| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/30/2006 11:58:13 PM · #26 |
| Could the "bad editing" actually be motion blur caused by the wire moving? If you look closely you can see it go across the face of one of the onlookers. I'm a PS newbie though, so I'm most likely wrong. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:28:51 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by BradP:
OK, so I'm a moron!! Never even saw that! Told ya I was stupid.
 |
No Prob - took me a bit to see it as well - musta been looking somewhere else in the image :-)) |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:53:14 AM · #28 |
I had to open it twice to see what you were all talking about - have to admit the bad cloning job wasn't what I was looking at either.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 01:17:11 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by renegade1966:
Could the "bad editing" actually be motion blur caused by the wire moving? If you look closely you can see it go across the face of one of the onlookers. I'm a PS newbie though, so I'm most likely wrong. |
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what this is. It's easy to mistake that line for a cloned-out cord, but I'm almost positive the cord is just moving. I think it's not possible that the person who processed this image would do such a bad job cloning out the cord, but would do such a good job putting several of the soldiers' faces back into the edited area. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 01:20:11 AM · #30 |
I have had an epiphany.
Guys aren't stupid, they're just always using their brainpower for something else. LOL. How I went two decades plus on this earth without realizing that, I don't know.
*giggle* |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 01:20:21 AM · #31 |
I could buy the cord moving bit if it weren't so obviously stationary where it curves up from the stage.
Also, for it to be motion blur on the cord (that probably wasn't moving really fast), more of the soldiers would have to be blurry as well, I would think. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 01:52:42 AM · #32 |
That is so bad!!! what professional would want to put their name to that.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 02:15:14 AM · #33 |
| At first glance I thought this was obviously cloning but it really could be motion blur. It wouldn't be moving much at the bottom anyways, it just suprises me how stark the difference is where the motion starts. This is a huge ethical issue if cloning is the issue, something that, hopefully, no ny times journalist would even consider messing with. If cloning is the case, its stuff like this is that people will lose jobs over. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 02:27:09 AM · #34 |
| there dont seem to be a "motive" for removing the cord, so personally I think it's motion blur - admittedly at a very precise coincidence. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 02:28:55 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by klstover:
I have had an epiphany.
Guys aren't stupid, they're just always using their brainpower for something else. LOL. How I went two decades plus on this earth without realizing that, I don't know.
*giggle* |
Thank God! A woman who finally understands us!!! Now, if she could just let us remain that way, without trying to change us..... "The perfect woman!"
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 07:25:07 AM · #36 |
I'm going to be in the camp that says its motion blur on the microphone cord and on the guy clapping in the end. But then again if it were my editing it would look about the same. I suggest that the microphone cord is that stiff. Heck I'm sure its not the only thing stiff in that crowd.
MattO
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 07:33:18 AM · #37 |
Hey, not to get off track too far here, but I just googled the dance troop's name and checked out their web site. This is a great site, and these women are gorgeous (well, most of them are, at least). Their site is here. The content is reasonably clean, although the section with their pictures may not be 100% work safe.
Okay, now back to our regularly scheduled rant. :o) |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 10:25:47 AM · #38 |
NYTimes isn't exactly printing hot news here. According to the Angelz website, the Purrfect Angelz were in Iraq between July 9th and July 22nd. NYTimes article is dated August 27th ... more than a month later.
Either the 27th was a "slow news day" or it took awhile to complete the purrfect edit of the photo. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 11:32:40 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by crayon:
there dont seem to be a "motive" for removing the cord, so personally I think it's motion blur - admittedly at a very precise coincidence. |
I disagree. With the cord removed she looks much more like a "dancer" than a "singer". The voyeuristic angle is much stronger without that cord.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:03:14 PM · #40 |
| If someone was going to go to the trouble of removing the cord, they would have removed all of it. Those cables are stiff and if she was just slightly moving the top around 6-8 inches the bottom would barely move. I have achieved similar images with my daughters concerts. Im pretty certain its motion blur. But it sure was fun to laugh at for a while. |
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:03:32 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Oh, the retouching... ok yeah... it sucks... I though this was about the men looking at the lady. |
What men?
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:08:04 PM · #42 |
I've been looking at this closer, magnifying the picture, and I have to say I've changed my mind. Why? Because IF this was a clone job, that's a remarkably good alignment of the various seams on the wall in the suspect area. I now believe this is more likely motion blur on the cord.
R.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:11:00 PM · #43 |
I totally disagree that's motion blur. The physics just don't make sense.
1) The cord is completely clear at the bottom. Assuming that shot is probably around 1/30th of a second (just a rough judge from the real motion blur on the soldier's hands), that cord has to really be moving to cause that wide a path.
2) The blur is even horizontally. Motion blur does not look like this. If it's moving back and forth, the center is darker because the cord is in the middle of it's path more than it's at the edges. If the blur is only one pass of the cord, you should capture it at the end.
3) The girl's body is very clear. You would figure there would be some motion blur on her since she's responsible for moving that cord around. I would assume the whole body naturally moves when the arms are in motion.
The one thing that does give me slight pause is the path seems to go right over one of the smaller heads. It seems like it would be hard to clone in a whole head.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:17:34 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I totally disagree that's motion blur. The physics just don't make sense.
1) The cord is completely clear at the bottom. Assuming that shot is probably around 1/30th of a second (just a rough judge from the real motion blur on the soldier's hands), that cord has to really be moving to cause that wide a path.
2) The blur is even horizontally. Motion blur does not look like this. If it's moving back and forth, the center is darker because the cord is in the middle of it's path more than it's at the edges. If the blur is only one pass of the cord, you should capture it at the end.
3) The girl's body is very clear. You would figure there would be some motion blur on her since she's responsible for moving that cord around. I would assume the whole body naturally moves when the arms are in motion.
The one thing that does give me slight pause is the path seems to go right over one of the smaller heads. It seems like it would be hard to clone in a whole head. |
If you blow it up and look closely, the blurred area's a little darker where it's closest to her; as if she flicked the microphone just as the exposure started. The blur's so subtle it only shows as blur on completely featureless areas, so where it crosses faces/camo it's effectively invisible. The stillness of her body isn't a problem, if she's holding the microphone in her right hand and just gave it a little flick, I think. The blur's also narrower at the top than lower down, which supports that interpretation...
I donno, it's weird. But how can this "sloppy" clone job so perfectly capture the BG face and the camo?
R.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:19:38 PM · #45 |
I've met the purrfect angelz girls and have seen them perform at countless motorcycle rallys. They don't sing. The mic is used to introduce the girls and get the crowd revved up. They are dancers albiet not very good. They do however, keep all their clothes on.Usually their clothes are from sponsors or vendors at the rallys. I agree they should've cloned out the whole cord.
Message edited by author 2006-08-31 12:23:24.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:26:18 PM · #46 |
I agree that the motion blur looks weird but the alternartive scenario (very sloppy cloning on the wall and perfect - too perfect - on the faces) is even less likely, IMO.
BTW, one correction re physics of blur - if you move a thin cord back and forth, it would actually look darker at the edges, not in the middle, because it moves slowly near the edges and fast in the middle. I can even give you a formula for the brightness if it is a sinusoidal motion, if you'd like :) I think it actually is a little darker at the edges in the photo, if you look closely, but maybe it is my imagination...
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I totally disagree that's motion blur. The physics just don't make sense.
1) The cord is completely clear at the bottom. Assuming that shot is probably around 1/30th of a second (just a rough judge from the real motion blur on the soldier's hands), that cord has to really be moving to cause that wide a path.
2) The blur is even horizontally. Motion blur does not look like this. If it's moving back and forth, the center is darker because the cord is in the middle of it's path more than it's at the edges. If the blur is only one pass of the cord, you should capture it at the end.
3) The girl's body is very clear. You would figure there would be some motion blur on her since she's responsible for moving that cord around. I would assume the whole body naturally moves when the arms are in motion.
The one thing that does give me slight pause is the path seems to go right over one of the smaller heads. It seems like it would be hard to clone in a whole head. |
Message edited by author 2006-08-31 12:51:40.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:32:10 PM · #47 |
Try taking a picture of a mic cord that is laying across the floor while someone is playing with the mic.
My wife is a frequent subject on stage and this is pretty typical. It doesn't take a flick to get the blur. I had a pic that the mic cord was clear on the floor and about a foot up and then just blurred almost completely out and then about a foot from her hand it was clear again.
I no longer have the pic, but I definitely remember it for that exact reason. Everything else in the pic was clear except the guitar players right arm.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:40:59 PM · #48 |
Hmm, you guys are convincing me a bit more. I hope to actually hear back from the Times about this. It would be interesting.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:47:47 PM · #49 |
wow what a lousy job editing. i think they wanted to make it look more like a strip show, instead of it looking like just some long legged woman talking into a microphone.
I really love how they remove the stand but leave the cable in view. the cable would have been the easy part to remove too.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2006 12:50:31 PM · #50 |
why do you think there would be a stand in front of her? - she obviously is just holding the mike in her right hand...
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
wow what a lousy job editing. i think they wanted to make it look more like a strip show, instead of it looking like just some long legged woman talking into a microphone.
I really love how they remove the stand but leave the cable in view. the cable would have been the easy part to remove too. |
Message edited by author 2006-08-31 12:55:32.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 04:25:03 PM EDT.
