![[Image: tumblr_ne4m67GVk71sqctgio1_500.jpg]](https://38.media.tumblr.com/88068b762be0d5c9e809482252590166/tumblr_ne4m67GVk71sqctgio1_500.jpg)
One of the Olson twins.
I get that magazine photos are typically airbrushed, but are "press photos" usually photoshopped?
WIA
Has this photograph been altered?
One of the Olson twins.
I get that magazine photos are typically airbrushed, but are "press photos" usually photoshopped?
WIA
Quote: (11-01-2014 09:47 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:
One of the Olson twins.
I get that magazine photos are typically airbrushed, but are "press photos" usually photoshopped?
WIA
Probably yeah. On the bottom left hand side of her head, you can see the ends of her hair gets really blurry. Hard to say if her face has been improved, but her hair has almost definitely been edited a bit.
Nowhere else on the photo is blurred like that, so it's unlikely to be a camera issue.
![[Image: T1opfHv.png]](http://i.imgur.com/T1opfHv.png)
I think that there is some light photoshopping on this photo. It looks like somebody used the liquify tool on her shoulders to improve her body shape. I think that somebody may have used the liquify tool around her eyes and I think that her cheeks have some minor altering.
Its a photo her publicist submitted i'm sure.
I ran into these twins once on sherman oaks.
They looked like scrawney little monkeys.
I ran into these twins once on sherman oaks.
They looked like scrawney little monkeys.
Quote: (11-01-2014 10:34 PM)Fisto Wrote:
Its a photo her publicist submitted i'm sure.
I ran into these twins once on sherman oaks.
They looked like scrawney little monkeys.
I still WB.
I'm the King of Beijing!
Quote: (11-01-2014 10:34 PM)Fisto Wrote:
Its a photo her publicist submitted i'm sure.
I ran into these twins once on sherman oaks.
They looked like scrawney little monkeys.
At first I read that as "I ran through those twins once on sherman oaks."
Oh well...
Beyond All Seas
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling
Oh yeah still wb for sure.
In this photo she looks like she's got the "thousand cock stare".
Meh, WB.
Meh, WB.
As a graphic designer, and someone who has retouched thousands of photos, I would say that you cannot really tell if a photo has been professionally retouched in a subtle way.
It's just not going to be conclusively discernable, even to a professional eye.
It's just not going to be conclusively discernable, even to a professional eye.
![[Image: gollum2.jpg]](http://www.theagencyinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/gollum2.jpg)
Notice how there is almost no imperfections in her skin? The left a few in the highlight areas so it wouldn't be super obvious. There is a lot of blurry zones which could be due to a telescopic lens, which has a shallow depth of field. This type of lens tends to also look more true to life, but have a big blurry zone outside of the focus point. In past movies they would put vaseline I believe on the lens to smooth out the skin as well. The blur zones are the sweater, hair, and sides of the face.
Most of what might appear to be lens blur is just heavy JPEG compression here.
I doubt its entirely jpg compression. Jpg compression is the the effect on the golum picture above where you get strange primary colors (red,blue and yellows) showing up where they shouldn't and a non controlled blur. The blur zones are more patchwork and throughout the entire picture. This one seems more concentrated where there would be blurring from a telescopic lens. Granted there is some jpg compression as well, but its very minor.
![[Image: s1eMA.jpg]](http://i.imgur.com/s1eMA.jpg)
She has good skin because for 12 Yeats she has had access to elite level skin care. She has likely sanded down every blemish she has had and has never and lijley does prevention work for wrinkles.
Mary is the hotter twin. Ashley looks under nourished as it's obvious she starves her self.
I give Mary props though as she looks good for her age. She is 28 and I am not sure if its the sad state of near 30 women these days, but, she looks a few years younger, more 24/25, then 28.
As for the pic its likley just a standard filter, does not look heavily processed. Maybe if we could find pics from the same event it would act as a good comparison.
Mary is the hotter twin. Ashley looks under nourished as it's obvious she starves her self.
I give Mary props though as she looks good for her age. She is 28 and I am not sure if its the sad state of near 30 women these days, but, she looks a few years younger, more 24/25, then 28.
As for the pic its likley just a standard filter, does not look heavily processed. Maybe if we could find pics from the same event it would act as a good comparison.
Quote: (11-02-2014 01:54 PM)kosko Wrote:
She has good skin because for 12 Yeats she has had access to elite level skin care. She has likely sanded down every blemish she has had and has never and lijley does prevention work for wrinkles.
Mary is the hotter twin. Ashley looks under nourished as it's obvious she starves her self.
I give Mary props though as she looks good for her age. She is 28 and I am not sure if its the sad state of near 30 women these days, but, she looks a few years younger, more 24/25, then 28.
As for the pic its likley just a standard filter, does not look heavily processed. Maybe if we could find pics from the same event it would act as a good comparison.
Yeah, It's weird though because in public they always look a bit strange. . . somewhat off. I can't put my finger on it, but yeah I don't think things were all sunshine and roses with these two. Their PR people seem to be doing their jobs, as I really haven't heard of anything that would really explain that. Although I haven't tried to look into it either.
@the guy who said he ran into them in public: Is it just me or how the media makes them look or did they seem kind of off in person as well?
Isaiah 4:1
Yes. [/thread]
From the metadata:
![[Image: attachment.jpg22441]](https://rooshvforum.network/attachments/attachment.jpg22441)
![[Image: attachment.jpg22442]](https://rooshvforum.network/attachments/attachment.jpg22442)
![[Image: wtf.jpg]](http://www.rooshvforum.network/images/smilies/wtf.jpg)
From the metadata:
It looks like it's had a little bit of "smart blur" filtering going on.
Tuth, I believe that iPhoto is just the main program that someone would use to store, organize, or share images on a Mac. It can also be used for editing or manipulating them, but it doesn't have to be. The mere fact that the pic was shared by that program does not mean that it has been altered (or that it hasn't).
same old shit, sixes and sevens Shaft...
Quote: (11-02-2014 05:10 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:
Tuth, I believe that iPhoto is just the main program that someone would use to store, organize, or share images on a Mac. It can also be used for editing or manipulating them, but it doesn't have to be. The mere fact that the pic was shared by that program does not mean that it has been altered (or that it hasn't).
correct. That application does have the ability to digitally alter, but every single pic, photoshopped or not, is run through that app.
I once heard tell of a digital forensics program that can detect edited photos due to pixellation decay. Maybe that would help
I was there the day feminism fell...
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)