| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/15/2010 03:02:33 AM · #26 |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 09:23:55 AM · #27 |
It's many months after the answer to the cheetah/impala question. And today I received email - it's still going around the world. "Law of the Wild, Eat Only when Hungry" Being skeptical, i did a little googling and found this forum and with the link to the original series by Michel Denis-Huot that shows the end of the story.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2011 09:26:26 AM · #28 |
I saw a nature show once and they showed almost the same thing with a lioness who had lost her cubs, she adopted a small gazelle i believe it was and even tried to defend it from a male lion...unsuccessfully.
Message edited by author 2011-04-02 09:26:34. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 10:27:58 PM · #29 |
It's definitely shopped and here's why I can say it is...
First, look at the shadows casted by the cats on the top image.... now... look at the one casted by the antelope...
Oh wait there isn't a shadow... hmmmmm..
SHOPPED.
Second image - The cat's head should be casting a shadow onto the head of the antelope.
Third image - shadows from the cats don't run parallel with that casted by the antelope.SHOPPED.
Message edited by author 2011-04-02 22:35:40.
|
|
|
|
04/02/2011 10:50:50 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
It's definitely shopped and here's why I can say it is...
First, look at the shadows casted by the cats on the top image.... now... look at the one casted by the antelope...
Oh wait there isn't a shadow... hmmmmm..
SHOPPED.
Second image - The cat's head should be casting a shadow onto the head of the antelope.
Third image - shadows from the cats don't run parallel with that casted by the antelope.SHOPPED. |
What are you smoking Leroy? They all have matching shadows to me. |
|
|
|
04/02/2011 10:59:33 PM · #31 |
Where you assume the shadows ought to run will depend on where you think photographer is in relation to the action. I see no issues with the shadows, but I am assuming he is quite close to the group, so the shadows will not all run parallel, if he were shooting from distance with a long lens, they would. If you assume a shorter lens the shadows are all where they should be.
And if you were going to stitch together a group and you chose that background on dry grass in sunset light where the sheer math of faking the shadows would drive you crazy, you would have to be insane.
The only thing faked was the happy ending for the newspaper story. |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 12:07:01 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
What are you smoking Leroy? They all have matching shadows to me. |
Agreed. They say too much cheese messes with your perceptual facilities; that may be the issue here.
R. |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 01:42:33 AM · #33 |
| Fake...! too many thing when you actually look at the details scream out fake. things dont add up right. sorry to burst more peoples bubbles. ;) |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 03:00:05 AM · #34 |
Much as I'd like to say that if it was in the travesty to journalism that is the Daily Mail then it is most probably fake, it looks authentic to me.
(This shares the context of my prejudice very nicely: The Daily Mail Song) |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 04:46:18 AM · #35 |
| Well you know the third pictures one is confirming that this thing actually has flavor. LOL |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 04:46:51 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
(This shares the context of my prejudice very nicely: The Daily Mail Song) |
(Don't want to hijack the thread, but that was brilliant Paul, thanks for sharing!) |
|
|
|
04/03/2011 07:21:37 AM · #37 |
I suspect the photos are quite real. I wish I could remember where I saw the video....
of the very same animals. I doubt the video was shopped. And the behavior was described
as not that completely unusual. And I didn't read about it in the Daily Mail. |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 04:17:13 PM · #38 |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 05:33:59 PM · #39 |
Cool article, Paul! Personally I strive to do work on the level of 1.
Were I a model now, I'd insist on as little PS as possible...you can see how much the girls in the shots representing 4 and 5 were altered. If you turn up looking like a 1 and your pics show you as appearing to be much slimmer - esp in the 4 photo - well, what else is that but false advertising?
Message edited by author 2011-12-02 17:37:16. |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 06:47:45 PM · #40 |
My self-portraits are probably edited to a level 3 or 4. I generally make my nose smaller, my eyes a touch bigger and clearer, my neck a bit slimmer, and my hair a bit fuller. No one that knows me really well has even noticed the difference. They just seem to think I make people (or myself) look extra amazing when I photograph them. I generally don't edit other people more than a level 1 (maybe the occasional level 2) because I'm scared they'd be offended if they found out that I retouched their nose or something.
I wonder how effective that legislature would be. First, people don't often pay attention to photo by-lines or the fine print in the corner, so I doubt the majority of people would read the labels. And for those who read the labels, I don't think each level is defined well enough for them to have a real meaning for the public. A photographer might know what that means, but probably not the general public.
I also don't think their level 5 is nearly as drastic as level 4 or even level 3! |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 08:22:02 PM · #41 |
so how do they look so amazing in the movies?
|
|
|
|
12/02/2011 08:46:49 PM · #42 |
Ironic that one of the ads on the page shows how you can cartoon yourself with a waistline the width of a pencil. |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 08:50:45 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
so how do they look so amazing in the movies? |
I used to work as an extra, aka background actor, I can tell you this: the talent (aka the stars, not us poor ol' potato muffin extras) get hair and makeup, wardrobe, lighting, scrupulous attention to diets and personal trainers. They literally spend hours getting the stars ready for set which is why they often have 5 am call times even if they don't actually set a foot on set til hours later. The talent doesn't do their own hair or makeup, wardrobe is always customized to fit, the lighting is designed to flatter.
After all it's essentially a celebrity's job to look perfect all the time, and they spare no expense. That's how they rake in the big $$$.
Message edited by author 2011-12-02 21:04:02. |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 08:54:33 PM · #44 |
| Liquify is a girl's best friend. |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 09:02:41 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Cool article, Paul! Personally I strive to do work on the level of 1.
Were I a model now, I'd insist on as little PS as possible...you can see how much the girls in the shots representing 4 and 5 were altered. If you turn up looking like a 1 and your pics show you as appearing to be much slimmer - esp in the 4 photo - well, what else is that but false advertising? |
What would you call makeup, pushup bras, heels, hair extensions, etc? Photoshop is like the tip of a very large iceberg of false advertising.
Message edited by author 2011-12-02 21:03:47. |
|
|
|
12/02/2011 09:09:26 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by snaffles:
Cool article, Paul! Personally I strive to do work on the level of 1.
Were I a model now, I'd insist on as little PS as possible...you can see how much the girls in the shots representing 4 and 5 were altered. If you turn up looking like a 1 and your pics show you as appearing to be much slimmer - esp in the 4 photo - well, what else is that but false advertising? |
What would you call makeup, pushup bras, heels, hair extensions, etc? Photoshop is like the tip of a very large iceberg of false advertising. |
I see your point, but there is nothing at all new about makeup, padded or pushup bras, heels, hair extensions/wigs. They've been around forever. And frankly most models go to go-sees sans makeup, or with as little as possible, so the client can see how they actually look. Anytime I had a portfolio shoot done, I didn't wear makeup/heels/padded bras etc to the shoot...yes they were handy in case the stylist wanted to use them, but in my portfolio, I was never rendered unrecognizable by anyone. Nor was I ever Photoshopped!! :-0
ETA: If you look back a few hundred years, the heavily made-up, powdered, bewigged heel-wearers were men!!! They were all originally tools of male vanity. So nyaah :-p
Message edited by author 2011-12-02 22:33:26. |
|
|
|
12/03/2011 12:08:49 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Liquify is a girl's best friend. |
Agreed. |
|
|
|
12/03/2011 01:11:06 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by geinafets:
Originally posted by tanguera:
Liquify is a girl's best friend. |
Agreed. |
Ha ha--my wife was annoyed initially with my hours of playing with photoshop until I showed her the liquify tool and how it works. Now I have orders from every family vacation photo reel to fix all her pictures. |
|
|
|
12/03/2011 02:15:22 AM · #49 |
| This looks pretty real to me, although I'm not an expert. It's an amazing photo if it is real though. |
|
|
|
12/03/2011 12:10:17 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
ETA: If you look back a few hundred years, the heavily made-up, powdered, bewigged heel-wearers were men!!! They were all originally tools of male vanity. So nyaah :-p |
A few hundred years isn't far enough back ... women have been poisoning themselves to "look better" (and sometimes for purported health benefits) for at least a few thousand years ... kohl
Originally posted by Wikipedia:
Kohl is an ancient eye cosmetic. It was made by grinding galena (lead sulfide) and other ingredients. It is widely used in South Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and parts of West Africa to darken the eyelids and as mascara for the eyelashes. It is used mostly by women, but also some men and children....
Kohl has been worn traditionally since the Bronze Age (3500 B.C. onward) by Egyptian queens. It was originally used as protection against eye ailments. |
BTW, one of the biggest rationales behind the whole powdered wig thing was to allow them to shave their heads to help control lice ... |
|
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: 07/17/2025 02:16:20 PM EDT.
