Hi,
I noticed that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TSgt_Goodman_inspects_newest_member_of_fa... is used in some pages at wikipedia.
There are reasons to suspect that the image has been altered (and I must admit, edited in a very poorly fashion).
The sharpness of the monitor image does not correspond to the sharpness of the surrounding items. The monitor image is beyond the monitor screen at the lower left corner.
Even if someone considers such an image to be suitable for using it in Wikipedia, it should be a standard procedure to at least mention the editing (assuming that there was one).
Mathias
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 7:12 AM, Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com wrote:
I noticed that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TSgt_Goodman_inspects_newest_member_of_fa... is used in some pages at wikipedia.
There are reasons to suspect that the image has been altered (and I must admit, edited in a very poorly fashion).
"Suspect" is way too weak of a term. This image was edited, very obviously. The fake scanline is laughably bad.
2008/6/30 Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com:
The sharpness of the monitor image does not correspond to the sharpness of the surrounding items. The monitor image is beyond the monitor screen at the lower left corner.
The white fuzzy line across the bottom extends just past the edge of the image. Might it be an actual print, taped over the screen? That looks vaguely like some kind of thin masking tape...
Other amusement: look at point 4 of the restrictions notice on the wall...
Even if someone considers such an image to be suitable for using it in Wikipedia, it should be a standard procedure to at least mention the editing (assuming that there was one).
Yes, if it's been edited *by us*. As it is, this is exactly as it was released by the source - http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/040813-F-0000C-002.jpg - you can see the odditites in the lower right and left of the monitor screen there, too.
So we're in a quandary - maybe it's been edited, maybe it hasn't. Should we really start making editorial remarks about Photoshopped images when we're just surmising they've been edited? This is the sort of interpretation that is likely to come back and bite us - we wouldn't allow that kind of original meta-analysis of print sources to be presented to the reader, after all.
(I do concur with the idea that if we're unhappy with the image, we should find something better)
Interestingly, after viewing the original image, it actually looks as though the baby image is taped onto the monitor using what looks to be a strip of tape (the fuzzy line) (which would explain the image extending past the monitor)
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/6/30 Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com:
The sharpness of the monitor image does not correspond to the sharpness of the surrounding items. The monitor image is beyond the monitor screen at the lower left corner.
The white fuzzy line across the bottom extends just past the edge of the image. Might it be an actual print, taped over the screen? That looks vaguely like some kind of thin masking tape...
Other amusement: look at point 4 of the restrictions notice on the wall...
Even if someone considers such an image to be suitable for using it in Wikipedia, it should be a standard procedure to at least mention the editing (assuming that there was one).
Yes, if it's been edited *by us*. As it is, this is exactly as it was released by the source - http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/040813-F-0000C-002.jpg - you can see the odditites in the lower right and left of the monitor screen there, too.
So we're in a quandary - maybe it's been edited, maybe it hasn't. Should we really start making editorial remarks about Photoshopped images when we're just surmising they've been edited? This is the sort of interpretation that is likely to come back and bite us - we wouldn't allow that kind of original meta-analysis of print sources to be presented to the reader, after all.
(I do concur with the idea that if we're unhappy with the image, we should find something better)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
Interestingly, after viewing the original image, it actually looks as though the baby image is taped onto the monitor using what looks to be a strip of tape (the fuzzy line) (which would explain the image extending past the monitor)
This is possible, but it doesn't seem so to me. The strip contains what appears to be colored random noise. Not sure how you'd get those random colors from a strip of tape, unless it was really oily or something...
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
Interestingly, after viewing the original image, it actually looks as though the baby image is taped onto the monitor using what looks to be a strip of tape (the fuzzy line) (which would explain the image extending past the monitor)
This is possible, but it doesn't seem so to me. The strip contains what appears to be colored random noise. Not sure how you'd get those random colors from a strip of tape, unless it was really oily or something...
In addition, the image is way too sharp as compared with the surroundings, as pointed out by Mathias. If it were taped on I would expect it to be just as in (or out of) focus as the monitor itself.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com
wrote:
Interestingly, after viewing the original image, it actually looks as though the baby image is taped onto the monitor using what looks to be a strip of tape (the fuzzy line) (which would explain the image extending past the monitor)
This is possible, but it doesn't seem so to me. The strip contains what appears to be colored random noise. Not sure how you'd get those random colors from a strip of tape, unless it was really oily or something...
In addition, the image is way too sharp as compared with the surroundings, as pointed out by Mathias. If it were taped on I would expect it to be just as in (or out of) focus as the monitor itself.
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It doesn't appear to be a taped on image, physically placed on the screen. It looks like a pretty hacked up/weak Photoshopping, to augment the image on the screen. I've attached a zoomed in view of the image of the lower left corner of the monitor for the curious. The pixel heavy strip across the screen... I don't know that was originally, but it's clearly not physical tape on the actual monitor. It's something inside the smaller image they attempted to impose in there. This image would be a candidate for http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/ if it were professionally published somewhere.
- Joe
Chris Howie schreef:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
Interestingly, after viewing the original image, it actually looks as though the baby image is taped onto the monitor using what looks to be a strip of tape (the fuzzy line) (which would explain the image extending past the monitor)
This is possible, but it doesn't seem so to me. The strip contains what appears to be colored random noise. Not sure how you'd get those random colors from a strip of tape, unless it was really oily or something...
The noise on the strip of tape also seems to be much sharper than the picture of the baby, which itself is sharper than the background. Compare the text on the top edge of the monitor, and the text on the Congraulations card.
Also, if it is tape, almost all of it is on the baby pic, and almost none of it is attached to the monitor; not enough to keep the picture in place. Also take a look at the lower edge of the baby pic: you can see the edge of the monitor through it. It looks like it's been pasted on in photoshop, with some transparancy.
Eugene
Ok, looks like I'm definitely wrong here :P. One other thing -- notice the list of rules behind the computer -- #4 reads "No Webcams will be connected to these computers", but there is clearly a webcam sitting on the computer!
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Eugene van der Pijll eugene@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
Chris Howie schreef:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Silas Snider swsnider@gmail.com wrote:
Interestingly, after viewing the original image, it actually looks as though the baby image is taped onto the monitor using what looks to be a strip of tape (the fuzzy line) (which would explain the image extending past the monitor)
This is possible, but it doesn't seem so to me. The strip contains what appears to be colored random noise. Not sure how you'd get those random colors from a strip of tape, unless it was really oily or something...
The noise on the strip of tape also seems to be much sharper than the picture of the baby, which itself is sharper than the background. Compare the text on the top edge of the monitor, and the text on the Congraulations card.
Also, if it is tape, almost all of it is on the baby pic, and almost none of it is attached to the monitor; not enough to keep the picture in place. Also take a look at the lower edge of the baby pic: you can see the edge of the monitor through it. It looks like it's been pasted on in photoshop, with some transparancy.
Eugene
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Silas Snider wrote:
Ok, looks like I'm definitely wrong here :P. One other thing -- notice the list of rules behind the computer -- #4 reads "No Webcams will be connected to these computers", but there is clearly a webcam sitting on the computer!
Heh. Knowing how rules like that work in real life, I find this to be the most plausible feature of the image so far. :)
Just to say that I used The GIMP http://www.gimp.org/ to manipulate an image on WIkimedia Commons which later became a "Featured Picture".
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Comet-Hale-Bopp-29-03-1997_hires_adj...
Gordo
At 08:41 +0100 3/7/08, Gordon Joly wrote:
Just to say that I used The GIMP http://www.gimp.org/ to manipulate an image on WIkimedia Commons which later became a "Featured Picture".
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Comet-Hale-Bopp-29-03-1997_hires_adj...
Gordo
Small error: that was Photoshop'ed.
Gordo
Silas Snider wrote:
Interestingly, after viewing the original image, it actually looks as though the baby image is taped onto the monitor using what looks to be a strip of tape (the fuzzy line) (which would explain the image extending past the monitor)
The fuzzy line looks like it's just a partly transparent band of static overlaid on the image, presumably to simulate scan lines as Chris mentioned. If it was tape it would appear to be rather poorly positioned; only a tiny bit of it extends beyond the image, hardly enough to actually support it, and it would make the fakery extremely obvious. Whereas by adding scanlines I guess the image's editor was trying to make the image less "perfect", and therefore more plausible.
Do LCD monitors actually have that effect, though? I just snapped a photo of my monitor and there was no trace of scanline, since the image isn't produced by a scanning electron beam I wouldn't ordinarily expect something like that either.
And of course, the monitor image doesn't line up with the edges of the monitor, the static doesn't line up with the edges of the monitor image, and the text in the monitor image is clearer and sharper than the text on the stickers on the monitor's edge. Looks really bad.
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Do LCD monitors actually have that effect, though? I just snapped a photo of my monitor and there was no trace of scanline, since the image isn't produced by a scanning electron beam I wouldn't ordinarily expect something like that either.
I only have a CRT at hand (the LCD is on the fritz) but the last time I played around with settings on my camera using the LCD as a guinea pig I was never able to catch anything like that. Wasn't the lack of those what made LCDs easier on the eyes?
- Joe
2008/6/30 Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca:
Do LCD monitors actually have that effect, though? I just snapped a photo of my monitor and there was no trace of scanline, since the image isn't produced by a scanning electron beam I wouldn't ordinarily expect something like that either.
No, no scanlines on LCDs. You do often get unexpected artifacts, wavy patches and so on, though.