« That Vivian Maier Book Is Wonderful | Main | Sign o' the Times: iPad Photography »

Tuesday, 04 March 2014

Comments

Re: CGI of first picture...

See http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/598-On-The-Attack.html

and scroll down to discussion on this very photo.

The group selfie from the Oscars is the nexus of everything I find distasteful about Hollywood and a lot of current culture. Thanks, Samsung.

I'll go back to my porch and rocking chair now.

A slight correction: the picture isn't of Syrian refugees, it's of Palestinian refugees in an 'unofficial' camp in Damascus, where they've been living since 1957.

Ummm...wasn't the HackerFactor blog the same one that raised all those faux arguments that Paul Hansen's World Press Photo winner last year was faked?

"Yarmouk residents" = Palestinians.
Denied their country and anything to eat it seems a bit OTT to deny them their name. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the atrocious Golda Meir proposition. "There's no such thing as a Palestinian."
Roy

As far as I know, Samsung denies it was a product placement (sorry, no source link).

The photo and video of the refugees in Yarmouk both depict a HUGE crowd of people in need of food and water. I don't know if the photo was doctored, what I find interesting is the unspoken implication that because the photo was altered, the need for food and water are not as great the photo shows.

Thanks for the link, Ed. Looks like Degeneres is an iPhone user. So although Samsung denies the selfie itself was product placement they aren't saying what they paid for and the fact that Degeneres was waving a big white Samsung phone around looks like everything else was product placement.

But I don't like the Oscars for a host of other reasons.

That paranoia factor analysis is pure crap.

FotoForensics and his web site FotoForensics are, as near as I can tell, snake oil. There's nothing there. This isn't the first time he has "exposed" a press photo as "doctored" based on his half-baked analysis.

Error Level Analysis (the FotoForensics tool) seems to measure something, and that something *sometimes* correlates with image edits. However, it seems to produce both false positive and false negative errors at a good clip as anyone with a bit of time can easily check by making reading the FAQ on the site, and then making some pictures (some edited and some not) and testing them.

Krawetz seems to be trying to drum up a little attention for himself, but his tools and techniques simply don't have the stuff.

Regarding Oscars and selfies, how can you beat the military.

http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/03/rdaf-missile-selfie/

I took a very long look at the small photo of the Syrian refugees on the internet. And I read the conspiracy theory and I gotta say I cannot agree.
OK, I take group photos for a living and spend a lot of time looking at groups and measuring head size in my photographs. And I spend a lot of time looking at group behavior.

He's wrong, just wrong. Just my opinion, but I will stick by it. Maybe he is right, but he has made no case in his post.

Rght on, Clay!!

The "famous" people pic, for the most part I'm struggling to figure who they are, lol.

The comments to this entry are closed.