 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Woking_tripod.JPG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Woking_tripod.JPG
Not necessarily.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Not necessarily.
Perhaps you misunderstand. This is "clearly photoshoped" in the sense of
http://xkcd.com/331/
This is a real photograph, and yet, for some reason, it "looks wrong".
In a similar way,
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Mars_Viking_11d128.png
This is a real photograph, yet it somehow looks like a piece of cheap
CGI. Very strange...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Woking_tripod.JPG
I think one of the main reasons it might look photoshopped is because the
front leg material doesn't have a very high diffuse component, so you don't
get to see the effect of the shadow from the surrounding buildings. Because
it has high specular reflection and is at a "good" angle, you just get to
see the bright sky reflected regardless of whether it's in shadow or not.
It doesn't look "right" to us because things shaped like that are normally
made from much less glossy materials.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/331/
ROFL!
"... and too much ambient - should have used radiosity instead!" :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Woking_tripod.JPG
What is the "clearly" part in the photo?
--
Severi Salminen
http://www.iki.fi/severi
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:31:48 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Woking_tripod.JPG
Easy way to check, go to Action Bikes at:
Central Buildings, 2-3, Chobham Rd, Woking, Surrey, GU21 6JH, United
Kingdom
And have a look around. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Perhaps you misunderstand. This is "clearly photoshoped" in the sense of
> http://xkcd.com/331/
> This is a real photograph, and yet, for some reason, it "looks wrong".
More seriously, though, nowadays it's very difficult to judge any
photo to decide whether it's genuine or not.
Perhaps a bit sadly, some people have got way *too* wary of any kind
of photo which contains anything out of ordinary. Many real (and sometimes
amazing) photographs are dismissed as fakes, often with no evidence of
fakery whatsoever (other than "it's too amazing to be true").
A few doubters will try to point out discrepancies and flaws in the
image (cause by image manipulation), but as we know from the Moon hoax
conspiracy theorists, if you really want to see flaws in a photo, you
will find them completely regardless of whether the photo is genuine
or not. It's a kind of self-fulfilling goal.
Sometimes some genuine photos just happen to contain characteristics
which are very deceptive.
As a fictional example, think about a photo of a closeup of a person
in the foreground, against some eg. outdoors background (eg. on a street
or whatever). It may just happen that the person in the foreground is
clearly illuminated from the left, casting fuzzy shadows to the right,
while on the background everything is clearly illuminated from the right,
casting sharp shadows to the left.
A doubter could point this out and say that the person has very clearly
been pasted onto the background afterwards. And the argument might sound
pretty convincing.
However, that doesn't have to be true. It may happen that, for example,
the person is actually standing in the shadow of some (off-image) building
(and the shadow of the building is also off-image), and is being illuminated
by light reflected on an (also off-image) white wall nearby, making it
look like the person is illuminated completely differently than the
background.
Even outdoors illumination doesn't always have to match perfectly in
all parts of a photo. Shadows and reflected light can create tons of
tricks which then doubters can claim are signs of image manipulation.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Perhaps a bit sadly, some people have got way *too* wary of any kind
> of photo which contains anything out of ordinary. Many real (and sometimes
> amazing) photographs are dismissed as fakes, often with no evidence of
> fakery whatsoever (other than "it's too amazing to be true").
I think it's a different perspective. After taking a seminar on well,
"new media" in my undergrad, the most important lesson I learned was
never to consider any photo as real - even one I know I took.
While that's extreme, I can understand someone being skeptical of any
photograph he/she didn't take. As you pointed out, it can be _really_
hard to tell if a well processed photo is a fake. This was true even
before you had digital imaging. So photos shouldn't really be relied
upon as evidence. IOW, all photos are fake unless I really trust the guy
who took the photo.
It's (one) reason why I ignore photographs in political news.
--
A man attempting to walk around the world DROWNED today...
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Woking_tripod.JPG
Photoshopped or not, it's very kitsch.
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
