Emma Watson Loses Leg in Burberry Ad
Hermione is apparent latest victim of Photoshop
By Mary Papenfuss, Newser Staff
Posted Jan 7, 2010 3:08 AM CST
Poor Emma Watson has apparently lost a limb posing in this Burberry ad with her brother.   (Burberry)

(Newser) – Emma Watson has apparently become the latest victim of Photoshop, and has lost a leg in the process. A Burberry ad of Watson posing with her brother, Alex, shows the sexy witch with a weirdly bent partial right leg that seems to end at mid-thigh (unless it's somehow twisted up her brother's back). The shot is the latest in a string of altered photo snafus that include pix of models with hips narrower than their heads, and a shot of Demi Moore's barely-there bent thigh that seems to breech the space-time continuum.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Emma Watson Loses Leg in Burberry Ad is...
4%
7%
6%
13%
68%
2%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 22 comments
sidewinder
Jan 8, 2010 8:40 AM CST
Yep, way too cleanly cut to be an accident. That took some time to get the light right on the wall where they removed the leg.
tbooker
Jan 8, 2010 6:15 AM CST
What the hell is newsworthy about this. NEWSER must have some real lame dicks deciding what useless stories get on their headline trailer.
Non-deep-thinker
Jan 8, 2010 4:07 AM CST
I buy deadline screwup if it's a sin of omission. (Something left in by mistake maybe). When something proactive happens (something disappears that was there; something gets pasted in that wasn't or couldn't have been there) then all claims of innocence or accidence (if there is such a word) fade. The dark stuff on the left side of the image was clearly burned-in, IMO, and is not the result of the lighting; the white to the boy's left definitely looks dodged to me-- which of course means nothing more than that the photo was worked on. But establishing that, what else happened during that process? What were the motives, and goals? What were they aiming for? I wasn't there, I don't know what they were trying for. But time-wise (deadline pressure, etc) remember, this wasn't the Lutheran Ladies Brochure for the annual bake-off, this was the launch of a major campaign by a couple hundred million dollar company (I'm guessing at the $, but it has to be huge) with Emma Watson, a major star (of Harry Potter fame), in her very first major campaign-- and in fact, she is the "face" of the Burberry fall campaign. So not much is going to happen by accident here, or because "time ran out on us". Fashion photographer Mario Testino shoots the images but we don't know what happens after that when it goes to the lab, where it goes next, who works on it, who oversees it, what the intentions are. How many people looked at these images before they were signed off on? How many people had input? Ralph Lauren did a Brook Shields photo shoot once that honestly made Brook Shields look like she weighed about 60 pounds. (Google: "skinny Brooke Shields Ralph Lauren Ad" to see the image). Ask yourself: How many people looked at that image of Brooke Shields and signed off on it? 6? 10? 12? More? And not a single one of these people noticed anything wrong with it? Similarly, if Watson's leg did indeed 'disappear' in this case, it didn't vanish by accident and there were numerous witnesses to the crime. I have seen numerous cases where lab/photoshoppers tweak something that seems innocent/unnoticeable to the average person or something subtle (nearly invisible) that might result in a second glance from readers. Also, the argument that they would never do this because it would be such 'bad press' I don't find convincing. This is pretty mild stuff by a company. It's not like they passed atomic secrets to the Russians. Watson's leg may or may not have disappeared during Photoshop-- or it may or may not be hidden behind the boy's leg. Big effing deal. Nobody's going to say: "Well that cinches it-- no more Burberry products for me! Not after what they did to Emma Watson's leg."