• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jay Carney's Kitchen... Enlightening.

pbrauer said:
Great Find nota bene. In today's digital world you never are quit sure the photo your looking at is legit.
Click to expand...

I really, really hate to think that, sigh, but you're right. I'm glad others posting here were skeptical.
 
Cardinal said:
I wonder about this myself. Although I work with photoshop every day, high quality photo manipulation for the purpose of fooling the eye isn't my area of expertise. I think Hatuey would be better suited to say. What looks kind of odd to me is the darkened red outline of the poster against the mother's sleeve, like so:

View attachment 67164763

Whereas I would expect it to look more like this:

View attachment 67164764

In fact, the reflected light blue in the shadow of her sleeve against the poster doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. I accept though that this could be an artifact issue, or something else entirely benign.
Click to expand...

Before I begin:

1) Images that do not have EXIF data (metadata) are more than likely edited.
1b)However, this doesn't mean that the image has been edited to a degree that is unrealistic, it just means that it carries little information about its origins and thus can't be presented as something caught on camera and then lightly processed.
2) Editing is a really big word in the manipulations world. It ranges from simple cropping to the insertion of other images.
3) This image wouldn't be accepted by any photomag trying to publish an article on realism in photography.

This image looks edited and I suspect that it is but not the way people think. The lighting on the subjects is borderline schizophrenic and there are shadows missing. The little girl has her arm extended - and yet in the "light streak" next to the boy, there is no sign of her arm. There is no shadow that would be attributed to the egg, and there is an abnormal shady spot on the plate the woman is holding.

As far as the poster is concerned, there is a faint shadow around the frame that shouldn't be there. This can't be attributed to the architecture of the house because there are no visible objects in the frame that would even create that type of shadow (this is of course - assuming that the frame is one of those a half inch cheap plastic frames and not something thicker.)

Conclusion: The image is most likely edited - but there is not enough information in the image itself to claim that the poster was inserted. It could easily be some photo intern that was sloppy with the dodging tools. Just by looking at the other images, I can guess that whomever did this is probably far more familiar with fashion photography. Everyone (even the dog) has been brushed and dodged. Their skin looks downright vampirish - with the exception of the girl who damn near made of gold to give her a warmer look. All of these things can be achieved with different tools in photoshop. However, I do not think that the poster was inserted in the processing stage.
 
shipman-lead-04102014.jpg

I'll be reporting them to the KGB, they are obviously cooking far more food than they were rationed...
 
Hatuey said:
Before I begin:

1) Images that do not have EXIF data (metadata) are more than likely edited.
1b)However, this doesn't mean that the image has been edited to a degree that is unrealistic, it just means that it carries little information about its origins and thus can't be presented as something caught on camera and then lightly processed.
2) Editing is a really big word in the manipulations world. It ranges from simple cropping to the insertion of other images.
3) This image wouldn't be accepted by any photomag trying to publish an article on realism in photography.

This image looks edited and I suspect that it is but not the way people think. The lighting on the subjects is borderline schizophrenic and there are shadows missing. The little girl has her arm extended - and yet in the "light streak" next to the boy, there is no sign of her arm. There is no shadow that would be attributed to the egg, and there is an abnormal shady spot on the plate the woman is holding.

As far as the poster is concerned, there is a faint shadow around the frame that shouldn't be there. This can't be attributed to the architecture of the house because there are no visible objects in the frame that would even create that type of shadow (this is of course - assuming that the frame is one of those a half inch cheap plastic frames and not something thicker.)

Conclusion: The image is most likely edited - but there is not enough information in the image itself to claim that the poster was inserted. It could easily be some photo intern that was sloppy with the dodging tools. Just by looking at the other images, I can guess that whomever did this is probably far more familiar with fashion photography. Everyone (even the dog) has been brushed and dodged. Their skin looks downright vampirish - with the exception of the girl who damn near made of gold to give her a warmer look. All of these things can be achieved with different tools in photoshop. However, I do not think that the poster was inserted in the processing stage.
Click to expand...

I think there was very likely considerable editing done given how heavily edited the library picture was.

I like how they are so sloppy in that picture that they can't even be bothered to stick to sections of the bookshelf that aren't obscured by the boys finger. :lamo
 
Last edited:
Maybe they're trying out as fashion models for Target or Ambercrombie catalogs. That's what this picture feels like to me.... "clothing catalog".
 
Ockham said:
Maybe they're trying out as fashion models for Target or Ambercrombie catalogs. That's what this picture feels like to me.... "clothing catalog".
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing. I felt like I was looking at a catalog shot.
 
jmotivator said:
I think there was very likely considerable editing done given how heavily edited the library picture was.

I like how they are so sloppy in that picture that they can't even be bothered to stick to sections of the bookshelf that aren't obscured by the boys finger. :lamo
Click to expand...

I tend to go for less obvious details. It could simply be a ****ty background used for one image and not representative of the creative process as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom