[Pic] Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Cover Is the Worst Photoshop I've Ever Seen

[Pic] Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Cover Is the Worst Photoshop I've Ever Seen

Ok, maybe it's not the worst Photoshop I've ever seen but it is probably the worst Photoshop I've ever seen on the cover of a national magazine. It's definitely the worst Photoshop I've ever seen on the cover of SI. I thought the SI Swimsuit addition was supposed to be about natural beauty shot with natural light in exotic locations.

Kate Upton's face has either been completely replaced or they airbrushed the crap out of her chin and removed all realistic shadows. How could this have happened? What do you guys think? Am I over reacting or is this offensively bad?

Log in or register to post comments


Mark Kauzlarich's picture

I didn't notice it when I took a cursory glance at the cover earlier, but, yes, that chin looks ridiculous.

Lee Morris's picture

I'm not even convinced that face goes with that body. 

James Campbell's picture

Ha ha forget the chin!  Look at the blue from the sky on the lettering behind her head. 

JimmySchaefer's picture

Good find!  Although this could just be a water mark for the image as its still owned by someone online!

mary k's picture

YESSSS. A piece of my soul and every other retoucher's soul died when this cover was released.

Stefan Choquette's picture

It appears they either did a replacement head or they did a "digital fill flash" on her face because the shadows were too dark. The shadows on her face don't match the tonal value of the shadows on her neck. You just ruined this for me.

Ceferino's picture

she has a face?! :)

Ignacio Farías's picture

that head looks like a barby... if you pull it out you have like a plastic round thing... am I the only one noticing something bizarre with her bathing suit? WTF

Dan Dawley's picture

lets hope her boob job wasn't as bad

Donny Zaltzberg's picture

This woman is a Goddess, I understand the need for retouching but ...seriously?

Check out Maxim magazine (Thailand edition) a lot worst than this one.

Jonathan Makcharoenwoodhi's picture

It was the first thing I noticed and I was shocked that SI would have went with that

Robert Simpson's picture

Either she's had the miracle waxing of the century, or the retoucher also spend a lot of time removing "fly-aways" at the "bottom of her belly region", too! Looks like plastic.

James's picture

In all honesty, and no offense, but is anyone really looking at this to see her face? No. I'm certainly not looking at her face.

Graham Marley's picture

The whole thing is completely absurd:


That's not skin. Sorry guys.

Lee Morris's picture

lol, that one is just as bad! What is going on this year? 

James Campbell's picture

SI started hiring all of their retouchers from Craigslist and FB haha... 

Graham Marley's picture

I wouldn't even be surprised if it's a "If you do one, you gotta do them all, lest some agency has a nit fit." Or they're just mailing it in.

Roman Kazmierczak's picture

 They got what they pay for...

Thomas Lawn's picture

This one is the worst. Look at her right leg! http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/swimsuit/modelfeatured/nina_agdal...
It looks like a vector drawing!

superduckz's picture

Dear lord that's what I do when I want to show my daughter of an example of going WAY too far with edits and luminance.... and these "pro's" publish this s#!t?

ReeseMoore's picture

The creep factor is ridiculously high. What art director thought that would entice people to buy that magazine? Bleah!

Rob Mills's picture

probably catering to Fat America... but even fat America probably doesn't like looking at it, fat that is.

Are you guys freaking kidding me???????
You don't need to be an expert in body shape to NOT NOTICED her left arm???
The day one of us had a shoulder like that is because you became direct from an motorcycle accident! And together with her "other arm" I can say EASELY she is the lost sister of Rubber man!
But FINALLY they start to make bikinis with the right frontal lengh size ... why had to come so high??? Hehehehe ...

Tanis Seeber's picture

The first thing to catch my (female photographer) eye was her lower half, which seems ill-proportioned. But that just might be her body. 
The background also seems a bit too perfect, but again, I just might be getting a bit too critical. 
And the problem with her left shoulder is that she is missing her armpit, which is a common over-retouch. 

Bruno Mão De Ferro's picture

This is the new content un-aware filter from photoshop??

Bruno Mão De Ferro's picture

is this*

vladimir byazrov's picture

Damnit! They look for the most beautiful young perfect girls in the world
and yet somehow those girls apparently are  so ugly that
ridiculous amount of retouching is applied. 
Dolly Parton and Cher are never airbrushed this much.
It's crazy!

Lisa Ng's picture

Her boobs are gross looking. They need more support too. But that's not what this post is about ;)

Richard Sheehan's picture

If anything, all I can see is a little lightening around her chin...Shes been on about 12 shows this week and this is how she looks... Have a look at the actual magazine before you comment or get a life...

View your screen from a more acute angle and you'll see her belly has also been over retouched, there is a disc like shape that is inconsistent with original lighting plus it has no skin texture.

Fernando Mol's picture

The chin? Oh, right. Yes, now that you mention. ;)

I don´t know who retouched these images for SI. But he or she must be banned from using photoshop. This or the kind of things that give retouched pictures a bad reputation.  

Wesley's picture

They forgot to watch the Peter Hurley dvd, it's all about the jaw line :)

Patrick C N Wong's picture

Im expecting all the facial feature of the model are shifted all the way to the right side if she gives me a front view shot

Hereditic's picture

The fact is that most people will never even notice.  Why should SI pay a professional to do a detailed, nuanced, realistic retouch, when only .02% of the population will actually care?  The cover is egregious, but as someone already pointed out, all of the images look as though they were post-produced by an intern with one of those "before/after" auto-skin-retouch programs.  More significantly, the reason they can get away with this is that the entire beauty paradigm of our culture has shifted so dramatically in the last two decades, that things that would have appeared "alien" to us only 5 years ago are now the norm (think silicon-balloon boobs, paralytic- morgue faces, swollen-earthworm-collagen lips , etc).  This cover is only one more sad drop in the bucket.  Like the great man said, "...just one word...are you listening?...Plastics."

JeffT241's picture

If I saw the before shot I would probably be shocked. However, as many have pointed, out only very serious photogs/retouchers even notice that anything was done. It is not so apparent that the general public / consumer of this magazine will ever even give it a thought.Another example of good enough is good enough 

Steve Urkel's picture

Who is Kate Upton and why are her boobs so floppy?

Veldask Krofkomanov's picture

After you have your first encounter with a woman, you will realize that only the smallest of breasts are perky, and that breasts of appreciable size also have appreciable weight. Seeing as how gravity exerts a force on every object, including breasts, they will tend to try to move downward. That is why large and real breasts are "floppy" or "saggy". You'll find out that this is sometimes disguised through the use of supportive bras, but don't let that fool you. They won't stay perked up like that once that bra is on the bedroom floor.

The body paint images are even worse.  Looks as if the painting was all done in a layer, then slapped on the body.

Daniel Amezcua's picture

Those are awful! If you look at image 2 of Natalies photos you will see that Peter Hurley should have shot or at least directed the models. Thats the worst chin to shoulder photo I think I have seen in a while. :p

Rob LaRosa's picture

Swimsuit "edition" not addition. You need an editor!

Michellelle's picture

I think the upper body was taken from a photograph where she was lieing on her back or at least leaning way back--I can't imagine why else her boobs would be in her armpits. The low perspective is also stretching her torso, making the distance between her naval and crotch seem far too long. That might have happened in-camera, or it might have happened when they stitched the different photos together.

Dave Lehl's picture

Photography isn't even photography anymore.  It should be called "Photo inspired computer nerd shit".

Yomi Jones's picture

As opposed to a couple years ago, when it was known as "Photo inspired darkroom nerd shit".

vonrbuzard's picture

I'll be honest, I wasn't looking at her face, but now that I move my eyes up, yes, bad photoshop. Does not look real. You know the old saying. "You know those aren't real?" I didn't think they were talking about her facial features. Live and Learn

AshrafBot's picture

Am I the only person who *doesn't* find her attractive.

Mike Kelley's picture

I don't either, so you're not alone!

Veldask Krofkomanov's picture

She's kind of got an ugly face. And her limbs are really skinny compared to her breasts, which looks awkward. If I came home and she was lying in my bed naked, AND I hadn't had sex in a while, then I wouldn't kick her out of bed, y'know?

Michael Kormos's picture

I guess SI is outsourcing their retouching work to the far East?  

More comments