Saturday, December 11, 2010

Photoshop bloopers


I'm finally getting around to displaying some cards sent to me by The Daily Dimwit. I'm not terribly bright about a lot of things, so I'm stumped as to why he's The Daily Dimwit. After all, he cracked a code that I wouldn't even be able to solve if you spotted me the first four steps and wrapped them in bacon (because everyone gets inspired when bacon's involved!)

Daily's cards were all Dodgers. Well, almost all.


This isn't a Dodger. It's the all-time minor league, single-season wins leader. He pitched with Los Angeles of the Pacific Coast League. I don't think he wore a derby during his games. But he WAS a dentist at one time.

Anyway, the Dodgers included the Manny Ramirez Icon parallel card that you saw at the start. That touched off the trade.

Most of the rest of the cards were 2010 Topps Update needs.


All of those gentlemen -- all still with the Dodgers by the way -- are each involved in legit photos. No picture-tinkering involved as far as I can tell.


I don't know what to think about this one. It looks legitimate. The Dodgers acquired Lilly during the trade deadline at the end of July. Normally, that is a license for Topps to put the Photo Altering Squad into action. But I can't determine any tell-tale signs of photoshopping. So, if there is touching-up involved, it looks pretty good.


I can't say the same thing for Podsednik (please don't sign him, please don't sign him, please don't sign him). Look at that uniform number on the front of his jersey. It looks like it was applied with reflective paint. It practically glows in the dark. The name on the back of the jersey is out of place, the letters are probably too large and there should be a wrinkle or two there along the name. Also, the cap is the wrong shade of blue.

In fact, the longer I stare at it, the longer it looks like one of those late-1970s card photos in which the player was airbrushed entirely into the uniform. Think 1977 Eric Soderholm or Doyle Alexander or 1978 Goose Gossage.


Possibly a more obvious example. Your eye is drawn immediately to the uniform number on the front. It is a little too large. But the most glaring problem is the RED two on the back of Dotel's uniform. The Dodgers do not -- or ever have, to my knowledge -- wear red numbers on the back. They have always been blue.

Mercy, that's sloppy. Is Topps into photo accuracy or does it merely consider these cards an exercise in Hollywood-like tinkerings of actual events? I'd have to say it's the latter, because how is it possible that the photoshop folks don't have pictures of players in their respective uniforms???

Photoshopping is supposed to be an improvement over airbrushing. In a lot of cases it is -- you can barely tell that a picture has been altered, while airbrushing examples are laughable. Maybe photoshopping is only as good as the user.

But you don't need me to tell you that.

I guess I wouldn't call these photoshop disasters. The only photoshop card disaster that I've discovered is when Manny Ramirez grew an extra leg.

How about if I call these photoshop bloopers then? I could send them to Dick Clark and they could do a whole hour show about them with a laugh-track and everything! Hilarity would ensue! Another golden idea from Night Owl!

Thanks for the cards, DD.

3 comments:

  1. Good call on Dotel!

    Going back to 1978 (when the Sports Logos website starts their archive of Dodger uniforms) to present, the Dodger home whites have featured blue numerals on the back.

    Even the roadies feature blue numbers on the back. Red numerals are only featured as the mini-uniform number on the front by the Dodgers logo in both home and road versions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My favorite Dodger in the Update Set is the Jon Link. He looks like he's gonna explode. The other card I like in the set is a guy who should be a Dodger, Carlos Santana. He's sliding into third base and his helmet is falling onto his face. It's a sweet picture.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice cards. I did a "what if" blog post about Mr. Newton this evening.

    It is just a flight of fancy.

    ReplyDelete