[aloneatlast]

You may have read the New Yorker article about the retoucher of models, Pascal Dangin.

My question concerns the photos the New Yorker included in the piece, to show his skill. They can be seen here:

http://models.com/feed/?p=359

The idea is the bottom photo is the original, the top is retouched.

Here's the thing: it appears to me that it is the top that is the original, and the bottom the retouched version-- in other words, it looks like Dangin made the model LESS perfect.

Note the carry of the arm, the position of the hand, finger length; how the light in the bottom "original" seems to hit her arm and butt from top right and a little out of the page, yet the face is dark.

It may be some retouching was done in both photos.

I would not put this past Dangin, if it's true. But I'm hoping I can get some people more expert than me to weigh in.

Any help would be appreciated.

[stig]

well,
i have taken the "original" and tried to make it look like the "new",
that is what i came up with (still needs some improvements...)

original:


that is my "edition":



and that is the original "new" photo from the site:


so, in conclusion, i suspect that the first photo (aka the original) was most likely to be edited to look more like the new one.

and another thing, those 2 photos provided one the site, are 2 different ones.
you can see that the buttocks in the 2 photos is in different angel,
the breast is in different angels, and the arm and face are also in different angels.

overall, the model isn't perfect but she sure needed some retouches

[Isick]

First off, they are two different pictures. Photo editing can alter details in a picture, but it cannot easily alter the entire scene itself.

While the 'edited' picture may be edited and the 'original' picture may NOT be, they edited picture did not come from the unedited one. Things like the hair pattern, facial lighting, and arm position give this away.

Photo touch ups fix skin complexion, make certain areas of the body more appealing, and recolor parts of the image - they generally do NOT change the position of the model.

[Raven12388]

i disagree isick i believe what the arical says is true and they are from the same image look at the legs and feet

i think the reason they changed the models position is because she was badly positioned in the original and they no longer had access to that model not for free anyhow

i think moving the arm and redoing the breast so it looks more pirt and also shows the nipple is not that hard for a novice never mind a expert

and redoing hair also not that hard to do and if they have a designer on staff it would be cheaper than getting the model back in and paying for the image twice

[Etheryte]

I agree with what's stated above - they're 2 different shots. Also, they both show marks of being edited. I won't go into detail as for why I find so, it would be nothing more but a bunch of technical jiberish.

[aloneatlast]

Etheryte and others--

please let me know the reasons why you think they are different shots, and why you think both have been edited-- especially how the "original" has been edited.

(Just to be certain, however, please note that the photos stig posted above have been altered by him as he indicates in his post-- the actual photos from the new yorker are at

http://models.com/feed/?p=359


Thank you in advance for your help on this.

[Isick]

It is pretty obvious in my opinion that they are two separate pictures. I made this quick animation to point out my reasonings:



The set of markings dictate the direction she is looking, the width and position of her hands, the general flow of her hair, and the edge of her forearm.

At the end of the animation is an overlay of the two images and though the legs line up the entire upper body does not. While it is plausible that this could be photo edited at this resolution the website says that there are much higher resolutions in the magazine which leaves me to conclude that they came from two separate images. It is not uncommon for a photoshoot to take in excess of 100 hundred pictures per model where the model moves only slightly in each photo. This makes it all the more likely that the model moved only her upper body and left her legs still between shots. It is equally likely they the final version is a compilation of two or more different photos of the model. Whatever the reason for the change in the model's pose I am certain that the change was NOT done by hand.

[Raven12388]

looking at your animation and after looking at the images again i have to agree they are 2 images if not more it seems there is nothing that photoshop hasnt worked on in this artical even the original