Has this been mucked with?

Discussion in 'Photoshop Tutorials' started by amaweeuk, Sep 16, 2007.

  1. amaweeuk

    amaweeuk Guest

    amaweeuk, Sep 16, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. amaweeuk

    ronviers Guest

    It looks pretty believable to me - but I didn't just look and look. I
    think if it's been chopped they were good. Maybe after some real
    experts weigh in you can tell us what has you suspicious.

    Ron
     
    ronviers, Sep 16, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. amaweeuk

    amaweeuk Guest

    Thanks Ron, will do.
     
    amaweeuk, Sep 16, 2007
    #3
  4. amaweeuk

    amaweeuk Guest

    amaweeuk, Sep 16, 2007
    #4
  5. amaweeuk

    Somebody Guest


    Other than poorly exposed it looks fine. BTW ALL digital images no matter
    there source including film scanned on a scanner has been "mucked" with.
    Everything that creates a digital image causes alteration of the data. In
    camera processing for JPGs. Adjustments made in the scanner software, even
    RAW files are mucked with when you bring them in to something like ACR, it
    is converted from RAW data to visual raster data.

    Somebody!
     
    Somebody, Sep 16, 2007
    #5
  6. amaweeuk

    amaweeuk Guest



    Thank you for that, very helpful :)
     
    amaweeuk, Sep 16, 2007
    #6
  7. amaweeuk

    amaweeuk Guest

    Anyone else nothing anything odd?
     
    amaweeuk, Sep 16, 2007
    #7
  8. amaweeuk

    Adam W Guest

    Is this another McCann joke or theory? Have they had much news coverage
    in the US?
     
    Adam W, Sep 16, 2007
    #8
  9. amaweeuk

    JD Guest

    Is there something in particular that you see?
     
    JD, Sep 17, 2007
    #9
  10. amaweeuk

    Somebody Guest


    Good question. I do know from time to time someone will try some drastic
    composting and then ask for people to see if they can tell. Its a good way
    to try and improve ones skills.

    But, if the OP sees something they think is odd then what is it?

    Somebody!
     
    Somebody, Sep 17, 2007
    #10
  11. amaweeuk

    amaweeuk Guest


    The reason I don't want to say, is I don't want to cloud your
    judgement.
     
    amaweeuk, Sep 17, 2007
    #11
  12. amaweeuk

    Rob Guest

    Who made the image - its a happy snap so what's special about it.

    Is there any more to the image? or is that it. All the shadows seem in
    place and the sharpness is consistent through out the image. Any exif data?

    The faces are lit from the reflection off the pool water and surrounds
    hence no hard shadows on the faces. If this is what you are alluding
    too? There isn't too much highlight/shadow tool been used if any.
     
    Rob, Sep 17, 2007
    #12
  13. amaweeuk

    AH#2 Guest

    There's nothing suspicious. If you are referring to the blooming reds in the
    background shadows, well that's typical of many sensors in daylight.
     
    AH#2, Sep 17, 2007
    #13
  14. amaweeuk

    amaweeuk Guest

    Thank you for your considered replies. I will give you a little
    history. The photo is indeed of the McCanns, and it is claimed this
    was the last photo taken of her at 2.30pm in Portugal (before she
    vanished that evening). The pic had been posted to a message board,
    and people who know not a lot about shopping dived in with their
    reasons why the photo is a fake. Several are of the opinion that the
    girl on the right was added to the pic afterwards. They state the
    following as 'evidence':

    The shadows are inconsistent, some darker, some lighter, some where
    there shouldn't be, some where there should be.

    The baby in the middle has a missing arm (lol)

    The white hat on the right hand girl looks dodgy at the top.

    The man's arm behind the baby looks wrong

    Zooming in shows that certain areas have been smoothed, when the pic
    has been said to not have been shopped at all.

    Basically the only one of the above I see is the smoothing, but I
    thought I would enlist the help of the real experts.
     
    amaweeuk, Sep 17, 2007
    #14
  15. amaweeuk

    Joe Guest

    Without some quote of the original, we have no idea what you are talking
    about, or which message you reposnse to. So, PLEASE try to do most if not
    all normal people do.
     
    Joe, Sep 17, 2007
    #15
  16. amaweeuk

    pico Guest

    The angle of the shadows is consistent. Not all surfaces under the shadows
    are equally reflective; the girl's face on the right is lit by the proximity
    and luminance of her pink dress. It piques the shadows.
    No she doesn't. Her sleve is blossomed (it's a style) and her arm is tucked
    behind her for support and you CAN see pink skin right by her body.
    Bad fashion is not illegal.
    Smoothing can be done in-camera a couple ways. One can be by the poor optics
    of the camera, and some setups in or out of camera 'smooth' without the
    owner/operator even knowing it (a bicubic algorythim to surpress jaggies
    upon resampling. Consumers tend to prefer soft to chiseled boundaries.)
    Use some pass filters and you can see the picture is well within the bounds
    of an ordinary happy snap.
     
    pico, Sep 17, 2007
    #16
  17. amaweeuk

    amaweeuk Guest

    Interesting, and thank you!

    Oh and Joe, I am starting up a fund to buy you a scroll button and a
    book called The Silly Waste Of Bandwidth. I have ten bob already.
     
    amaweeuk, Sep 17, 2007
    #17
  18. amaweeuk

    KatWoman Guest

    well I* looked and decided before I formed my opinion but saw the end posts
    before I posted

    I thought it looked very real like any ordinary snapshot and wondered if it
    was so retouched why it wasn't better color overall etc
    I kept looking to see what might look funny
    the hat edge did make me think the girl in front may be added
    lot of times I had to get kids faces from other shots cause kids didn't look
    good in the same frame. light already matches from same session, easier to
    change just the face than the whole kid though
    so I thought maybe the kid wasn't in frame and the parent wanted a pic with
    both so maybe she was added later
    that and she is in sharp focus the people behind her are softer focus and
    then the background tree is focus again
    so impossible depth of field??
    but a humid area on the lens could do that too?
     
    KatWoman, Sep 18, 2007
    #18
  19. amaweeuk

    Joe Guest

    wrote:

    Thanks, and I am waiting for your skull (oops! I meant scroll button)
    <bg>
     
    Joe, Sep 18, 2007
    #19
  20. amaweeuk

    amaweeuk Guest



    Thank you Kat. Would you say likely added later, or unlikey? Anyone
    agree with the focus?
     
    amaweeuk, Sep 18, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.