PLAYBOY SOUTH AFRICA LOVES ITS PHOTOSHOP.

by hurricanevanessa on May 25, 2011

C'MON.

I promised myself I wouldn’t take any more pot shots at Photoshop-related potshots at Playboy South Africa …but, oh dear, oh dear, they do make it  difficult to keep quiet.

As a chick, I am mightily offended by this image.

After they went to all that trouble to plasti-fy Crystal Arnold’s (Not sure who she is, will have to Google,) legs, face, arms , breasts, race, etc, etc, they left her fishnets just as they found them.

Just a teeny brush of Photoshoppery would have cleaned up that tatty high water mark on the garter beautifully.

For shame.

{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }

Andy May 25, 2011 at 15:33

Last time I checked, Crystal Arnold was a presenter on Supersport. And Indian.
Did they photoshop her heritage away too?

Marisa May 25, 2011 at 16:03

Oh wow, just googled her after reading Arnold’s comment and Playboy really should be ashamed of themselves. She looks like an all-American blue-eyed blonde, when she’s actually anything but. For SHAME!

MediaSlutZA May 26, 2011 at 08:37

Hi HurricanVanessa. I’ve also uploaded an entry about this on my blog, on Monday. Seems like it’s getting some news; first iAfrica, then IOL, and today The Times! Have a look at the pictures on my blog of her. It’s clear as daylight :-)
http://mediaslutza.tumblr.com/post/5764359401/playboy-south-africa-june-2011

Sarah Miller May 26, 2011 at 09:39

She approved all the photo’s, so she is happy. It’s not like you don’t use retarded amount of Photoshop on your magazines either!

Sarah Miller May 26, 2011 at 09:40

She also said herself that the lighting was good. http://www.iol.co.za/sport/crystal-arnold-playboy-is-art-1.1073741

Ellenor May 26, 2011 at 10:17

Maybe you should use a proof reader to check your headlines!!! “It’s photoshop” – what were you thinking – pot calling the kettle black or what!!! And I thought you were a journalist of note – how wrong…

Errol May 26, 2011 at 10:19

Sarah, I retouch photos for a living. Even “retarded amounts of Photoshop” should never be used to change photographs to Michael Jackson-esque extremes. This little girl has humiliated herself and shamed her parents by disavowing her heritage. I’m sure her husband will enjoy the thought of boys jacking off to her photos.

kepeena May 26, 2011 at 10:45

Hahahaha. So we’re supposed to take this woman seriously after she said that Playboy is art? And the lighting was so good that she’s now a shade or wto lighter? How amazing those lights must be.

Also, more correct for “proofreader” to be one word, not open/two words, by the by, Ellenor.

Marisa May 26, 2011 at 10:51

“NT: I have to ask… Your skin tone seems to have been photoshopped a lot lighter on the cover. What’s the reason for that?

CA: As I said, I viewed every photo taken during the shoot and it looks just as what you see in the mag.

Amazing what good lighting can do. I saw the photo’s straight after they were taken and it looked just as you see it now in the June edition. So blame it on the bright lights…”

Uh-huh.

Juanita May 26, 2011 at 10:52

Yes, I’m sure the lighting was *really* good! ;) And their photoshopping time could have been better spent on those tights, you’re right…

micheala May 26, 2011 at 11:02

I have read hundreds of associated magazines and they are just as” photoshopped” as the rest.Don’t throw stones in glass houses. Look at O magazine -how much work needs to be done on Oprah to get her looking half decent.

free willy May 26, 2011 at 11:13

What an unbelievable nerve you have to take a swipe at another magazine for photoshopping its cover, Vanessa! Irrespective of the merits (or otherwise) of the PLAYBOY cover retouching, photoshopping covers is endemic in the magazine industry – and don’t tell me you don’t photoshop the bejesus out of your cover models. You have absolutely no right to criticise others for doing what you also do.

And as for your rather pathetic “for shame” sign-off: Shame on you!

hurricanevanessa May 26, 2011 at 11:23

There is no way for a magazine such as ours to get approval to run an unretouched image of a star. End of.
Furthermore I have no issue with kind, or moderate Photoshopping, as I have said so many times before.
We do the best we can on COSMO, within the constraints of the business we are in and the world we live in, but I know enough to know that I can change no attitudes when 1) the person is determined to believe what he or she does and 2) if he is very cross indeed.
Have a happy day all.
HV

Just Me May 26, 2011 at 11:50

I agree with Vanessa, this is really bad. And by the way she is Editor of Cosmo for a reason!
You don’t get the job without having a couple of braincells people.
Photoshop, unfortunately is used for evil more than good so hate the designers/editor of Playboy not the one woman who just has an honest opinion.

Vanessa, please continue with your honest opinions, it is refreshing and needed in this world.

Eloise May 26, 2011 at 12:08

I’m amused by the amount of comments you get when the blog post is related to porn. Not directly this time, but still. You’re always gaaning aan about photoshop, why the panties in a knot about this post?

Bianca May 26, 2011 at 12:26

Good Day all you comment leavers,
Just a thought, first Crystal Arnold is not Indian but South African, secondly if you want to live in life prior 1994, then Crystal Arnold is coloured. Then too, if any of you had the bright idea of checking up on her, then you would notice that she indeed has gone from brunette to blonde. You can all sit there and type what you think but lets face it none of us are on the magazine cover. If you have a problem with the mag then phone them. And to Errol, touching on a persons personal belief system is uncalled for and unnecessary. Do yourselves a favor and move on. She does not intend to change your mind, Kapeena, by saying it is art, as you live even further back in history than 1994. Too you all who are editors and whatever else, there is a reason you are behind the desk and not on the cover. Get a life people and MOVE ON!!!!

Errol May 26, 2011 at 12:42

free wally: please learn the difference between some light touch ups and blatantly changing someone’s skin colour. You’re mad as a hatter, mate.

Errol May 26, 2011 at 14:10

Bianca: I’m not really sure what you’re talking about, I meant her heritage as a person of coloured and Indian descent…how is that a “personal belief system”? Someone on another article said that she has a sister called Bianca, I wonder if this is her sister rushing to some sort of imagined false defense of their “ugly duckling” sibling (not my words)? Stop living vicariously through other people and start living your own life – that includes disapproving of a sibling’s actions when they take a cultural and ethnic heritage and throw it away by approving of these faux-caucasian photos.

Halfers May 26, 2011 at 14:51

Did you all miss the point of this entry?HV was being tongue in cheek about her tights!!! Maybe read properly without jumping to conclusions next time…

Errol May 26, 2011 at 15:05

Halfers: “After they went to all that trouble to plasti-fy Crystal Arnold’s…race”

I really don’t think anyone here is off-topic, then.

Halfers May 26, 2011 at 16:04

@Errol: “…all that trouble…” and then “Just a teeny brush of Photoshoppery would have cleaned up that tatty high water mark on the garter beautifully.” I reiterate: tongue in cheek.

Bianca May 26, 2011 at 17:12

Sorry to say not that Bianca – “the ugly duckling”, sorry for her. Just wanna say, dont take her on she is gorgeous mention playboy and not crystal. They still own it anyway.

kyla May 26, 2011 at 20:12

Shame,what in heavens name was anyone thinking?This is PATHETIC,to say the least…………

friend May 27, 2011 at 20:49

baby girl, what u doing? this is not you? where is that young girl with good values & morals that I know? get back to ur roots, thers still time? hope & pray u will.

Higgens May 30, 2011 at 08:27

Are those breasts “real” or she done a boob job?

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: