Has this been mucked with?

A
Posted By
amaweeuk
Sep 16, 2007
Views
1078
Replies
33
Status
Closed
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/esteri/bimba-rapit a/afp104564692505151527_big.jpg

Somethings don’t look right to me, but I am not going to say what they are. What do you experts see?

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

R
ronviers
Sep 16, 2007
On Sep 16, 5:30 am, wrote:
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/esteri/bimba-rapit a/afp1045…
Somethings don’t look right to me, but I am not going to say what they are. What do you experts see?

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
A
amaweeuk
Sep 16, 2007
On 16 Sep, 12:41, "" wrote:
On Sep 16, 5:30 am, wrote:

http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/esteri/bimba-rapit a/afp1045…

Somethings don’t look right to me, but I am not going to say what they are. What do you experts see?

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

Thanks Ron, will do.
A
amaweeuk
Sep 16, 2007
R
Roberto
Sep 16, 2007
wrote in message
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/esteri/bimba-rapit a/afp104564692505151527_big.jpg
Somethings don’t look right to me, but I am not going to say what they are. What do you experts see?

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!
A
amaweeuk
Sep 16, 2007
On Sep 16, 8:04 pm, "Somebody" wrote:
wrote in message

http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/esteri/bimba-rapit a/afp1045…

Somethings don’t look right to me, but I am not going to say what they are. What do you experts see?

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!

Thank you for that, very helpful 🙂
A
amaweeuk
Sep 16, 2007
Anyone else nothing anything odd?
AW
Adam W
Sep 16, 2007
wrote:
Anyone else nothing anything odd?
Is this another McCann joke or theory? Have they had much news coverage in the US?
J
JD
Sep 16, 2007
wrote:
Anyone else nothing anything odd?

Is there something in particular that you see?


JD..
R
Roberto
Sep 17, 2007
"JD" wrote in message
wrote:
Anyone else nothing anything odd?

Is there something in particular that you see?


JD..

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!
A
amaweeuk
Sep 17, 2007
On Sep 17, 5:45 am, "Somebody" wrote:
"JD" wrote in message

wrote:
Anyone else nothing anything odd?

Is there something in particular that you see?


JD..

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!

The reason I don’t want to say, is I don’t want to cloud your judgement.
R
Rob
Sep 17, 2007
wrote:
On Sep 17, 5:45 am, "Somebody" wrote:

"JD" wrote in message

wrote:

Anyone else nothing anything odd?

Is there something in particular that you see?


JD..

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!

The reason I don’t want to say, is I don’t want to cloud your judgement.

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.
Sep 17, 2007
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.
A
amaweeuk
Sep 17, 2007
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.
J
Joe
Sep 17, 2007
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.
P
pico
Sep 17, 2007
wrote in message

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

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.

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

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.

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

Bad fashion is not illegal.

The man’s arm behind the baby looks wrong

How?

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

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.)

Basically the only one of the above I see is the smoothing, but I thought I would enlist the help of the real experts.

Use some pass filters and you can see the picture is well within the bounds of an ordinary happy snap.
A
amaweeuk
Sep 17, 2007
On Sep 17, 9:39 pm, "pico" <pico.pico.pico> wrote:
wrote in message

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

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.

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

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

Bad fashion is not illegal.

The man’s arm behind the baby looks wrong

How?

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

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.)
Basically the only one of the above I see is the smoothing, but I thought I would enlist the help of the real experts.

Use some pass filters and you can see the picture is well within the bounds of an ordinary happy snap.

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.
K
KatWoman
Sep 17, 2007
wrote in message
On Sep 17, 9:39 pm, "pico" <pico.pico.pico> wrote:
wrote in message

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

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.

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

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

Bad fashion is not illegal.

The man’s arm behind the baby looks wrong

How?

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

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.)
Basically the only one of the above I see is the smoothing, but I thought I would enlist the help of the real experts.

Use some pass filters and you can see the picture is well within the bounds
of an ordinary happy snap.

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.

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?
J
Joe
Sep 18, 2007
wrote:

<snip>
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.

Thanks, and I am waiting for your skull (oops! I meant scroll button) <bg>
A
amaweeuk
Sep 18, 2007
On Sep 18, 12:11 am, "KatWoman" wrote:
wrote in message

On Sep 17, 9:39 pm, "pico" <pico.pico.pico> wrote:
wrote in message


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

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.

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

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.

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

Bad fashion is not illegal.

The man’s arm behind the baby looks wrong

How?

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

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.)

Basically the only one of the above I see is the smoothing, but I thought I would enlist the help of the real experts.

Use some pass filters and you can see the picture is well within the bounds
of an ordinary happy snap.

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.

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?

Thank you Kat. Would you say likely added later, or unlikey? Anyone agree with the focus?
K
KatWoman
Sep 18, 2007
wrote in message
On Sep 18, 12:11 am, "KatWoman" wrote:
wrote in message

On Sep 17, 9:39 pm, "pico" <pico.pico.pico> wrote:
wrote in message


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

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.

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

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.

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

Bad fashion is not illegal.

The man’s arm behind the baby looks wrong

How?

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

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.)

Basically the only one of the above I see is the smoothing, but I thought I would enlist the help of the real experts.

Use some pass filters and you can see the picture is well within the bounds
of an ordinary happy snap.

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.

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?

Thank you Kat. Would you say likely added later, or unlikey? Anyone agree with the focus?

from this small image I would say no
but to absolutely sure I would have to see it larger and open at magnified level
it would be great to see just below the crop, as the front girl’s shadow onto the edge of pool is not visible here
P
pico
Sep 18, 2007
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?

The depth of field (DOF) is consistent; main focus on the man, just front of his chest. The backgrund tree and the rest are as unsharp as one would expect the DOF to be. If the chairs in the right background appear to be too sharp, then it is the effect of their shape, size and shadowing; they still remain as sharp as one should expect. Remember, the consumer camera in question is not a scientific instrument.

It’s a happy snappy. Get over it.
A
amaweeuk
Sep 19, 2007
Get over it.

Nobody forced you to help!
P
pico
Sep 19, 2007
wrote in message
Get over it.

Nobody forced you to help!

I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking to everyone else who’s sick of your mooching.
A
amaweeuk
Sep 23, 2007
On Sep 19, 9:35 pm, "pico" <pico.pico.pico> wrote:
wrote in message

Get over it.

Nobody forced you to help!

I wasn’t talking to you. I was talking to everyone else who’s sick of your mooching.

what an arsehole
K
KatWoman
Sep 24, 2007
"pico" <pico.pico.pico> wrote in message
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?

The depth of field (DOF) is consistent; main focus on the man, just front of his chest. The backgrund tree and the rest are as unsharp as one would expect the DOF to be. If the chairs in the right background appear to be too sharp, then it is the effect of their shape, size and shadowing; they still remain as sharp as one should expect. Remember, the consumer camera in question is not a scientific instrument.

It’s a happy snappy. Get over it.
I was never UNDER it!!
MYOB
LO
Luis ORTEGA
Oct 24, 2007
wrote in message
Somethings don’t look right to me, but I am not going to say what they are. What do you experts see?

I see Waldo.
I also see an inspector Clouseau wanna-be who has way too much time for gossip and lacking the sense that God gave a rat.
You apparently don’t have the slightest idea what goes on in a police investigation. If the photo were significant, the police would not be poring over some internet upload but would have looked at the original material and easily determined whether or not it was a raw or manipulated image. Get a life and a clue kid, and take off the tin foil hat.
A
amaweeuk
Nov 3, 2007
On Oct 24, 10:12 am, "Luis Ortega" wrote:
wrote in message
Somethings don’t look right to me, but I am not going to say what they are. What do you experts see?

I see Waldo.
I also see an inspector Clouseau wanna-be who has way too much time for gossip and lacking the sense that God gave a rat.
You apparently don’t have the slightest idea what goes on in a police investigation. If the photo were significant, the police would not be poring over some internet upload but would have looked at the original material and easily determined whether or not it was a raw or manipulated image. Get a life and a clue kid, and take off the tin foil hat.

And I see someone who is restricted to using the Internet for insulting people as they know in real life they would get a smack in their weedy face for it. At least it gives you an outlet petal 🙂 Is your boss female by any chance?
LO
Luis ORTEGA
Nov 10, 2007
Lol.. whatcha gonna do, inspector clouseau, try to bitch slap me? At least it will distract you from posting asinine gossip on things you don’t have a clue about for a while.
And from your puerile reply, you sound like you also have personal issues with women.
Get a life, kid, and stop muckraking and rumormongering at other people’s expense.

wrote in message
Somethings don’t look right to me, but I am not going to say what they are. What do you experts see?

I see Waldo.
I also see an inspector Clouseau wanna-be who has way too much time for gossip and lacking the sense that God gave a rat.
You apparently don’t have the slightest idea what goes on in a police investigation. If the photo were significant, the police would not be poring
over some internet upload but would have looked at the original material and
easily determined whether or not it was a raw or manipulated image. Get a life and a clue kid, and take off the tin foil hat.

And I see someone who is restricted to using the Internet for insulting people as they know in real life they would get a smack in their weedy face for it. At least it gives you an outlet petal 🙂 Is your boss female by any chance?
A
amaweeuk
Nov 10, 2007
On Nov 10, 1:42 pm, "Luis Ortega" wrote:
Lol.. whatcha gonna do, inspector clouseau, try to bitch slap me? At least it will distract you from posting asinine gossip on things you don’t have a clue about for a while.
And from your puerile reply, you sound like you also have personal issues with women.
Get a life, kid, and stop muckraking and rumormongering at other people’s expense.

wrote in message
Somethings don’t look right to me, but I am not going to say what they are. What do you experts see?
I see Waldo.
I also see an inspector Clouseau wanna-be who has way too much time for gossip and lacking the sense that God gave a rat.
You apparently don’t have the slightest idea what goes on in a police investigation. If the photo were significant, the police would not be poring
over some internet upload but would have looked at the original material and
easily determined whether or not it was a raw or manipulated image. Get a life and a clue kid, and take off the tin foil hat.
And I see someone who is restricted to using the Internet for insulting people as they know in real life they would get a smack in their weedy face for it. At least it gives you an outlet petal 🙂 Is your boss female by any chance?

You already used ‘get a life’ and called me ‘kid’ are you stuck for insults?
LO
Luis ORTEGA
Nov 11, 2007
wrote in message > You already used ‘get a life’ and called me ‘kid’ are you >stuck for insults?

Nah, with a douchebag like you, they would come easily.
Actually, I wan’t trying to insult you but to point out the low-life quality of your original post.
But I suppose that it takes a dumb little shit to post such cheap muckraking and rumormongering in what should be a forum for intelligent conversation about photography and Photoshop. I noticed that several other posters already have you pegged as an asshole.
Why not try posting your asinine gossip and innuendo in a newsgroup dedicated to such things? You’d be in your element there. We’re done here now, kid. I don’t waste time with fools.
A
amaweeuk
Nov 12, 2007
On Nov 11, 1:03 pm, "Luis Ortega" wrote:
wrote in message > You already used ‘get a life’ and

called me ‘kid’ are you >stuck for insults?

Nah, with a douchebag like you, they would come easily.
Actually, I wan’t trying to insult you but to point out the low-life quality of your original post.
But I suppose that it takes a dumb little shit to post such cheap muckraking and rumormongering in what should be a forum for intelligent conversation about photography and Photoshop. I noticed that several other posters already have you pegged as an asshole.
Why not try posting your asinine gossip and innuendo in a newsgroup dedicated to such things? You’d be in your element there. We’re done here now, kid. I don’t waste time with fools.

Whats a douchebag?
J
JD
Nov 13, 2007
wrote:
On Nov 11, 1:03 pm, "Luis Ortega" wrote:
wrote in message > You already used ‘get a life’ and

called me ‘kid’ are you >stuck for insults?

Nah, with a douchebag like you, they would come easily.
Actually, I wan’t trying to insult you but to point out the low-life quality of your original post.
But I suppose that it takes a dumb little shit to post such cheap muckraking and rumormongering in what should be a forum for intelligent conversation about photography and Photoshop. I noticed that several other posters already have you pegged as an asshole.
Why not try posting your asinine gossip and innuendo in a newsgroup dedicated to such things? You’d be in your element there. We’re done here now, kid. I don’t waste time with fools.

Whats a douchebag?
Look it up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page


JD..
A
amaweeuk
Nov 15, 2007
On Nov 13, 12:44 pm, JD wrote:
wrote:
On Nov 11, 1:03 pm, "Luis Ortega" wrote:
wrote in message > You already used ‘get a life’ and

called me ‘kid’ are you >stuck for insults?

Nah, with a douchebag like you, they would come easily.
Actually, I wan’t trying to insult you but to point out the low-life quality of your original post.
But I suppose that it takes a dumb little shit to post such cheap muckraking and rumormongering in what should be a forum for intelligent conversation about photography and Photoshop. I noticed that several other posters already have you pegged as an asshole.
Why not try posting your asinine gossip and innuendo in a newsgroup dedicated to such things? You’d be in your element there. We’re done here now, kid. I don’t waste time with fools.

Whats a douchebag?

Look it up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page


JD..

Awww Luis, you have an arsehole friend! (or two accounts)

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections