But but but the media is supposed to be fair!
http://www.infowars.com/media-photoshops-hillary-crowd-to-make-her-audience-look-bigger/
http://www.infowars.com/media-photoshops-hillary-crowd-to-make-her-audience-look-bigger/
Faked photoshop crowd at the criminals ralley
- Thread starter windriverrange
- Start date
Yeah like use a stock rally photo on twitter link to an on going rally live feed. Where is the integrity?
thehill.com is not the liberal media. Check #10 on the list.
It amazes me that the media is suspect but sites like infowars.com that repeatedly burn you rubes with hoaxes is blindly trusted. Don't forget to stock up on your colloidal silver!
Mr Blonde, there might be parts of the photo that are from her victory in NY, but seriously you can't enlarge that photo and see all the odd shadows and incredibly distorted figures?
That's the video from the NY Rally.
From the video from the FL Rally, you can see she is wearing a different jacket, has a different mic, and a different logo on the podium.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/pol...ter-backing-hillary-clinton-article-1.2744021
So, at worst, the photo is misleading although since it was tweeted prior to the start of the actual rally, I'm not sure why anyone would think it was from the rally. It looks like it would have been posted at 4:33 eastern, and it looks like she took the stage at 6:30.
A
anon_ph7vrsh7abnty
Guest
It's highly likely it is not photoshopped.
Could it be done to look like this? Yes. Without any doubt.
Could it be done to look like this? Yes. Without any doubt.
I don't see what the issue is. More important problems with that woman than this.
I work in photoshop for a living - I am far from sure that the pics @07pilt posted are shopped.
There are a ton of elements at work in that shot that would require a very talented designer to have thought of and to have done right. Is it possible? Yes, but this isn't something a staffer or basic photojournalist could do. This is something that would've required a great deal of planning and production. Probably would've been much cheaper to pay 300 dolts to act excited for a photo op, which is likely what happened.
Having said all that, there are some depth of field issues that make me look at it sideways. I would expect less bokeh (blurring of out of focus areas) to be evident in an apparent wide angle shot like this appears to be. HOWEVER... it very well may not be a wide angle shot, and may be shot from a significant distance with a telephoto lens at a wide open aperture (which would not be uncommon in an indoors event). Open aperture lets more light in for low light shooting, but also makes the depth of field (area of tight focus) more shallow.
Supporting this theory is the fact that there is very little motion blur visible in the crowd - suggesting a fairly high shutter speed (1/800 at least). To shoot that fast indoors would require the wide open aperture setting I mentioned above and is typical of someone shooting moving targets in low light - like a high school football game for example.
That would also lead to a compression of the shot - making "layers" of people seem more in focus than another "layer" that seems to be standing just in front of or behind them. The truth is that the people are probably spread out over a bigger distance than they seem to be, and that would explain why the middle where she is appears better lit, as there are two spotlights hitting her.
Usually, photoshopped scenes like this have some pretty easy tells:
reflected light in glasses doesn't match the angle of the lighting
Images being captured in cell phones wouldn't be from the correct angle
People's point of gaze would be wrong
white balance, image noise, contrast and color pallets would be hard to match
And typically elements of the crowd would repeat. You would see the same guy twice.
This has none of that.
I think it is just a weirdly compressed scene that feels like it was shot with a wide angle lens but in fact was shot with a telephoto that, combined with variation in lighting, just makes it look wonky. And it does look wonky. If it's been touched up, my guess is that it's a simple levels adjustment masked to only affect Hildabeast, which brightened her up beyond what the spotlights did. Maybe not even that though.
The one thing that bothers me is that the flags and elements against the back wall area *seem* to be in a little tighter focus than the faces and elements of people in front of them that shouldn't be the case but again may be an optical illusion caused by lighting and/or movement.
As for why the people look distorted, they are just ugly and stupid.
There are a ton of elements at work in that shot that would require a very talented designer to have thought of and to have done right. Is it possible? Yes, but this isn't something a staffer or basic photojournalist could do. This is something that would've required a great deal of planning and production. Probably would've been much cheaper to pay 300 dolts to act excited for a photo op, which is likely what happened.
Having said all that, there are some depth of field issues that make me look at it sideways. I would expect less bokeh (blurring of out of focus areas) to be evident in an apparent wide angle shot like this appears to be. HOWEVER... it very well may not be a wide angle shot, and may be shot from a significant distance with a telephoto lens at a wide open aperture (which would not be uncommon in an indoors event). Open aperture lets more light in for low light shooting, but also makes the depth of field (area of tight focus) more shallow.
Supporting this theory is the fact that there is very little motion blur visible in the crowd - suggesting a fairly high shutter speed (1/800 at least). To shoot that fast indoors would require the wide open aperture setting I mentioned above and is typical of someone shooting moving targets in low light - like a high school football game for example.
That would also lead to a compression of the shot - making "layers" of people seem more in focus than another "layer" that seems to be standing just in front of or behind them. The truth is that the people are probably spread out over a bigger distance than they seem to be, and that would explain why the middle where she is appears better lit, as there are two spotlights hitting her.
Usually, photoshopped scenes like this have some pretty easy tells:
reflected light in glasses doesn't match the angle of the lighting
Images being captured in cell phones wouldn't be from the correct angle
People's point of gaze would be wrong
white balance, image noise, contrast and color pallets would be hard to match
And typically elements of the crowd would repeat. You would see the same guy twice.
This has none of that.
I think it is just a weirdly compressed scene that feels like it was shot with a wide angle lens but in fact was shot with a telephoto that, combined with variation in lighting, just makes it look wonky. And it does look wonky. If it's been touched up, my guess is that it's a simple levels adjustment masked to only affect Hildabeast, which brightened her up beyond what the spotlights did. Maybe not even that though.
The one thing that bothers me is that the flags and elements against the back wall area *seem* to be in a little tighter focus than the faces and elements of people in front of them that shouldn't be the case but again may be an optical illusion caused by lighting and/or movement.
As for why the people look distorted, they are just ugly and stupid.
