How did they create this image?

[ixpressraf]

Just a small sofa, a wide angle and a long girl, no annorexia and no fat to spare, just well trained. Long people tend to have large hands and feet, no big deal.

[AlexM]

I believe, this is the same model: http://shop.guess.com/Advertising.aspx
I see no problem with her. Very good looking tall girl.
I believe it's is "clumsy" or intended photoshop to blame. Combined two shots without paying attention to the proportions of her elbow.

[tmx3]

I'd say her leg length in this image is twice her torso. Would agree with some of the other comments; imo these are not natural proportions and think the image is either a franklenstein composite or her body has been has been transformed.

[Barry Goyette]

I think you are right. 2 horizontal shots with some perspective correction and stiching and perhaps even more images included. Look at the sofa joint in the middle. Her fingers seem to have more bones than normal.

Thanks for the link to V Magazine.

Best,
Johannes

I think we're looking at a pretty straight shot with a wide angle lens...the "misaligned" gutter is simply what you'd get if you looked at the actual printing pages (added gutter so when you look at the perfect bound magazine, you don't feel like you're missing a half inch of the photo. I took a screenshot of the pages and overlapped them...they fit perfectly.  My guess is that she had really bad toes so they stretched her foot a little to get them out of the frame, and probably also to make her legs look longer..and maybe the head was replaced, because it doesn't look quite right (notice her upper arm is showing the typical w/angle edge of the frame distortion (like her foot), but her head isn't)...but other than that, I think this is a pretty straight shot, certainly not as crazy some of the things I've been asked to do.

Barry

[Jack Flesher]

My take: thin model taken relatively close up with a wideangle lens that imparts more edge distortion than center distortion.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...the "misaligned" gutter is simply what you'd get if you looked at the actual printing pages (added gutter so when you look at the perfect bound magazine, you don't feel like you're missing a half inch of the photo. I took a screenshot of the pages and overlapped them...they fit perfectly...

Just for the sake of argument, this is what you get when you correct for the misaligned gutter:

[attachment=21560:Guess.png]

Come to think about it, isn't if fascinating (scary?) that a bunch of experienced photographers can not figure out what (if anything) is wrong/right with the image? What's left for general public then... to simply give up on photography and assume it is all "photoshopography" from now on? Hmmm... I think I should trademark this term

[AlexM]

Another option, however I still think it's a composite, would be that this photo is a crop of a right bottom corner of a wide angle shot. That would leave the distortion on the right and bottom side, while the other two sides were cropped off.

Alex

[tmx3]

Just for the sake of argument, this is what you get when you correct for the misaligned gutter:

[attachment=21560:Guess.png]

Come to think about it, isn't if fascinating (scary?) that a bunch of experienced photographers can not figure out what (if anything) is wrong/right with the image? What's left for general public then... to simply give up on photography and assume it is all "photoshopography" from now on? Hmmm... I think I should trademark this term

dude you should delete that image, I'm pretty sure you don't have a license to use it in this way - you are violating another photographers copyright

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

dude you should delete that image, I'm pretty sure you don't have a license to use it in this way - you are violating another photographers copyright

Isn't this type of usage covered under editorial (i.e., non commercial) use? Or, to be more precise, isn't this a textbook example of the fair use concept, as per the Copyright Act of 1976:

...the fair use of a copyrighted work... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching... or research, is not an infringement of copyright..."

[gwhitf]

This guy does some of their retouch:

http://www.nicolaspotts.com/frameset.html

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

You guys should not be speculating so wildly about this image unless you have already studied the Definitive Guide that will show you how to tell whether an image has been Photoshopped or not. It appears on another website of Significant Photography, here.




 

[Theresa]

It's always amusing how laypeople make medical diagnoses based on a single photograph; I know plenty of girls and women who are naturally skinny but eat healthy diets and exercise.

As an ex-RN I can say that whether ones diet is "healthy" and exercises, being too thin is harmful.  Its sad that fashion dictates that models be unnaturally thin.

[AndreNapier]

The photographer's name is Raphael Mazzucco for those of you who want to see more of his work. The AD on this shoot is Paul Marciano.

Andre

[lisa_r]

This looks like a "normal" lens to me (as 50mm on a 35 mm camera, etc.)
I would bet that that is Raphael Mazzucco shot - you can look on youtube and find video of him shooting. He has shot tons of gorgeous stuff for Guess, SI, etc, etc. He uses a wide range of cameras, but seem to use a Canon with 50mm and 85mm lenses a lot these days. And the 24-70 2.8 seems to be one of his favorites.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh5hBmHSv4g


http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...zzucco&aq=f


http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&gbv...ai=&start=0

[AndreNapier]

Lisa
Put 50mm on a FF, find a sofa and a person to lay on it and try to compose it. You will see how impossible it is to take it with this lens.

[lisa_r]

Andre, watch the videos I posted. Some of the footage is that very shoot - Guess Spring 2010. It's the Canon 24-70 2.8.

Anyway I do not see what looks impossible about this this image... just some distortion due to close proximity to the model? You will see in the videos that he shoots very close.

[AndreNapier]

Lisa
I watched it. Thank you for posting. Possibly 24 but I will guess 17mm with PS. Anyways this one is solved thanks to you.
Andre

[gwhitf]

He uses a wide range of cameras, but seem to use a Canon with 50mm and 85mm lenses a lot these days. And the 24-70 2.8 seems to be one of his favorites.

Andre Napier,

Be honest -- doesn't this just kill you, to read this?

[AndreNapier]

Honestly it does.
I just keep wondering if he does so great with Canon what kind of wonderful images would he do with 10 lbs Rz and a Leaf back. LOL.
I have one for sale.
Andre

[gwhitf]

if he does so great with Canon what kind of wonderful images would he do with 10 lbs Rz and a Leaf back. LOL.

I think it's about the energy, and the spontaneity, and the looseness, and the motor drive, and the moment, and not getting bogged down with gear, and being able to shoot all day handholding. And honestly, what's wrong with the quality in that image? It's going to be retouched to death, and gone over with a fine tooth comb, if it's a chosen final image.

Secretly, I'm with you, wondering how the lenses would render even better, with RZ. But you can't argue with his results. It seems to work fine for him. You think he's obsessing about RAW processors or pixels? Hell no, he's at dinner.