« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Photo Sleuths Required  (Read 3364 times)

Ed Wenn

  • Global Moderator
  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,300
  • Slowly getting back into it. Sometimes.
Photo Sleuths Required
« on: October 16, 2006, 11:18:19 PM »
Team, I saw this photo on the wall of a hipster hotel in Monte Carlo recently. It initially caught my eye for the obvious reasons, but then I noticed that some aspects of the photo were perhaps too good to be true. I smell a certain amount manipulation with this baby. Thoughts?

[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: October 16, 2006, 11:19:53 PM by ed.wenn »
Logged

moominsean

  • Global Moderator
  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Living in camera shadows.
    • moominstuff
Re: Photo Sleuths Required
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2006, 03:15:01 PM »
i'd say that the fact that there is that much motion blur in the foreground, yet the waves in the background are static is a pretty good indicator for manipulation...maybe, but maybe i just can't tell cuz the quality is a bit low.
Logged
"A world without Polaroid is a terrible place."
                                                                  - John Waters

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,887
Re: Photo Sleuths Required
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2006, 03:56:25 PM »
I'm not certain it is entirely manipulated. Hues and saturation were probably fixed... but the image reminds me of something I saw in Leica Magazine years ago (before Photoshop was even invented).

But, as some now say:
If the photoshop artist is good, you might see the image has been manipulated.
If the photoshop artist is great, you have no idea the image has been manipulated.
Logged
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

LT

  • Global Moderator
  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,030
Re: Photo Sleuths Required
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2006, 08:50:36 PM »
something about the sky doesnt ring true - the perspective of the clouds seems to be a bit "wrong" - although it's probably me that's wrong.  And dont forget, composite images have been made in the darkroom for years,  it doesn't necessarily follow that manipulation = photoshop.

Just look at Jerry Uelsmann's work - www.uelsmann.net
« Last Edit: October 17, 2006, 09:06:35 PM by leon taylor »
Logged
L.

Ed Wenn

  • Global Moderator
  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,300
  • Slowly getting back into it. Sometimes.
Re: Photo Sleuths Required
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2006, 10:43:26 PM »
Leon has it right. The thing that you can't really tell from the original image is that the sky and the sea overlap very slightly. I was kind of troubled the way the sky maintains a consisted pattern all the way to the horizon (something I, for one, do not see very often), but when I looked more closely there was a definite overlap. Which led me to conclude there had been some manipulation at work.

I've attached a full res detail; you can't see it brilliantly well, but you might be able to make out some clouds in the sea.

Leon, good point re it not necessarily having to be digital manipulation.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »