StringJunky Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Out of curiosity, I just took out my phone and was able to easily reproduce the "I can see the shoulder and forearm but not the upper arm" look from the photo myself within a matter of seconds. Yes, There isn't anything untoward in the final analysis. This topic has the same air about it as the naive and technically-uninformed critiques of the Apollo pictures. Edited February 25, 2015 by StringJunky 1
CharonY Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Depends on how pedantic you want to be. The camera lenses are not perfect and introduce distortions, you are projecting onto a flat sensor or film, which also causes distortions, and film or sensors may not accurately record the color and intensity, and also have noise. And you are recording a 2D image of a 3D source, so there is inherently going to be lost information. OTOH, you can calibrate and account for some of these effects. It depends on how you define lying, I think. Of course there will be various levels of distortions and it will not represent the real thing, but that is true for all types of sensing, including our eyes. And if you think of it that way, then all detection methods have some levels of lying built in, and the photographer only selects the type of lie. What the photograph can do is create an image (potentially with further software manipulation to remove lens distortions, color balance and similar effects) that mimics the image that is most similar to the image you would see with your eyes. But is that closer to the truth or just closer to the lie your eyes tell you? Edit: Severely cross posted. Edited February 25, 2015 by CharonY
StringJunky Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) ...But is that closer to the truth or just closer to the lie your eyes tell you? The latter, but isn't discerning photography about faithfully re-creating the image you see in your minds-eye? IMO this is the closest to fidelity one can hope for. Edited February 25, 2015 by StringJunky
CharonY Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 (edited) Yes, there's a lot of parameters to account for and adjust to make a picture tell the 'truth'. I had a Tamron SP90 lens that was ruthlessly detailed though on close-up portraits... so I had to make it lie with flattering effects IIRC the Tamron SP90 is a macro, isn't it? They are typically quite sharp and rather, well not nice in the wrong/right light. Best to take a pic across the street and crop to taste ;p The latter, but isn't photography about faithfully re-creating the image you see in your minds-eye? IMO this is the closest to fidelity one can hope for. I would agree to that. But personally I would consider that more as a lie from the photographer's side, as he/she actively creates the image (both during shoot as well as post) rather than a lie of the camera (it does faithfully what its optics determines). One could say that all photography is a lie and it is about taking a moment out of context. In the end it is semantics and what one would like to define as the reference of the truth. Edited February 25, 2015 by CharonY
StringJunky Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 ..One could say that all photography is a lie and it is about taking a moment out of context. In the end it is semantics and what one would like to define as the reference of the truth. Amen to that .
Strange Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 And I have another question concerning this hand. Obviously an alien appendage. (I am only saying that to keep the reality of Our Lizard Overlords hidden.) Thank you. Your welcome.
Phi for All Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 Honestly, the more I think about this, the sillier it becomes. Like finding people in photos from WWI who look like they're talking on cell phones. I don't even understand the conspiracy, unless the baby is CIA.
CharonY Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 I try not to think too much about that line of reasoning. I am pretty sure that it will result in brain cancer.
RalphCinque Posted February 26, 2015 Author Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) OH, it's an anatomical question alright, and a biomechanical one too. I taught a course in Ergonomics, and I have also done consulting with companies concerning safe lifting on the job, etc. And I think you are making much too big a deal about the camera and the focus. The woman was waving her hand, presumably, but she wasn't moving her whole body. And, we are looking at large elements here, so a little bit of blur doesn't have any importance at all to the question. And the question is: how is the woman holding that girl? To my eyes, it doesn't look like she is holding her at all. The angles that we see on the girl suggest a sitting position, and furthermore, sitting on a firm surface. I am aware that a mother often holds her child by having him or her sit on her hip, straddling her. It's a common thing, but it isn't happening here. For one thing, if you blow the picture up, you can see that both of the child's legs are in front of the mother. Here is a comparison with a woman who has her child sitting on her hip. Biomechanically, they are vastly different. And, I don't think the apparent action on the right could be duplicated experimentally. So, do you think the woman on the right has got one arm underneath that child and is holding her up with it, supporting her weight with it, with that one arm alone? Because I don't see anything else being recruited here to help in the process. Do you think she has the strength to do that? Edited February 26, 2015 by RalphCinque
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 ! Moderator Note RalphCinque,If you don't stop soap boxing, this thread will be closed. You have been given very plausible explanations for what you are observing and you are yet to address any of them. You get no more chances.
swansont Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 Honestly, the more I think about this, the sillier it becomes. Like finding people in photos from WWI who look like they're talking on cell phones. I don't even understand the conspiracy, unless the baby is CIA. It's obvious. They are time traveling aliens, talking on cell phones to arrange for the fake assassination/abduction of Kennedy, which forced us to fake the moon landings. The woman was waving her hand, presumably, but she wasn't moving her whole body. How can you possibly tell that from a photograph? Detecting motion requires a measurement at TWO moments in time. Anyway, why does this matter? Maybe the kid is sitting on something. We can't tell because Kennedy's head is in the way. (I hope nobody has to explain the details of the opacity of the human body, and the implications for photography)
DrP Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 The baby could be perched on something? The camera snapped while she was moving and this is how it happened to look? She was about to drop the baby? She is stronger than she looks? She could be sticking her leg out a bit to give the child support which you cannot see in the shot? You are reading too much into it? Countless plausible explanations. None of which involve lizards. Sorry - it seems dumb.
Phi for All Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 Actually, I think the most likely explanation is that the mother, in order to wave at the passing motorcade, shifted her left arm under her child's butt to better support her without hugging her too tightly to her hips. She could be using her arm as more of a platform rather than a gripper, and trusting that the 2-3 year-old will do the gripping with her legs and right arm. This explains why you can't see Mom's left arm (it's under the baby's jumper), and why her shoulders are level. I don't think the baby is CIA. It sounds like a great cover, but people stare at babies too much.
RalphCinque Posted February 26, 2015 Author Posted February 26, 2015 (edited) Someone sent me a clearer image of the photo which shows that her fingers were curled. I didn't know that until now. Edited February 26, 2015 by RalphCinque
CharonY Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 It's obvious. They are time traveling aliens, talking on cell phones to arrange for the fake assassination/abduction of Kennedy, which forced us to fake the moon landings. How can you possibly tell that from a photograph? Detecting motion requires a measurement at TWO moments in time. Anyway, why does this matter? Maybe the kid is sitting on something. We can't tell because Kennedy's head is in the way. (I hope nobody has to explain the details of the opacity of the human body, and the implications for photography) Also, at least from the crop, I am not even sure how level the camera is, relative to the persons. So it is not even clear where the center of gravity precisely is (at least I cannot clearly see how her legs are positioned). That being said, it is incredible that we are page two already.
Strange Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 The baby could be perched on something? The camera snapped while she was moving and this is how it happened to look? She was about to drop the baby? She is stronger than she looks? She could be sticking her leg out a bit to give the child support which you cannot see in the shot? You are reading too much into it? You are missing the obvious concusion of "alien assassin". I can only assume that this is because you are a paid stooge (one of the three paid stooges?) of the Lizard Overlords (praise be upon them). Someone sent me a clearer image of the photo ... Really? I mean, really??
hypervalent_iodine Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 ! Moderator Note Alright, I think we're done here.
Recommended Posts