Louis Vuitton's Photoshop Fail? (PHOTOS, POLL)

One of our favorite blogs, Photoshop Disasters, has drawn our attention to this image from Louis Vuitton's campaign starring Christy Turlington, Karen Elson and Natalia Vodianova. Notice anything weird about the picture?

The reflections don't seem to match up.

We'd expect better retouching from the luxury house...but maybe our eyes are playing tricks on us and it's just a question of mirrors and angles. What do you think?

Quick Poll

Is this a Photoshop FAIL?

YES! The reflection doesn't match up at all.

No. Looks alright to me.

Share your vote on Facebook so your friends can take this poll

We should also add that another image from the campaign was previously put on Photoshop Disasters due to the same mirrors and angles issue. Check out Natalia's reflection (and her missing gloved hand) below. (Via Styleite.)

Comments

[nomadsborker]

11:03 PM on 10/24/2010

I think someone needs glasses, missing gloved hand, where, they are all wearing gloves? Refelction wrong? Not. No photoshop here.

[CadOps]

01:31 PM on 10/25/2010

LOL....Really, c'mon.
its the location of the objects, not the objects themselves.

[think-it-over]

09:14 PM on 10/25/2010

The second picture is easy to spot. The center model has her hand on her chest, and it's very clearly missing in the reflection shown in the mirror at the right.

The first picture is a bit more subtle, but only until you notice the problems. The mirror at the left should be showing the reflection of the model on the right, as she would appear from where the mirror is. She's leaning back, but in the reflection her chest and cleavage appear as if she was leaning somewhat towards the mirror. It's possible that that's a result of the camera height relative to the mirror and her chest, but the angle of her arms is definitely wrong. The reflection shows her right arm (nearer the camera in the reflection) with a significant downward bend at the wrist, though her hand is really bent slightly upwards. The reflection also shows her left arm sloping down, with the elbow high enough to be hidden by her breast, though that's clearly not the real position. Finally, the reflection clearly shows all four fingers of the center model's hand wrapped around the strap or curved over the front of the bag. The finger that's actually extended higher on the strap would be visible in an actual reflection.

[rougebaisers]

01:08 PM on 10/24/2010

Unless that image is in another dimension, it is a fail....but oooh la la, who cares? The women are gorgeous.

[GrownupStewie]

05:03 AM on 10/24/2010

christy turlington....she puts girls half her age to shame! damn...she looks 23....its disgusting...im so jealous and im a guy...its...like...ba-nan-as....

...sorry im having a rachel zoe moment

[Kiabell04]

11:43 AM on 10/25/2010

I totally agree!!! She wipes the floor with those younger models.

[usamade]

07:29 PM on 10/23/2010

Why not just take the damn picture and leave it? No one knows whats real or not anymore.

[sierraseven]

06:26 PM on 10/23/2010

Is it photoshop? Looks like it. Is it a "fail" - an error? No, I don't think so. I think it's intentional.

[BlindChance]

10:59 PM on 10/23/2010

Intentional? Why?

[missBea]

05:18 PM on 10/23/2010

I thought this was an intentional part of the advertisement... It shows something impossible, but you want to see it so badly you believe it.

[edejan]

01:37 PM on 10/23/2010

I love photoshop fails! Thanks!!

[Stovitch]

01:16 PM on 10/23/2010

I'd hit 'um...

[Sabrina DAmico]

05:41 AM on 10/23/2010

I never even got past Christy Turlington's ridiculously gorgeous highlighted cheekbones and nauseatingly perfect highlighted breasts. I noticed the reflection and the off angle of it but it makes things interesting. A third arm, a cut off hand on a shoulder, or an s-shaped leg would better qualify for a HuffPo headline that I wasted my time clicking on.

[Mitzy]

01:36 AM on 10/23/2010

Art is rarely perfect, and some of the greatest works of art contain mistakes. DaVinci would routinely shorten arm lengths--sometimes absurdly-- to aid the painting's perspective. Listen to Dylan's masterwork, "Like A Rolling Stone." At a point in the last half of the song, the band gets so out of rhythm that most producers would have ordered a retake. But it was too good to do over and the error was left in. Or McCoy's clunker note in Coltrane's signature recording "My Favorite Things." Some of the greatest movies have continuity problems, sometimes glaring. Good art transcends imperfection.

[jaslyn]

12:52 AM on 10/23/2010

The women look great, no one notices the rest.

[LogicCircuit]

12:14 AM on 10/23/2010

I would say it's really really petty and sensationalist to declare this Fail.

The variations between the actual pose and the reflections are very, very slight and definitely don't send you into a state of WTF ... it's more like, after looking at it for a while and deliberately searching for something wrong, do you go "huh, oh well..."

Sooo ....

[Doc Wattson]

07:31 PM on 10/22/2010

Who Cares?

[dkd78]

11:52 PM on 10/22/2010

Quite frankly no one cares for your opinion which states nothing more than "who cares". So if you are of the character style who truly does not care, then ask yourself why you read these comments and think it is necessary to post your opinion which is nothing but "who cares".

The rest of us do care, we are photographers, fashion consultants, models, advertisers, publishers, editors, etc.

Sorry you do not appreciate the many others who make their best efforts to make a living in the fashion, clothing, accessories, industry.

Would Doc Wattson care to share with us your success in your job and industry. We would love to hear from you, maybe.

[jaslyn]

12:53 AM on 10/23/2010

wow. touchy.

[Doc Wattson]

04:14 AM on 10/23/2010

Yea, a bit touchy. The "who cares" was commentary on how people look at any photograph to pick it apart, especially to promote their own agenda. People should just enjoy the photograph for what it is.

As for what I have done. not much in photography but I have worked in film for over a decade now. Some films I have worked on have even won Oscars. This isn't a contest though and that doesn't n my oppinion is more valid or less valid then yours. After all if I listed what I had worked on and how I worked on them most people first thought would be,

"Who cares?"

[Jerome Morrow]

06:24 PM on 10/22/2010

Not really a good example of photoshop fail. Few people would notice this...

[dkd78]

03:13 PM on 10/22/2010

In this case you are wrong. There is no photo shopping, at least with regards to the mirrors and the reflections. Any good photographer and or spacial artist can see the reflections are correct. For you to think the leftmost lighted mirror panel should be reflecting Christy Turlington's back of head and shoulders (left seated model) instead of the front of Natalia Vodianova (in leather gloves) does not understand mirrors, spacial object relationships, as well as Photoshop.

Look again at the two longer mirrors framed with light bulbs. You are assuming the two mirrors are at 90 (right angle) to each other. They are not. The left mirror is running from left front towards the back or at an approximate 60° angle. Thus it captures Karen Elson's back (center model) since she is right next to the mirror. But the light reflecting from the mirror to the left of Karen is coming from the space between Karen and Christy, which means the light from Natalia's front.

Thus, you also see the profile of Christy's face being reflected from the angled mirror in the rightmost frame of the same mirror. I personally think this photographer has done a superb job with the mirrors, lighting, models, products and positioning of his/her lens. Hats off to them for fooling the likes of the HP editor always playing this "photoshop" game in the Style section. Also, FYI one can always tell if image is photoshopped by opening it in Photoshop and examining it.

[dkd78]

03:38 PM on 10/22/2010

I think I got the names of the models on the left and right mixed up. Isn't that Natalia on the left and the beautiful Christy on the right? Either way my argument that the positions of the models with relation to the mirror's reflections is correct. The image is not Photoshopped. For those who think one can just Photoshop any image to correct it should be aware that it is far more expensive to Photoshop flaws out of an image than for a good photograher to get his/her lighting, lens opening, and shutter speed correct and do 12 to 24 shots of the same image scene and later choose the best shot, than later alter it with Photoshop.

[Scarlett Hurricane]

05:01 PM on 10/22/2010

Look at the first photo without the red arrow. Karen Elson's hand is resting on the purse with her index finger extended. In the reflection it is absent. It is clearly another photo that has been shopped.

[dkd78]

05:59 PM on 10/22/2010

@Scarlett
Karen Elson the model in the center has both index fingers raised and extended on the purse. However, there is absolutely no reflection of the center model in her frontal mode as viewed by the observer, in any mirror. Her only reflection is her back and back of neck with a small part of her red hair being reflected in the right panel of the left mirror from the observer's POV.

The model in the reflection of the left most panel of the left mirror (the one pointed at with the arrow in the second photo) is the reflection of the model on the right, Christy Turlington from your POV, due to the explanation I provided above.

I am sorry if your brain is tricking you as to what exactly the photons hitting your retinae from the photo are sending. This happens quite often and magicians take advantage of propensity for human beings not to see in their brains what their eyes are in reality observing from light photons.

If you apply physics to the problem of the mirror angles to one another and light reflection and refraction off of mirrors the images the observer sees in the mirror are exactly what they should be. The second argument is logical. What do think should be the reflected image in the (red arrow marked) mirror that you and others claim must be photo-shopped away. If it needed to be, why even bother. Just select another photo from the shoot.

[dkd78]

03:14 PM on 10/23/2010

@Scarlett again
The missing extended finger from Karen Elson's hand on the purse in the mirror that you pointed out really continued to bother me after I posted my first reply to you. So I downloaded the photo and opened it with Photoshop CS5. Sure enough the pixels just above and around the left (our view) of her hand are replaced by same color pixels or by what's called blurring, smudging and blending tools. Also the angle of the back of her hand to her wrist seems compressed. I can't imagine why this was done unless some editor felt that her extended index finger rising on the handle of the purse looked as though she was flipping the bird or something. Go figure? It does not appear though that the whole mirror image was replaced.

You have excellent eyes and brain processing. I stand corrected and your are correct in the first place.