[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

76 Comments

Previous comments

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?  

junyang chen's picture

I think the retoucher forgot that the shadow is darkest at the origin. The further the shadow gets from the neck, the darker it gets lol, wierd[sic]

Jeff May's picture

I noticed this as soon as I viewed it. It just looked weird and not like her at all really. She looks plastic and at 19yo there is not need for that much smoothing.

Alessandro's picture

in my point of view, it's not all the retoucher fault. It looks more to me that the assigned photographer (who is he anyway?) didn't provide acceptable photos so the editors and the retoucher has to come up with a passable (?!) photo for the cover.

Matt Fitzgerald's picture

I don't even know where to start with this.  Bad bad bad bad bad!!!  

Bert McLendon's picture

Jeeez!  how do you even get the armpit that high up the arm?  horriblehorriblehorrible.

Rob Mills's picture

something is definitely not right in the face area.  i agree it may be a face replace.  this is odd for SI, since they are usually like you said about the natural.  with all the shots they get, you would think they could have just used another if they had to work this shot to death.  weird

Rob Mills's picture

and p.s. - i admit to watching the SI behind the scenes show on VH1.  They hinted that they were about a full body this year.  I think America is just so fat, me included, that SI wanted to accommodate.  The next VH1 behind the scenes is at 12:30am on Saturday I believe lol.  Plus they have tons of behind the scenes on their website:  http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/swimsuit/

what can I say, I'm a guy

Rob Mills's picture

and one more p.s. - I don't think Kate Upton is fat at all !!!  My fat comment just comes from the way she is directly turned towards the camera... it makes her look bigger in my opinion. 

C Hwang's picture

**edition

Paul Ferradas's picture

Wow, now that you guys mention it, I'll have to grab my magazine and take a closer look. To be quite honest, when I grabbed it off the shelf, I didn't see anything unusual about it so I'm putting myself in the perspective of a regular consumer. I do retouching myself (see my swimsuit shot attached) so i should be able to catch some abnormalities but I would have to pay attention which the average Joe probably doesn't do.

More comments