|
#14
●
06-19-2010, 02:04 PM
| ||||||||
 ★ ********* ★ Poster Rank:246 Male Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 5,565
Contributions: 368
Mentioned: 66 Post(s) Quoted: 932 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Why the Long Face....
I don't think the photo is fake, there are surgeons that have to face worse stuff on a daily basis (btw: http://stitchingtheglobe.blogspot.co...rom-wards.html) . Plus, I don't even think it's some deadly wound: the tendons working with eyelids could have been involved, but I don't see any reason to believe the guy died, nor he lost sight, etcetera. The wound is less severe than it looks to be. |
|
#18
●
06-19-2010, 04:44 PM
| ||||||||
 My Rank: PRIVATE Poster Rank:6380 Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 34 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Why the Long Face....
there'd be no reason to fake it... there are plenty of giant face wound pix on the internet. seriously, why waste time on making a fake machete wound?
|
|
#20
●
06-20-2010, 02:20 AM
| ||||||||
| ★ ********* ★ Poster Rank:246 Male Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 5,565
Contributions: 368
Mentioned: 66 Post(s) Quoted: 932 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Why the Long Face....
I see what you mean, and that together with the white background made it look fishy to me too, in the low res: the one posted in the OP is some extremely riduced both in size and in quality image: try to check out the hi res that I've posted at page # 1 (here you go). The more you reduce some shape using smart size methods (based on bilinear, bicubic algorythm etc), the sharper the shapes will appear. The light casting the shadow is most likely the one of the camera flash. If he was close enough to the wall in the background, then a very sharp shadow is what I would expect to see. Another check that we can do is straight on the EXIF data of the original image: Camera: Sony DSC-W100 Lens: 18.7 mm (Max aperture f/2.8) Exposure: Auto exposure, Program AE, 1/50 sec, f/4.5, ISO 200 Flash: On, Red-eye reduction, Return detected Date: November 15, 2009 9:43:47PM (timezone not specified) (7 months, 4 days, 1 hour, 22 minutes, 2 seconds ago, assuming an image timezone of US Pacific) Color Space Uncalibrated Components Configuration Y, Cb, Cr, - Compressed Bits Per Pixel 8 Compression JPEG (old-style) Contrast Normal Create Date 2009:11:15 21:43:47 7 months, 4 days, 1 hour, 22 minutes, 2 seconds ago Custom Rendered Normal Date/Time Original 2009:11:15 21:43:47 7 months, 4 days, 1 hour, 22 minutes, 2 seconds ago Exif Image Size 1,200 × 1,600 Exif Version 0221 Exposure Compensation 0 Exposure Mode Auto Exposure Program Program AE Exposure Time 1/50 F Number 4.5 File Source Digital Camera Flash On, Red-eye reduction, Return detected Flashpix Version 0100 Focal Length 18.7 mm ISO 200 Image Description Light Source Unknown Make SONY Max Aperture Value 2.8 Metering Mode Multi-segment Camera Model Name DSC-W100 Modify Date 2009:11:15 21:43:47 7 months, 4 days, 1 hour, 22 minutes, 2 seconds ago Print Image Matching (28 bytes binary data) Resolution 72 pixels/inch Saturation Normal Scene Capture Type Standard Scene Type Directly photographed Sharpness Normal Software Picasa 3.0 Thumbnail Length 4,659 White Balance Auto Y Cb Cr Positioning Co-sited The relevant tag is the Scene Type one, and it reads "directly photographed" meaning NOT photoshopped. The only software used has been google Picasa, (only for sharing purposes, since the rest of EXIF data is unaltered): there are no Photoshop or other editing software tags, so according to EXIF data the photo is genuine. NOw, of course we can't rule out that they even faked EXIF data, but anyway I miss completely the purpose of faking a photo like this, which documents some very ordinary occurrence in some areas of the world. |
Like he has two jaws.
