|
|
Post by mick on Mar 12, 2024 11:21:42 GMT
How can a bit of very crude photoshopping cause such a furore?
I'm sure that my amateur efforts wouldn't have caused so much comment.
Mick
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Mar 12, 2024 11:24:56 GMT
How can a bit of very crude photoshopping cause such a furore?
I'm sure that my amateur efforts wouldn't have caused so much comment.
Mick
but would you be trying to stop nasty rumours? I want to know how Louis can get his fingers in the position they appear to have been shot in, or were they snapped...? |
|
|
|
Post by mick on Mar 12, 2024 11:34:40 GMT
Maybe I should have put this is the gear grinding thread. It gets my goat that people, the media in particular, insist on seeing a conspiracy in everything. What's wrong with the simple and obvious explanation that she's an amateur photographer who, like many of us, thought her picture looked a better with a bit of tweaking. If I were in her position and wanted to genuinely falsify a picture I would have had it done by a pro and not issued a clearly very poorly edited image. Mick
PS Also if I were in her position I wouldn't want my medical issues bandied around the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on Mar 12, 2024 11:39:00 GMT
The issue is simply that a photograph was submitted to press/photo agencies which clearly did not meet their standards on image authenticity. Those agencies' reputations are on the line, so really THEY should have looked more closely before distributing.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Mar 12, 2024 11:47:15 GMT
How can a bit of very crude photoshopping cause such a furore?
I'm sure that my amateur efforts wouldn't have caused so much comment.
Mick
News is slow. It is kinda amusing watching them try to make column inches of it. The Times today reported 17 "obvious" clumsy uses of the clone tool (looked more to me like a healing brush set too large). What amazes me is that it would have to be really high resolution jpg to allow folk to spot these things - some poor newspaper intern has had to spend hours crawling over it pixel by pixel. BBC last night were hypothesising that it was one of these "merge in camera" apps (probably phone camera) that takes a burst and then merges the individual frames for a "best result" viewed at 5x3" on a screen in bright sunlight. |
|
|
|
Post by don on Mar 12, 2024 11:48:14 GMT
It is stupid that it has become a national/ international news item it’s a bloody photo
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Mar 12, 2024 11:49:50 GMT
The issue is simply that a photograph was submitted to press/photo agencies which clearly did not meet their standards on image authenticity. Those agencies' reputations are on the line, so really THEY should have looked more closely before distributing. Absolutely. One look at the Exif would tell it had been modified. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Mar 12, 2024 11:50:30 GMT
It is stupid that it has become a national/ international news item it’s a bloody photo yes that's true, however when it's the royals it's news remember Diana in her bikini... |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Mar 12, 2024 11:51:02 GMT
The issue is simply that a photograph was submitted to press/photo agencies which clearly did not meet their standards on image authenticity. Those agencies' reputations are on the line, so really THEY should have looked more closely before distributing. Absolutely. One look at the Exif would tell it had been modified. according to the bbc at least twice |
|
|
|
Photoshop
Mar 12, 2024 12:19:40 GMT
via mobile
Post by daves on Mar 12, 2024 12:19:40 GMT
In the great scheme of things one has to remember that cockup is much more likely than conspiracy. But that won't stop the conspiracy obsessives.
|
|
|
|
Photoshop
Mar 12, 2024 13:02:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by MJB on Mar 12, 2024 13:02:15 GMT
How can a bit of very crude photoshopping cause such a furore? I'm sure that my amateur efforts wouldn't have caused so much comment. Mick
but would you be trying to stop nasty rumours? I want to know how Louis can get his fingers in the position they appear to have been shot in, or were they snapped...? My son could cross his fingers like that. Perhaps Louis is a bit gangsta in the Windsor 'hood. |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Mar 12, 2024 13:17:19 GMT
How can a bit of very crude photoshopping cause such a furore?
I'm sure that my amateur efforts wouldn't have caused so much comment.
Mick
News is slow. It is kinda amusing watching them try to make column inches of it. The Times today reported 17 "obvious" clumsy uses of the clone tool (looked more to me like a healing brush set too large). What amazes me is that it would have to be really high resolution jpg to allow folk to spot these things - some poor newspaper intern has had to spend hours crawling over it pixel by pixel. BBC last night were hypothesising that it was one of these "merge in camera" apps (probably phone camera) that takes a burst and then merges the individual frames for a "best result" viewed at 5x3" on a screen in bright sunlight. that is my assumption. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Mar 12, 2024 13:19:49 GMT
but would you be trying to stop nasty rumours? I want to know how Louis can get his fingers in the position they appear to have been shot in, or were they snapped...? My son could cross his fingers like that. Perhaps Louis is a bit gangsta in the Windsor 'hood. I can get my fingers in something like that position, using the other hand to do it, so for someone his age, no problem at all. |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Mar 12, 2024 13:26:34 GMT
The whole thing is non news in my opinion.
Royal tries to indulge in a little media spin and makes a right pig's ear of it.
Surprise?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Mar 12, 2024 17:10:53 GMT
The issue is simply that a photograph was submitted to press/photo agencies which clearly did not meet their standards on image authenticity. Those agencies' reputations are on the line, so really THEY should have looked more closely before distributing. Yes, but when the photo is supplied directly by the Royal account one would expect it to have been authenticated before it was actually submitted. Also... it was an incredibly shuddy bit of photoshopping*. The errors jumped out at first sighting and the agencies should've spotted it and asked questions before accepting it. * by someone who is supposed to be a professional quality photographer |
|
