faked?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by hame1957@bluemail.ch, Jan 24, 2005.

  1. Guest

    , Jan 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Harvey Guest

    Harvey, Jan 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wrote:
    > the 2nd picture on http://tinyurl.com/6cbsc looks strange.
    > how can you make such pictures?
    > picture: http://tinyurl.com/6jlj4
    >

    Hi,
    I did not read the already written replies but as I have been called as
    expert witness in many court cases, my opinion is as well that this
    second photo is faked - the shadows are in a different direction
    compared to the position of the sun...
    rgds George

    PS: Now I shall read the replies...
    Dr. Georg N.Nyman, Jan 24, 2005
    #3
  4. wrote:
    > the 2nd picture on http://tinyurl.com/6cbsc looks strange.
    > how can you make such pictures?
    > picture: http://tinyurl.com/6jlj4
    >

    Again me, to be very precise - the sun is behind the right person as one
    can see on the photo. The left person has got the sun on the cheek and
    the shadow is directed towards the left side - for that person, there
    must have been another sun which was positioned much more on the right
    side so that his cheek is in sunlight and the shadows towards the left.
    Photoshop can do almost everything...
    rgds George
    Dr. Georg N.Nyman, Jan 24, 2005
    #4
  5. Guest

    Looks OK to me too. Is the 'strangeness' you see connected with the
    relatively light shadow on the faces? If so that may be because of
    light being reflected off the snow (assuming no artificial reflection
    or flash).
    , Jan 24, 2005
    #5
  6. "Dr. Georg N.Nyman" <> wrote in message
    news:p...

    > Again me, to be very precise - the sun is behind the right person as one
    > can see on the photo. The left person has got the sun on the cheek and the
    > shadow is directed towards the left side - for that person, there must
    > have been another sun which was positioned much more on the right side so
    > that his cheek is in sunlight and the shadows towards the left.


    I don't think so. I think a more likely explanation is that the picture was
    taken with an extreme wide-angle lens, perhaps even a fisheye lens (because
    no identifiable objects are in the parts of the image that would show the
    most distortion), so although the sun appears to be almost in front of the
    photographer, it is really off to the side because of the extreme wide-angle
    coverage.
    Andrew Koenig, Jan 24, 2005
    #6
  7. Owamanga Guest

    On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:25:09 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" <> wrote:

    >"Dr. Georg N.Nyman" <> wrote in message
    >news:p...
    >
    >> Again me, to be very precise - the sun is behind the right person as one
    >> can see on the photo. The left person has got the sun on the cheek and the
    >> shadow is directed towards the left side - for that person, there must
    >> have been another sun which was positioned much more on the right side so
    >> that his cheek is in sunlight and the shadows towards the left.

    >
    >I don't think so. I think a more likely explanation is that the picture was
    >taken with an extreme wide-angle lens, perhaps even a fisheye lens (because
    >no identifiable objects are in the parts of the image that would show the
    >most distortion), so although the sun appears to be almost in front of the
    >photographer, it is really off to the side because of the extreme wide-angle
    >coverage.


    Definitely. This is not a fake. There is no point to faking it. A
    fisheye lens can easily include the sun in the frame when it's almost
    90 degrees to the direction that the camera is facing.

    For the sake of argument lets imagine this is an off-center crop from
    a 180degree fish-eye (I don't think it's quite that wide, but anyway),
    the camera is looking East, the sun is dead South and on the left edge
    of the frame we are seeing almost due North. All shadows are pointing
    North, and the Southern sides of the faces of both men are lit by the
    sun.

    Characteristic darkening of the image in the middle (the sky in
    particular) fits this lens type too.

    The man on his knees is most likely straight, just being bent by the
    fish-eye.

    --
    Owamanga!
    Owamanga, Jan 24, 2005
    #7
  8. Alan Browne Guest

    wrote:

    > the 2nd picture on http://tinyurl.com/6cbsc looks strange.
    > how can you make such pictures?
    > picture: http://tinyurl.com/6jlj4
    >


    Wide angle lenses like a 20mm cover over 90° horizontally (landscape
    orientation). The camera is quite close to the skiers.

    Notice the rim lighting of the guy on the right ... the cheek lit on the guy on
    the left.

    Look at the shaddow detail of some of the small lumps of snow on the far left,
    middle of the frame ... they follow the shaddow of the fellow on the left...

    Finally ... why would anyone want to fake anything in this shot?


    Something else is bizzare ... the blue is darker in the middle than at the left
    and right of the frame ... a contrast issue with the lens, perhaps.



    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Browne, Jan 24, 2005
    #8
  9. Mike Hunter Guest

    "Owamanga" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:25:09 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" <> wrote:
    >
    >>"Dr. Georg N.Nyman" <> wrote in message
    >>news:p...
    >>
    >>> Again me, to be very precise - the sun is behind the right person as one
    >>> can see on the photo. The left person has got the sun on the cheek and
    >>> the
    >>> shadow is directed towards the left side - for that person, there must
    >>> have been another sun which was positioned much more on the right side
    >>> so
    >>> that his cheek is in sunlight and the shadows towards the left.

    >>
    >>I don't think so. I think a more likely explanation is that the picture
    >>was
    >>taken with an extreme wide-angle lens, perhaps even a fisheye lens
    >>(because
    >>no identifiable objects are in the parts of the image that would show the
    >>most distortion), so although the sun appears to be almost in front of the
    >>photographer, it is really off to the side because of the extreme
    >>wide-angle
    >>coverage.

    >
    > Definitely. This is not a fake. There is no point to faking it. A
    > fisheye lens can easily include the sun in the frame when it's almost
    > 90 degrees to the direction that the camera is facing.
    >
    > For the sake of argument lets imagine this is an off-center crop from
    > a 180degree fish-eye (I don't think it's quite that wide, but anyway),
    > the camera is looking East, the sun is dead South and on the left edge
    > of the frame we are seeing almost due North. All shadows are pointing
    > North, and the Southern sides of the faces of both men are lit by the
    > sun.
    >
    > Characteristic darkening of the image in the middle (the sky in
    > particular) fits this lens type too.
    >
    > The man on his knees is most likely straight, just being bent by the
    > fish-eye.
    >
    > --
    > Owamanga!


    Could it be that the "sun" is in fact a reflection off something - a cable
    car perhaps?
    The "sun" is completely lacking yellow : I know its burnt out but I would
    have expected some yellowness.
    I'm sceptical about the fisheye lens hypothesis because if you ignore the
    "sun", then everything else looks OK.

    Mike
    Mike Hunter, Jan 24, 2005
    #9
  10. wrote in news:1106593004.441101.138340
    @c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

    > the 2nd picture on http://tinyurl.com/6cbsc looks strange.
    > how can you make such pictures?
    > picture: http://tinyurl.com/6jlj4


    First - I removed the cross posting.

    Second - yes both first and second picture are faked, or at least
    the sun is. It is even more obvious in the first picture. The sun is
    nearly straight forward and the shadows are straigth to the right.
    That is impossible even with a wider wide angle than was used.

    Third - I don't really like tinyurl. It is a high chance that
    you end up looking at something obscene when you follow a totally
    unknown url.



    /Roland
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 24, 2005
    #10
  11. Crownfield Guest

    Dr. Georg N.Nyman wrote:
    >
    > wrote:
    > > the 2nd picture on http://tinyurl.com/6cbsc looks strange.
    > > how can you make such pictures?
    > > picture: http://tinyurl.com/6jlj4
    > >

    > Hi,
    > I did not read the already written replies but as I have been called as
    > expert witness in many court cases, my opinion is as well that this
    > second photo is faked - the shadows are in a different direction
    > compared to the position of the sun...


    try the idea of a wide angle lens.

    > rgds George
    >
    > PS: Now I shall read the replies...
    Crownfield, Jan 24, 2005
    #11
  12. Alan Browne <> wrote in
    news:8pcJd.42556$:

    > Wide angle lenses like a 20mm cover over 90ø horizontally (landscape
    > orientation). The camera is quite close to the skiers.


    That means that the wide angle lens cover 45 degrees to the left and 45
    degrees to the right. In the first picture, the sun has to be 90 degrees
    to the left to cast those shadows. This would mean a fish eye with more
    than 180 degrees in order to catch the sun several degrees into the
    picture. This is impossible - so the sun is faked.

    > Finally ... why would anyone want to fake anything in this shot?


    The photographer maybe just added a sun there because he/she
    found it attractive. I think this added sun is a rather innocent
    modification.

    > Something else is bizzare ... the blue is darker in the middle than at
    > the left and right of the frame ... a contrast issue with the lens,
    > perhaps.


    Niemas problemas - a polarizing filter - thats all.


    /Roland
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 24, 2005
    #12
  13. Owamanga Guest

    On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:55:49 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >> the 2nd picture on http://tinyurl.com/6cbsc looks strange.
    >> how can you make such pictures?
    >> picture: http://tinyurl.com/6jlj4
    >>

    >
    >Wide angle lenses like a 20mm cover over 90° horizontally (landscape
    >orientation). The camera is quite close to the skiers.
    >
    >Notice the rim lighting of the guy on the right ... the cheek lit on the guy on
    >the left.
    >
    >Look at the shaddow detail of some of the small lumps of snow on the far left,
    >middle of the frame ... they follow the shaddow of the fellow on the left...
    >
    >Finally ... why would anyone want to fake anything in this shot?


    Indeed, there is no reason to fake it.

    >Something else is bizzare ... the blue is darker in the middle than at the left
    >and right of the frame ... a contrast issue with the lens, perhaps.


    If he used a polarizer, I would expect exactly this from the sky. I
    don't know of anyone crazy enough to make a polarizing filter for a
    20mm lens however...

    I think it's something to do with the horizon scattering light, the
    effect can be seen in this 180deg photo, the edges are brighter than
    the center:

    http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~avery/course/3400/atmosphere/horizon_bright_lynch.jpg

    and a cleaner example:

    http://www.pacific-promotion.com.fr/Phototek/PH2_514.jpg

    --
    Owamanga!
    Owamanga, Jan 24, 2005
    #13
  14. Crownfield <> wrote in news::

    > try the idea of a wide angle lens.


    In the first picture, this wide angle lens must be more than
    180 degrees, i.e. it has to be a super fisheye at e.g. 220
    degrees. Otherwise it could not both catch the sun a bit into
    the picture at the same time as the people cast shadows straight
    to the right. But - looking at the picture you see that it is a
    rather moderate wide angle lens.

    The first picture definitely has a faked sun.

    The second picture is harder to judge - but it sure looks like
    the sun is faked there also.


    /Roland
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 24, 2005
    #14
  15. Alan Browne Guest

    Owamanga wrote:
    > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:55:49 -0500, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Something else is bizzare ... the blue is darker in the middle than at the left
    >>and right of the frame ... a contrast issue with the lens, perhaps.

    >
    >
    > If he used a polarizer, I would expect exactly this from the sky. I
    > don't know of anyone crazy enough to make a polarizing filter for a
    > 20mm lens however...


    me! I do it all the time with mixed results, sometimes very good sometimes not
    so good and the other times I'd rather not talk about.

    >
    > I think it's something to do with the horizon scattering light, the
    > effect can be seen in this 180deg photo, the edges are brighter than
    > the center:
    >
    > http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~avery/course/3400/atmosphere/horizon_bright_lynch.jpg
    >
    > and a cleaner example:
    >
    > http://www.pacific-promotion.com.fr/Phototek/PH2_514.jpg



    Yeah, I thought of that, so if it is so, then the lens is much wider than a 20mm
    lens (94°) as 90° is the angle over which a polarizer will show polarized and
    non polarized light when it is set for max polarization.

    The rule of thumb for a polarizer is to point your index finger at the subject
    with your thumb jutting out. If your thumb can point at the sun while your
    finger points at the subject (down the lens axis) then the polarizer can be used
    up to maximum effect. eg: when the light crosses the lens axis at 90°. So a
    wide angle will show a mix of effect levels when the pol is set to filter.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Browne, Jan 24, 2005
    #15
  16. At the risk of being a party pooper, wouldn't it be easier to email the
    site's owner and ask him?

    --

    Roger
    Roger Whitehead, Jan 24, 2005
    #16
  17. Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Jan 24, 2005
    #17
  18. Owamanga Guest

    On 24 Jan 2005 20:38:28 GMT, Roland Karlsson
    <> wrote:

    >Crownfield <> wrote in news::
    >
    >> try the idea of a wide angle lens.

    >
    >In the first picture, this wide angle lens must be more than
    >180 degrees, i.e. it has to be a super fisheye at e.g. 220
    >degrees. Otherwise it could not both catch the sun a bit into
    >the picture at the same time as the people cast shadows straight
    >to the right. But - looking at the picture you see that it is a
    >rather moderate wide angle lens.


    Disagree, the lens is 180deg or less. It has the sun (just in frame to
    the right), but also the shadows are going out of frame, not directly
    left (remember it's a fisheye, so the lines are being bent round - In
    reality, the ground is almost flat, sloping down slightly to the
    right, but not up to the left as it would seem).

    I also think it is an off-center crop from the fisheye.

    >The first picture definitely has a faked sun.
    >
    >The second picture is harder to judge - but it sure looks like
    >the sun is faked there also.


    No, that's our real sun, I'd recognize it anywhere. :)

    --
    Owamanga!
    Owamanga, Jan 24, 2005
    #18
  19. Owamanga Guest

    On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:53:38 GMT, Roger Whitehead
    <> wrote:

    >At the risk of being a party pooper, wouldn't it be easier to email the
    >site's owner and ask him?


    Not a bad idea, because if you let a discussion like this run for more
    than a few hours there will be at least one person who claims the
    whole thing was rendered in Bryce3D. I'm already thinking I can see a
    yetti or two on one of those outcrops.

    I've searched the *entire* internet, and can't find a single photo
    that someone took of this photo being taken, with lighting diagrams
    and sworn affidavits etc that the man on the left wasn't busy burying
    a turd.

    So unless someone who can speak German?/Swedish? contact's the site,
    we can let the democracy of opinions decide if that bright orb on the
    right is really our favorite star, or is it, in fact, the result of (a
    very good) lens-flare plugin. If so, I want to know where to buy it
    (the plugin).

    --
    Owamanga!
    Owamanga, Jan 24, 2005
    #19
  20. tuben Guest

    Mike Hunter wrote:
    > "Owamanga" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:25:09 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Dr. Georg N.Nyman" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:p...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Again me, to be very precise - the sun is behind the right person as one
    >>>>can see on the photo. The left person has got the sun on the cheek and
    >>>>the
    >>>>shadow is directed towards the left side - for that person, there must
    >>>>have been another sun which was positioned much more on the right side
    >>>>so
    >>>>that his cheek is in sunlight and the shadows towards the left.
    >>>
    >>>I don't think so. I think a more likely explanation is that the picture
    >>>was
    >>>taken with an extreme wide-angle lens, perhaps even a fisheye lens
    >>>(because
    >>>no identifiable objects are in the parts of the image that would show the
    >>>most distortion), so although the sun appears to be almost in front of the
    >>>photographer, it is really off to the side because of the extreme
    >>>wide-angle
    >>>coverage.

    >>
    >>Definitely. This is not a fake. There is no point to faking it. A
    >>fisheye lens can easily include the sun in the frame when it's almost
    >>90 degrees to the direction that the camera is facing.
    >>
    >>For the sake of argument lets imagine this is an off-center crop from
    >>a 180degree fish-eye (I don't think it's quite that wide, but anyway),
    >>the camera is looking East, the sun is dead South and on the left edge
    >>of the frame we are seeing almost due North. All shadows are pointing
    >>North, and the Southern sides of the faces of both men are lit by the
    >>sun.
    >>
    >>Characteristic darkening of the image in the middle (the sky in
    >>particular) fits this lens type too.
    >>
    >>The man on his knees is most likely straight, just being bent by the
    >>fish-eye.
    >>
    >>--
    >>Owamanga!

    >
    >
    > Could it be that the "sun" is in fact a reflection off something - a cable
    > car perhaps?
    > The "sun" is completely lacking yellow : I know its burnt out but I would
    > have expected some yellowness.
    > I'm sceptical about the fisheye lens hypothesis because if you ignore the
    > "sun", then everything else looks OK.
    >
    > Mike
    >
    >


    I think it's just the effect of a very wide lens.
    Look at the shadow of the person on the right.
    Close to his legs it's positioned about where it
    would normally be, and then it "bends" over as you
    follow it towards the left of the picture.
    Looks like how an ultra-wide normally behaves, to me.

    göran
    tuben, Jan 24, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. IDF faked photo ?

    , Aug 16, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    568
    no_name
    Aug 17, 2006
  2. Canuckster

    Create Faked Photos Online

    Canuckster, Jan 26, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    373
    Canuckster
    Jan 26, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page