Author Topic: NEW ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER COVER -- DOES IT LOOK SHADY??? (Read 8046 times)

Bluto · « **Reply #25 on:** January 20, 2007, 06:29:31 AM »

Quote from: BroadStreetBruiser on January 20, 2007, 06:16:07 AM

but.... we look at playboy for the models bodies (or the articles if your a parent) and people look at bbing mags for the pictures so it's the same thing really

No it's not. And Playboy sucks

bbinsider · « **Reply #26 on:** January 20, 2007, 09:04:37 AM »

If they took the time to shop the eyes then the pic is shopped somewhere else.

delta9mda · « **Reply #27 on:** January 20, 2007, 10:08:05 AM »

Quote from: kmhphoto on January 20, 2007, 02:37:51 AM

They "shopped" the eyes to have him looking into the camera.

the master has spoken

beatmaster · « **Reply #28 on:** January 20, 2007, 10:19:43 AM »

it's not the same picture, they probably took a few picture at the same time (rapide shutter) , the one on the cover, he look at the camera, the other one, he look at the mirror....... if it's the same picture they had to tilt the head too and more!

Jr. Yates · « **Reply #29 on:** January 20, 2007, 10:25:03 AM »

Thats gotta be the best pic of Arnold ever taken!

Big N · « **Reply #30 on:** January 20, 2007, 10:55:27 AM »

Quote from: Jr. Yates on January 20, 2007, 10:25:03 AM

Thats gotta be the best pic of Arnold ever taken!

Correction one of the best pix

scribbler · « **Reply #31 on:** January 20, 2007, 12:31:22 PM »

Quote from: Steve Pulcinella on January 20, 2007, 05:21:50 AM

I would say without a doubt that cover was altered. It is obviously different than the other versions that were posted here. I also think the current cover of flex with arnold looks funny too. His pecs look like Dolly partons tits and I know I have seen that photo before and it didn't look like that. Editing photos in Playboy is one thing but doing it to bodybuilders just seems fucked up. Hell, if that is what we are going to do we should just all photoshop some 24" arms onto ourselves and post pictures everywhere.

The only photoshop done on the Flex cover was to colorize the background, otherwise that image is real and shown as is...a great Albert Busek shot

C

Pollux · « **Reply #32 on:** January 20, 2007, 01:54:52 PM »

Albert Busek's Arnold photos kick-ass.

alexxx · « **Reply #33 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:16:16 PM »

This thread should be a sticky!

ribonucleic · « **Reply #34 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:23:30 PM »

Next you'll be suggesting that they Photoshopped Heather Locklear on the cover of Shape...

Pollux · « **Reply #35 on:** January 20, 2007, 05:33:48 PM »

Quote from: alexxx on January 20, 2007, 05:16:16 PM

This thread should be a sticky!

Yeah... sticky this thread mod(s).

deadlift · « **Reply #36 on:** January 21, 2007, 08:26:28 PM »

Only one way to be sure... and here it is. I just enlarged and rotated the image to match the original copy I had, no other changes ("morphs") have been made. Looks like they filled out the chest and bloated the right arm a little (besides the face, obviously).

Why the hell they had to make these "improvements" is beyond me. It's not like the original isn't impressive enough. Retards.

candidate2025 · « **Reply #37 on:** January 21, 2007, 08:30:37 PM »

damn...major props on putting that display together dude. that is fucking amazing use of modern technology right there.

realkarateblackbelt · « **Reply #38 on:** January 21, 2007, 08:34:35 PM »

I don't think the muscle was enlarged. Looks like they just brightened it. I do think this photoshopping is getting rediculous though. Oh well, it's not like bodybuilding isn't fake anyway with the rediculous judging descisions and synthol.

candidate2025 · « **Reply #39 on:** January 21, 2007, 08:38:02 PM »

they took a little bit off of his waist in the back too.

tommywishbone · « **Reply #40 on:** January 21, 2007, 09:06:07 PM »

I hate to say I told you so, but... I told you so. And why did they do it? They're stupid, that's why.

tommywishbone · « **Reply #41 on:** January 21, 2007, 09:07:59 PM »

Quote from: scribbler on January 20, 2007, 12:31:22 PM

The only photoshop done on the Flex cover was to colorize the background, otherwise that image is real and shown as is...a great Albert Busek shot
C

They even tricked a pro.

The original pic is so cool, and now the cover is just smoke & mirrors.

scribbler · « **Reply #42 on:** January 21, 2007, 09:20:22 PM »

Quote from: tommywishbone on January 21, 2007, 09:07:59 PM

They even tricked a pro. The original pic is so cool, and now the cover is just smoke & mirrors.

no they didn't...I was refering to the Flex cover out right now that someone mentioned in this thread as well...I don't comment on competitors covers one way or the othersw, it isn't professional.

I know what we do with our covers

C

Pollux · « **Reply #43 on:** January 22, 2007, 05:49:44 AM »

Deadlift...

Awesome comparison. Thanks.

alexxx · « **Reply #44 on:** January 22, 2007, 08:15:29 AM »

DEADLIFT you need to spend more time on photoshop. If you look closely the MuscleMag cover is on a slight angle that is what gives the impression that the arm is bigger etc. Then it also looks like the mag was scanned. Given the thickness of the magazine it could also distord the image somewhat. Other then the eyes it is 100% the same image and not shopped unless the shoped the original in 197something.

Bronx · « **Reply #45 on:** January 22, 2007, 12:23:40 PM »

I can tell you flat out...the body was NOT photoshopped in the least, regardless of what the comparison says of two pics, neither of which are the actual original photograph.

GoneAway · « **Reply #46 on:** January 22, 2007, 05:09:44 PM »

The both lower pecs looks shopped, as seen in the comparison.

Governor · « **Reply #47 on:** January 22, 2007, 10:01:20 PM »

Quote from: Bronx on January 22, 2007, 12:23:40 PM

I can tell you flat out...the body was NOT photoshopped in the least, regardless of what the comparison says of two pics, neither of which are the actual original photograph.

If neither are the orginal, how can either not be shopped?

realkarateblackbelt · « **Reply #48 on:** January 22, 2007, 10:15:18 PM »

Looks like the brightness was turned up, causing it to look fuller. I don't think it was shopped to increase muscle size.

HalloweenMan · « **Reply #49 on:** January 22, 2007, 10:44:35 PM »

on the Zane Scale of Epic Photoshopped Picture this picture gets a 3 out of 10. 1 being an untouched picture and a 10 being any current picture of Frank Zane. i give it 3 for the color change and the eyeball tomfoolery.