|
|
| Author |
Message |
lay78
Joined: 10 Nov 2011
Posts: 1
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:21 am Post subject: I think a photographer is not being truthful. |
 |
|
Hello, everybody. I was wondering if you could verify the pictures below at see if they match the explanation from a supposedly professional photographer. The main question is: are these pictures grossly photoshopped? They were taken from a News site that specializes in paparazzi pictures. Your answer will define whether a friend should do business with him or not. I'd like to thank you in advance.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/717/aafndjkfdsa.jpg/
"This afternoon my photographer Matt ran the famous Josh shirtless photo in question through Advanced Adobe Photoshop on his 48 inch monitor. Here are the results. There were 5 of us in the room at the time all watching the same thing. I’ll explain later why I decided not to bring my camera and film it:
1) Each photo (remember there are two different shirtless poses) is NOT one single photo, but two photos that have been overlaid in photoshop.
2) In each of the two poses Josh’s head was definitely inserted from a different image. The woman, the balcony and the torso and the sky are all from one single image. The head in close up magnification clearly shows different halo lines around the skin than the halo lines around the arms shoulders and torso. (skin in close pixilation level has a unique ‘halo’ effect from one photograph to the next kind of like a fingerprint). The skin showing through his glasses is clearly different than the skin on the rest of the arm, and those should be an exact match if they were the same photo but they’re not.
3) In the photo where Josh has his hand on his head there are clearly smudgy shadows in front of his nose and mouth indicating that whatever head was in the original photo was more forward and had to be erased. On close up it was a terrible erase job you could clearly see gray shadows where it should have been solid white background.
4) The back of Josh’s neckline clearly shows a very bad editing job with pixels bleeding into the window behind him. That would never happen if it was all one photograph, the pixels from neck to window would be clearly defined.
This all took about 30 minutes today and there were several other points in the discussion but I think I covered enough highlights above. The reason I decided not to film our findings is that a post came across this forum this morning that Josh had tweeted it was a real photo. I don’t in any way want to get crosswise with JG or his team. Which is why I’m retiring from photo sleuthing after this post.
So here are my conclusions of some possibilities:
Photos of Josh were taken in quick succession and for whatever reason the photographer decided to use the head from one Josh photo on a second photo from the same photo sequence. This is the theory I would most like to believe and if this one is true I would ask whoever did it in the future please clean up your editing. |
|
|
|
|
 |
thehermit
Joined: 05 Mar 2003
Posts: 3987
Location: Cheltenham, UK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Josh?
_________________
If life serves you lemons, make lemonade! |
|
|
|
|
|
markrobert8365
Joined: 16 Nov 2011
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
it is not easy to capture the photo of some one in camera some time we think it is easy but it is not! A photography work done pixel by pixel . it is most interesting but not easy as per my perception . sometime adventures photography become risky for a photographer |
|
|
|
|
|
Auieos
Joined: 29 Jan 2010
Posts: 2019
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
