And the Kestrel said (echoing Dr Hannibal Lecter): “I’m having an old friend for dinner.”
July 24, 2024
127
-
-
I don't know where to start... * The hammock and the gorillas, the proportions are wrong. No gorilla can fit in such a small hammock. * The size of the baby doesn't match the size of the mother. * The baby's right hand is totally blurred and becomes a strange shape. * Below the hammock, the landscape becomes strangely blurred compared to above. * Then there is the green leaf in the mother gorilla's hand; where does it grow from? * The sharpness of the hammock is not related to the sharpness of the subjects. A few centimeters further, the mother gorilla's fur is barely sharp.
Should I list more? -
Absolute and total "NONSENSE". Yes in all capital letters. I would not even waste my time to argue. Who has eyes, will see.
-
At least you could explain where I went wrong with my criticism.
But, you took the easy way out.
I won't waste time with your photos in the future. -
By any means.
-
None of that proves it is a composite because they can be explained by the effects of motion blur, DOF, lens distortion and maybe some post processing if it's not a sooc jpeg.
The green leaf in the mother's hand has a small stem attached to it that could legitimately be growing from the trunk the hand is wrapped around. There is nothing in the image that proves it was not there when the photo was taken.
You are entitled to an opinion like anyone else but that is all it is, your opinion and nothing more.
You yourself posted that it is only your opinion and so not an established fact because you still haven't posted anything that proves your opinion that it is a composite is accurate.
-
Kumsal,
The purpose of this thread is to post images and to comment on their photographic qualities. Primarily to further understanding or appreciation of the making of them. Not to become embroiled in arguments or to implore others to agree with one's opinions or criticisms.
The contributor of the image has stated there has been no alteration of the image. That should end that matter. You have stated that it looks altered to you. OK. There's no need to pursue the matter any further than that. Let it go. There's no winning or losing here.
FWIW, the movement of the baby's right arm gives the image a strange look, but there's nothing about anything in the image which leads me to think there has been any alteration.
Peace.
Rich
-
A group of people playing what I think is Mahjong in a park in Shanghai.
"WHAT IS GOING ON HERE !"
-
Myself, I much prefer a "corrected" version:
Still, the main problem is that they didn't capitalize "LA" at the LA Station. 😂
-
Yes, me too but the "corrected" version has been suggested a few times previously this thread.
Roel prefers the "perspective" view.
-
We need a new home...
-
What do you mean?
-
I see you posted a cropped, slightly lightened and less saturated version of the above edited version in your post at:
dprevived.com/t/this-week-through-your-eyes-20240727/6073/post/81849/
In both images the tones in the foliage on the left and right are the same as is the orange top worn by the man in the background on the left.
-
The curious man with the cigarette in his hand gives this photo a special touch.
Well seen and photographed. -
I've done enough photomontages myself to just learn.
Then I lost interest because it didn't help my photography.
If you have a trained eye, you'll immediately notice that the light reflection in the gorillas' eyes is wrong (different directions).
These are small things that add up, but let's leave it at that...
At the end of the day, I have to believe the photographer when he says so. -
You yourself said that it was your opinion that it is a composite.
I am not convinced the reflection is wrong.
If you truly believe the photographer as you claim then you are admitting your reasons for assuming the image is a composite are wrong because the photographer says it is not a composite.
-
Sorry, but if you can't see what was done to this photo, I can't explain anything to you.
Is the blur at the bottom of the photo from the lens, or was it added in the photoshop?
What do you think? -
You can add blur to an image without making it a composite or montage.
If you truly believe the photographer as you claim then you are admitting your reasons for assuming the image is a composite are wrong because the photographer says it is not a composite.
You can't have it both ways by saying you believe the photographer when they say it is not a composite and then continue to say it is in your opinion.
