What is Digg?199 Comments
- Wolfsoap, on 03/20/2008, -2/+305most of this is copied from:
http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/ - cosmo7, on 03/20/2008, -1/+288This is a shameless clone of my blog, photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com. They've copied my content directly.
- deltron, on 03/20/2008, -5/+259http://photoshopd.blogspot.com/2008/03/castles-in- ...
hahaha. - ryanchapelle, on 03/20/2008, -1/+137So not cool. This, as noted above, is all ripped of from http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/. The Photoshopd blog has all the same content verbatim, and to top it off, whoever set it up backdated all the posts to make it look like THEY were around longer and are the original one. Some people have no ***** shame I swear!
- chris9902, on 03/20/2008, -28/+153This site is pure genius.
Nintendo got busted: http://photoshopd.blogspot.com/2008/03/imagine-bab ... - dshey, on 03/20/2008, -4/+101madonnas head is really small. REALLY small.
- spiffae, on 03/20/2008, -2/+87copied from http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/
- ursername180, on 03/20/2008, -2/+75Nintendo would never create a god-awful game like that.
- inactive, on 03/20/2008, -1/+58http://bp3.blogger.com/_2pHC8dvjAvU/R-ILbIzDVeI/AA ...
HaHaHaHa. - tfletch, on 03/20/2008, -1/+56You mean all of it? Buried for blog spam and stealing.
- johnnydough, on 03/20/2008, -2/+52Damn you Wolfsoap... I was just posting that... but couldn't read the captcha.
Oddly enough, my new captcha is "yr fat". ***** you Digg. - rstarr, on 03/20/2008, -4/+51http://xkcd.com/331/
- atomicwedgie, on 03/20/2008, -2/+44I am beginning to strongly dislike bloggers who don't realize that a picture should be larger than a postage stamp when you're trying to show image details.Someone who is critiquing PhotoShop doctored images should be well aware of this.
- inactive, on 03/20/2008, -0/+38Less vain & stupid people is a good thing.
Bring on the future. - MonarchWastxD, on 03/20/2008, -3/+39This is what annoys me: In the future, there will be no such things as "Models"; replaced by computer programs the human race will think: why bother?
- ligyron, on 03/20/2008, -0/+34Don't worry about. just go outside or something. just try and get it off your mind
- RoboHobo, on 03/20/2008, -0/+34Most? Hell, the whole site is a blatant word for word copy of photoshopdisasters. Buried as spam.
- NeMoD, on 03/20/2008, -2/+34Who's fault is that really though? the publisher?
- moletimer, on 03/20/2008, -0/+32So you want to ban cropping?
- moosebaloney, on 03/20/2008, -10/+41PHOTOSHOPPED!
- cosmo7, on 03/20/2008, -0/+26A big clue is that I credit people who send tips, while this copy strips out the credits.
- JohnnyKdiggs, on 03/20/2008, -2/+28http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/SOAP ...
Follow each snake from head to tail. - X9001, on 03/20/2008, -0/+25Buried and reported
- tfletch, on 03/20/2008, -5/+29BLOGSPAM
- inactive, on 03/20/2008, -1/+23Sad thing is, thats really her hand. Shes E.T.!
- londubh, on 03/20/2008, -1/+20Who knew that Kirsten Dunst had five foot tentacle arms?
- SonOfDisaster, on 03/20/2008, -1/+19Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
- wild, on 03/20/2008, -0/+17When you see a watermark, its not always about stealing the image. When you are doing design work and using stock photography you download the watermarked comp until the client buys off of the image. You then pay for the rights and download the hi-res version.
Typically speaking, when you see a watermark that goes live, its because a designer didn't pay attention to the little details and properly update their photos before it went to print. A watermark lets stock companies know to check it out, but most of the time its probably purchased. Especially iStock. Those photos are like $10 for hi-res. - SeventhSon, on 03/20/2008, -0/+17Whenever you see something like that, a wizard did it.
- fluxion, on 03/20/2008, -0/+17what's sad is that's really the size of her head. they just forgot to make it bigger like they do in all her other pictures/videos
- InsaneMachine, on 03/20/2008, -1/+17*Laughs at Pathetic attempt to hijack browser*
NoScript didn't even load the video, let alone the pop ups. But yes, buried and reported. - bulkhater, on 03/20/2008, -0/+15If she's that flexible, then she picked the wrong kind of movies...
- Kyan, on 03/20/2008, -0/+15Not so great in left hands.
- poseitom, on 03/20/2008, -0/+14*****
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 03/20/2008, -0/+14They might ask themselves "But why male models???"
- Elliuotatar, on 03/20/2008, -0/+14Holy *****! And it's not just the two babies there with a watermark. Look at the baby on the top left and the teddy bear as well, those two have watermarks as well!
They better hope the people that published those images don't find out about this, or they're gonna be forking over a lot of cash! - manstein01, on 03/20/2008, -0/+13Superwinner is correct. That pic is not photoshopped.
- inactive, on 03/20/2008, -1/+14I can't, its eating my up inside!!
- Elliuotatar, on 03/20/2008, -0/+13Damn, it's not even just that one product either, it's all of that companies games:
http://kotaku.com/gaming/instruct-them/ubisoft-put ... - trusttimothy, on 03/20/2008, -0/+12Here is the digg-submission from the original blog. (See comments above from wolfsoap and cosmo7)
http://digg.com/comedy/Photoshop_Disasters - enlightenme, on 03/20/2008, -0/+11Can blog's sue each other?
- thtroyer, on 03/20/2008, -0/+11AAAA+++++. WOULD DO BUSINESS AGAIN.
- trusttimothy, on 03/20/2008, -1/+11Ok, I am confused now:
The blog from the article above (PhotoShopped) has its first post on February 1st. The "original" blog (Photoshop Disasters) has its first post on March 3rd.
Could someone please tell me if I should bury the article or wolfsoaps comment? - trusttimothy, on 03/20/2008, -0/+10You are right. But the blog above only has two dates (one in march and one in february) where the posts were added. So it seems clear that cosmo7s blog is the original one
- Nanite, on 03/20/2008, -0/+9Nerds have been looking to replace real women with less complicated versions since the beginning of time.
- exomni, on 03/20/2008, -2/+10You're an idiot.
This is the only way it could work, and the angles in both the hand and the elbow show it's not that way:
http://i28.tinypic.com/2hyarmx.jpg - mootinator, on 03/20/2008, -0/+8Also you'll notice that the posts are all on different dates, but lazily the times are set to 12:01, 12:02, 12:03, 12:04 in sequence.
- AdHaR, on 03/20/2008, -4/+12What's a captcha? Haven't seen that here in quite a while...
- shakin, on 03/20/2008, -0/+8Robots.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 206 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
