issues in mine, and neither of us are going to be convinced that the other's argument is right or even has any merit. There is no debate here at all. Just a philosophical echo chamber with both of us talking past each other.
I didn't mean your side of the forum man. I meant life (the universe and everything). It was hyperbole meant to convey my desire that philosophies such as yours, whether from you or anyone else, be kept away from me.
Have a nice evening yourself.
Whoah, hold on there. Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't recall ever agreeing with anything you wrote.
Of course there was a debate going on, but you soon chose to not want to participate in it and you simply summed up your responses as I'm wrong. At that point it was no longer a debate.
I can easily be convinced to change my mind on a subject if someone logically and factually convinces me that I am wrong. That did not happen in this case, and in fact it can not because no one can logically know how they will feel about their tattoos in the future. That is the crux of the matter.
Clearly it is your choice, but in this case you are not just closing yourself off to someone else's philosophy, you
are closing yourself off to the truth. Neither is good personally and for a society.
You also have a nice evening.
I missed the part below the first sentence. Added later, maybe?
Anyway, I am thin, I eat only organic and non-gmo produce, I don't smoke, and I don't drink. What "pills" are you referring to, and trying to equate with the permanence of tattoos?
duplicate post deleted
Regardless, or whether that is the original or not, you can bet this image went through a round of post. Imagine for a moment you are the guy/gal doing the retouching with Justin Beiber's junk blown up at 400% on you your monitor while you mold him into shape.... HA! that would NOT be a good day! :)
Fstoppers - you're better than this. First, the alleged 'before' is obviously fake.Second, consider how you'd feel if an unedited image of yours, that a client paid good money for, was stolen and spread around in an attempt to discredit you/your model? It's a pretty shitty thing for either someone to edit your photo and try to pass it off as original, or for someone to steal your photo and use it without your permission, simply to make fun of someone, no matter who the photographer or the model is.
If you think it's "entertaining" you're a shitty photographer.
Have you actually read the whole article? It appears not.... As to the images, both are technically fake. I suspect the truth lies somewhere between them.
Did you read my first line, where it says "First, the alleged 'before' is obviously fake"
Who cares where the truth lies? What gives people the right to use another photographers images, edit them, to try to discredit the photographer and model. No shit the ad is photoshopped, so is every ad in every magazine, I'd argue much MORE than this one. That's another issue.
The issue has to do with taking someones photo and editing it, then spreading rumors that it's the original. If it was done to any of us photographers, I'm sure we'd be a bit bent about it. It's a wrong thing to do. I could pop through the popular photos on fstoppers from photographers and do the same shit, and it would be shitty.
I am confused how finding entertainment value from this makes someone a shitty photographer.
Although I agree with you on the taking (ahem. i mean stealing) an image and spreading it out to flaming both JB and the photographer.
I am all about anything negative that happens to this little twat, he is poisonous to impressionable youth and I haven't heard his name murmured in the last few months till this article but I am all for things done right and the truth. I feel this is just as big a slap across everyone involved in this photo shoot by someone who did not respect the person who signs their checks. If anything, the person who leaked this should be the one getting the can over this whole incident for stealing from their employer.
"impressionable youth?" Do you judge every college kid as harshly as you judge this one? Get off the high horse for a second.
Did you know he has the record for the most wishes granted by the Make-A-Wish foundation of ANY recording artist in history? (and almost everyone total). Horrible kid this one, eh?
"I am confused how finding entertainment value from this makes someone a shitty photographer." - It's not that confusing to me. If you find it funny that someone stole another photographers photo and/or edited it, without permission, you're a shitty photographer.
Every college kid isn't plastered on the front of magazines and news outlets. My local new station even reports on this lil shit. During a serious event, I went to CNN.com to see what was going on but instead of seeing the main headline on a serious subject, there was an article on this brat smoking pot on a jet. College students don't have thousands of under aged kids watching every action you do
"Get off the high horse for a second." No. You want to be on the face of media and collect on millions of dollars with no negativity on your actions, deal with criticism and your image. Plain and simple.
And where did I say anything about this was humorous in my previous response? I stood up for JB, CK and the photographer this image was stolen from. And who cares if someone laughs at a photo or not, it doesn't make them a shitty photographer. Get off your high horse for a second.
And I don't give a shit how much he donated to whatever charities. For every donation he commits he is still acting like a giant DB.
You made perfectly good sense to me Rob. Tacky story.
A hater has done his schoolwork more or less. but still a good photo! :)
Calvin Klein has been poster child company for bad photoshop. Hasn't Justin Bieber's career jumped the shark a while ago.
Well they do it with womens boobs all the time so? But apart from that, who cares about this punk
I don't really care much at all for Justin or overpriced underwear but I do agree that the before shot is clearly fake and have thought that from the second I saw the image. Whoever did this did a sloppy job but then again it doesn't take much to fool someone that cares all that much about the size of Justin Bieber's junk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgP-A7CqdkQ
he is not that big in video as on final image +)
Another point Pratik did not mention but is a fairly obvious one is that there is no difference in the skin and shadows, no evidence of facial retouching for example. The circles under the eyes are the same, the skin is perfectly smooth in both etc. If it were an original I can guarantee you would find some skin blemishes and unsightly shadows somewhere. There's no way the actual retoucher of the image did absolutely no dodge or burn to create the final image.
What a great article! I want to add a few things as well that were not specifically mentioned. His head and hands were shrunk in the 2nd photo as compared to the original. Creasing which is apparent in the original on his thigh area of his underwear has been erased in the 2nd. The shadowing on the original has been lightened in the 2nd most obviously around the neck area. I agree that the BreatheHeavy supposedly "un-retouched" photo is a laughable attempt at photoshopping and other experts on other sites have torn it apart as such as well.
blatant marketing strategy. we're all looking at this campaign. ugh.
How is this educational or helpful towards any level of photographer. Bieber's Tatoos, muscles, and a bunch of trolls talking crap. Yo! Fstoppers ! Leave this crap to the fashion magazines and get on with what you initially set up this website for. Your killing your community. Sorry guys, but that's what I see happening. All the best.