PetaPixel

Embarrassing Target Photoshop Fail Looks Like it Was Done in Paint… by a 5-Year-Old

targetfail

This might be the worst Photoshopping we’ve ever seen… maybe even worse than the floating inspectors from China. Because while usually the Photoshop goof-ups pointed out by websites like Jezebel aren’t all that horrific (as the Lena Dunham debacle pointed out), in this case, they hit the mother load.

Originally discovered by The Ethical Adman, Target’s website shows their “Xhilaration® Junior’s Midkini 2-Piece Swimsuit” on a model that’s not just overly thin or missing her pores, she’s missing chunks of her body that look like they were taken out using the erase tool.

What’s worse, other parts were left in, random pieces of person that now look like spikes sticking out of armpits and pieces of finger that used to be thigh. We really can’t do this justice in words, so we’ll let you feast your eyes instead:

targetfail1

targetfail2

targetfail3

targetfail5

It’s hard to find any redeeming qualities here, with chunks missing and pieces left in it really does look like somebody hacked this poor girl’s picture up on Paint. And what’s bound to get them in even more trouble is that this particular product is on the ‘youth’ section of their site.

For now, it looks like the page has been taken down (at least we can’t load it on our end) until they either find the original pictures or re-shoot this particular swimsuit.

(via Jezebel)


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • Jake

    Pit spikes are sooo hot! And check out dat gap!

  • Dan Howard

    I’d still tap that ass.

  • Eagle_hs_landed

    outsourcing

  • Alex Messick

    got a Macy’s catalogue the other day that was almost as bad…no chunks missing but 4 foot thighs with 6″ calves o_o scary….

  • http://www.google.com/ shopclass

    You get what you pay for and these days, billion dollar corporations are hiring the cheapest labor they can find.

  • dustin dowell

    Dat gap tho.

  • Katie

    Yet another unrealistic expectation for women. ;)

  • http://www.daniriot.com/ Dani Riot

    This is more or a lasso fail in deleting the backdrop. While it is fun to point out these mistakes. It’s worth noting that brands and websites like this output anywhere from 200 to 600 images a day (depending on size of team)

    I bet this is just an anomaly that squeezed through QC un-noticed.

  • NICK

    No, that`s how real women look like

  • Steve G

    Looks more like bad production more than bad retouching, as though a mask was shifted accidentally prior to publication. Mistakes happen.

  • Aezreth

    That, and the fact that corporations use cheap “retouchers” from Vietnam and Bangladesh with a 2-hour course in photoshop as experience. As a professional photographer I know firsthand how frustrating it is to be forced to deal with these people. I even had to make a step-by-step tutorial video once to get the job done after about 20 e-mails didn’t do the trick.

  • Oskarkar

    The best advertising. Now the whole world knows about Xhilaration. And it’s free! Or not? I mean the advertising.

  • Jann

    Lasso? Doubt it. I think even PS2 has better ability at masking than this ridiculousness. And the reasoning behind the poor job due to high output is not standing: the size of a resource must be adapted to the size of the job. Need more people, hire more people ;) It’s also nice when you actually hire someone that knows how to do stuff and use the proper tools (given they were actually provided with those, i.e. Photoshop vs. MS Paint… ;) )

  • http://www.daniriot.com/ Dani Riot

    have a look at the fingers, the entire part of the models leg which would have lighting highlights in it is totally missing, apart from the shadows the fingers left.

    This isn’t a liquify to make skinny, this is parts of the image missing.

  • http://batman-news.com Jason H

    This is clearly a masking error during a batch process. You would think PetaPixel would do it’s part in educating the masses here. Because all this sort of thing does is give people who use Photoshop a bad name. The mask was adjusted (relative to the above images) up and to the left. It’s not Photoshop adjustments, it’s for the purpose of having the model cut out so she can be placed on different works.

    But instead, PetaPixel is just adding to the fire. I suppose it’s easier to do that. Clickbait helps ad monies.

  • Mary M. Webster

    Mother lode.

  • http://batman-news.com Jason H

    PetaPixel has a responsibility to it’s readers to educate when it comes to these sorts of “outrages” in my opinion. It’s quite obvious this is a masking error.

    These companies tend to use a stock model photo for a clothing line, then change the pattern or color of the item in post. This image is also at some point masked, so that the image can be placed into different media.

    The above images have errors in the masking work. It has nothing to do with trying to Photoshop the model (seriously, the model is apparently R’el Dade, she doesn’t exactly need work to look skinny).

    PetaPixel should edit this post to *educate* readers instead of fanning the flames.

  • Nancy Hall

    There’s something ironic about usage errors in an article about production errors. The term is ” mother lode,” not “mother load.” It’s a mining term that has entered the general lexicon. It refers to a large vein of a precious metal like gold or silver. If you aspire to be a blogger or whatever, learn to write.

  • Chris

    Target, like most online stores, is really just a wholesaler network. It’s probably the result of a sub par photo department at some podunk wholesaler in nowhere USA that did this.

  • Mike

    Careful, you could get tetanus from the sharp edges.

  • Mike

    One can clearly see that the missing parts are CONTINUED but offset to a “slim” position.
    And why is your “shifted mask” seemingly moved straight upwards instead of “up and to the left” at some spots?
    Masks don’t do that. It’s an adjustment fail.

    But sure, you have to be quick to blame PP for being a bad site. Don’t like it? buzz off, or lrn2photoshop.

  • behindthecamera

    …not to mention the freakishly long arms. What a nightmare.

  • JBRAZON

    im not good at photoshop but idk what the hell the person was thinking when they did this O_O

  • harumph

    Again…”Junior” line.

  • harumph

    You’re in the wrong place.

  • Carsten Schlipf

    Customer: “You want how much? OK, forget it. I know how to use paint. I’ll do that on my own.”

  • Mike

    Shadows? How is her thumb leaving a shadow THROUGH her leg?!

  • BDWT

    I’ve done some video work with Target and in their defence they rarely “cheap out” on anything BUT I am surprised that whoever was managing the web content didn’t notice this image (and/or someone let it slide).

  • brianl74

    I think it got hungry and ate itself.

  • http://www.recasper.com/ RE Casper

    Case in point why after ten years I hung my tablet on the wall and walked away from graphic design work. These types of companies are merely in a race to the bottom, to get the cheapest, most worthless work they can pass through. Pad the profits with subpar work. Like photography, they want the result, but won’t pay for it to look good.

    This is the result and yes, I get the “they do a lot of images and this got through QC,” but the fact is… cheap labor trumps quality work these days and its a sad state of affairs.

  • Double D

    I just hope they didn’t MS paint the boys too. Boys and girls are supposed to be a bit pudgy (or normal), not grossly skinny, for real or not!

  • Melina

    I think they are mocking photoshoped advertisements. It is a very clever idea, and the one who came up with this idea is a genius.

    It is a way for them to show people, specially teenagers, that real beauty is not what they see in magazines or ads, because photoshop is responsible for many eating disorders and even deaths.

    Congratulations Target, well done!

    But that is only my opinion.

  • Tamara Bindy

    OH snap! Haha….I’m not that much of a photographer (though I LOVE looking at different photography sites and at beautiful pictures), but holy hell this is bad.

  • http://www.markwheadon.com/ Mark Wheadon

    They hacked off the background so the image could sit against any background and did a dismal job of it. It’s a mess but nothing sinister. Cockup not conspiracy — a non-news-item.

  • http://www.richardfordphotography.com/ Richard Ford

    Paedo

  • http://www.richardfordphotography.com/ Richard Ford

    They #writeAmerican it seems.

  • http://www.richardfordphotography.com/ Richard Ford

    Business 101. Give the customer what they want. Not what you think they should have or want. That’s why photogs are going the way of the dodo. They spend all their time complaining about “shoulds” as opposed to just working out how to profit from a service that people want.

  • http://www.richardfordphotography.com/ Richard Ford

    @petapixel is it not a responsibility under some child protection act to report this sicko here?

  • bikeamtn

    ‘Educate’ – They just did…

  • Gerbablo

    In my opinion this looks like a production mistake. Probably the clipping path got bumped by accident. That or it was a resize issue were the path resized differently than the image (I had a weird problem once where this kept happening). This very well could have happened automatically in the background and couldn’t have been noticed until the site was published. Definitely a fail , but It could have been any number of things, the least likely would be bad retouching. FYI I work for Target frequently. Mostly retouching. Here in the USA. And I get paid quite well. Though there does seem to be more and more outsourcing all the time.

  • Sir Stewart Wallace

    It’s highly likely she is over 18. Then again, age of consent, depending on where you live, is as low as 14. So that depends.

  • Sir Stewart Wallace

    I’ve seen the reverse of that in person. Super short legs with a long torso, body proportions was probably 60% torso, 40% leg. With really short calves and really long thighs, the girl had a look one can only define as “pony.”

  • 53453453

    it´s not too bad….

  • Goran K.

    adding fire or not, there’s no excuse for this crap.

  • morgannagrom

    Try reading the first amendment. No law is being broken here.

  • morgannagrom

    The cropping mask got scaled differently than the image. This is a non-story.

  • http://www.wicksakit.com/ Wick Sakit

    Carsten, they are probably outsourced to a third party like Demand Studios. You work your butt off for peanuts so if you can slip a few through why not? ;)

  • DT

    Why am I the only one noticing one of her arms is longer than the other….

  • hugh crawford

    These self proclaimed experts who know nothing about photography and think they know something about Photoshop I have seen this done in the camera using film.
    All this is is an extreme case of blown highlights and two background strobes turned up too high or that the photo looked fine but the model rendered too dark, so someone lightened the image by about two stops blowing out the back=lighting / rim-lighting.

    This can and did happen shooting black models fashion shoots with Ektachrome in the 70s , which is why we did clip tests.
    I would suspect a combination of bad lighting and that idiotic “expose to the right technique” or maybe the highlights were lighter than the background.

    The real world is perfectly capable of looking like bad photoshop.

  • TheDudeofDudes

    Target gets their models from Dachau now?