We Call B.S. On New York Magazine's Blog

A headline from New York's Daily Intel blog: "We Call Photoshop on the ‘People’ Pics of the Brangelina Twins."

The blog surmises that because the three-week-old Vivienne appears to be smiling on the cover of People's Jolie-Pitt baby cover, something must be amiss. Infants that young aren't smiling yet. The blog guesses: "Conspiracy! Photoshop! Something!"

On that Photoshop theory. What do you think was the second thing PDN did when we got our copy of People yesterday (after checking the photo credits, natch)? We combed over all ten photos looking for anything out of place. Today I even broke out the scope and looked closer. These pictures did not get the fashion magazine treatement. Moles, freckles, veins and blemishes are all there. Makeup was probably involved, and the photos were certainly toned and adjusted for quality. But this may be the least Photoshopped magazine cover of the year.

Comments

[Stupid Photographer]

Thank God! What a relief. That cover, and everything related to it, definitely topped my list of Absolutely The Most Important Carp in the Whole Wide World.

[Daryl Lang]

Some perspective: By itself, this photo shoot will generate more revenue this year than almost every photo agency PDN covers.

[Stupid Photographer]

So? Porn generates vastly more revenue every year than any stupid photo agency PDN covers. Should PDN start concentrating on porn?

[MarcW]

Those idiots need more to do. Anybody with children will tell you that if you sit and wait long enough, even newborns will make faces that look like smiles and/or laughing. I did a private newborn session for a baby no older than that and I got the same expression: the mother was amazed.

The price they got for those pics, charity or no, and I should hope to spit they'd wait fifteen minutes for the kid to make a photogenic face.

M

[me_so_deffie]

Well Stupid --

Aroused beauties? Artfully photographed? Making millions? Yawnsville Bitter 718 hack take a vaca