« What the Light's Really Like | Main | OT: What the—? »

Sunday, 07 September 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00df351e888f883400e554ec8ebf8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Photoshop Disaster? Nope, a Mimicking Error:

Comments

I don't know, I had to look twice to find this so called error, at first it looked just like it really is, her arm linked in Jimmy's. That shows you all those private internet detectives are pretty fast to judge!

I do think her son Jack looks a bit like Steve Stifler from American Pie, but maybe that's just me.

I've never heard the phrase "mimicking error" before, but it seems to me to be of the species of error that all beginning photographers are warned about: phone poles growing out of heads, various embarrassing shapes growing out of people's crotches, subjects who are apparently staring sideways into a wall or pole that is actually well behind them, and so on. In photography, a certain amount of this clutter is readily acceptable. In painting, it's usually not acceptable at all, because viewers (perhaps unconsciously) understand that the artist has full control over all the image's elements, and so mimicking errors essentially don't exist -- if something is shown, the artist meant it to be shown. (There are occasional accidents.) This becomes complicated in art forms like Photorealism, which are paintings made from photographs, but in which the painter must edit out some photographic effects simply because they'd be confusing to the viewer of a painting. Therefore, photorealism looks exactly like a photograph, except that it really doesn't -- it's really an illusion of an illusion.

JC

People see what they want to see. If it is the leg belonging to the hand, it is obviously bent at 90 degrees and his hand is hanging down, but above his thigh. Human anatomy is not like that. The so called leg is, obviously to me, is a man's shoulder, not a knee and he is looking back. You can also see his collar. What seems apparent to me is that they are standing at the edge of the platform and the lower people are coming up steps behind. The son on the right seems photoshopped in too. Otherwise he should be lower because he is behind. You can see what looks like a woman in front of him with her dress and left arm showing. She is much lower. Total fake to create a heartwarming family portrait. Whoever did it is not reporting, but is participating in the political process and should be fired.

"The son on the right seems photoshopped in too. Total fake to create a heartwarming family portrait. Whoever did it is not reporting, but is participating in the political process and should be fired."

Thanks, Winsor, that's hilarious; you made my night!

(In case you didn't read Mike's initial post, it's an unretouched reportage photo from Getty, not a "family portrait" created by the campaign.)

I like the three-arm theory better. I guess Jack McCain got his third arm (growing behind him) from Mom!

A mimicking error?
Are you really shure Mike?

Really bad photograph. I take it the two mostly-obscured folks were important enough to be getting on the stage intermingled with the McCains, but not important enough to capture in the photograph? Did the photographer intentionally wait until the other two lesser personages were "hidden" before pressing the shutter?

No, more likely: this is an "editing disaster". The photographer probably captured a dozen pictures of the family taking the stage. For whatever reason, the one chosen (by the photographer or his editor, unclear which), excluded a third of the group which was there but added some apparent third arms to two of the photo's subjects.

It's the right part of the image (from my point of view) that is intriguing. Who's hand is the uncovered one, in Jack's left ?

"photorealism looks exactly like a photograph, except that it really doesn't -- it's really an illusion of an illusion"

Sounds a lot like photoshopism!

The comments to this entry are closed.