Well, she could be on the CC Photography Plan, which is $10/month, or just Photoshop CC for $20/month(!)
Or it could be Affinity Photo. It’s even possible to butcher a photo this badly in The GIMP.
I’m leaning toward the side of “hoax”, but it’s still pretty funny.
I’d say she should keep the $250 because if these took eight months to retouch then she probably made far far less than minimum wage for her work when it’s all calculated.
Link doesn’t seem to work for me. I assume it’s an MJ photo. Which, oof, yeah, same phenomenon in the worst possible manifestation.
Okay, another observation.
In seeing the photos on the family’s Facebook page (where they are much larger), I realized that I had missed the horrible job of background extensions in most of the photos. The giveaway here is that there would be no reason to extend the backgrounds, because the original aspect ratio would have given you sufficient background, even with poor framing. The bench shot is extended way past the original ratio, and the solo shot of grandma would had to have been too skinny in the first place to require extension. So, why do it? To make the “poor work” seem even poorer.
Try it now. Finding and posting image URLs seems to have gotten way harder lately. Is it an iOS thing? Just me? Like they’re trying to help me by making it impossible. 2015 is going to be considered the best year ever, all downhill after that.
normally you have to wear the special glasses to be able to see what they really look like. This photographer could be vital to the human resistance.
Is this a Black Mirror episode I never saw?
Even just from a standpoint of photography. You can still see the shadowing and poor exposure/lighting that purportedly caused the issue in the first place. That tells you two things.
-
The faces would not have been obscured. And would not have been any more or less badly lit/exposed than the rest of the photos or other areas in shadow. So why just fix the faces?
-
No attempt has been made to correct those issues in the overall photo. Photoshop, most other imaging software. And especially the cheap/crap photo software that ships with your camera. All contain automatic tools for fixing these exact problems. And yet they haven’t been applied. So some one who supposedly knows nothing about photo retouching. Is capable of using multiple specific spot tools to carefully paste in cartoon faces, blend them in and around the hair etc. But isn’t aware of any of clearly labeled magic buttons that basically say “fix my photo”.
The bad background extension is probably the most plausible thing here. I could see that as being an attempt to correct for framing problems.
These are the best. If it’s meant to be “viral marketing”, I really don’t get how. It’s not driving traffic to someone’s site, what would they really have to gain from it? Some people are just unrepentantly bad at what they do.
Reminds me of the beach photo of Mr. Kruger and Costanza:
Agreed. But now that I go back and look at all the photos, the sun was high and slightly in FRONT of the subjects. The shadows on their clothing aren’t harsh, and highlights in the pale clothing aren’t blown out either. Which probably indicates that there wasn’t really anything wrong with the faces in the first place.
So what you’re saying is…
BTW, just making a funny. I appreciate the expert teardown.
I love these. I would be using these on holiday greetings for years.
reminds me of timothy treadwell talking about how he cuts his hair … “botched that pretty bad didn’t i”
I don’t disagree that this is likely a hoax… but owning Photoshop has nothing to do with the price. Its one of the most commonly pirated pieces of software.
The photos look just slightly under exposed to me. Across the board. But that’s an insanely easy fix. But yeah I really, really doubt. That there was in anyway enough problems in the faces to necessitate any sort of work focusing on the face.
Sure, blame the professor. Always our fault.
Ok, now I see a picture.
You’re misconstruing what I think is BS.
I think the photographer is real. I think the client is real. I think the “client” edited the photos and is passing them off as this story.
In a couple weeks it will come out. The photographer in question will surface and say “no. These are the originals I sent. I never did that horrid photoshop BS”.
It’s fake. Period. End of stupid dumb story distracting from the real world issues of 45 and the GOP.
