If your only experience with photography is a point and shoot camera or smartphone, go away.
If you claim to have experience with professional cameras and want to claim there are no converging lines when there is, go away.
If you're claiming there should be aberrations and simple google search for wide angle and fish eye lenses have plenty of examples with equal clarity, go away.
If you don't think they would publish a distorted image because it looks bad to you, go away.
If you think the shadow's are odd it's because you never bounced a speedlight or strobe off a wall or ceiling. That's why all your family photos have redeyes, no facial definition and harsh shadows.
It doesn't look fake, it looks like a heavily processed wide angle shot. I know more about photography than most of you. If that bothers you, tough shit. The real conspiracy is who keeps floating these batshit theories of it being fake? Is it an attempt to discredit their opposition?
I can't believe someone said "that's a good photo, publish it!"
what argument
I can believe someone thought that. Yes. If that's the best they had and within limited conditions, yes.
After processing the exposure is correct, the lighting is even albeit a little flat. It serves its purpose. It's a decent photo, yes. I'm not judging it based on personal tastes or political biases. If it were me composing a picture in a tight space I would have closed the door on the right and removed the picture behind Jill's head.
Any lens wide enough to create that amount of distortion would show signs of converging verticals and spherical aberrations A tilt-shift lens could correct some of that out. Otherwise, it's a very bizarre photo.
Since when does one expect pictures hanging on walls to be straight? Hard to tell. I've shot everything from fisheye to 1200mm on 35mm to 8X10 rail cameras. I've never seen an effect that creates such a dramatic difference from a wide angle lens with people so close together without aberration of some sort.
It doesn't matter if they are hung straight. The frame sides should be parallel to themselves.
"without aberration of some sort."
That is only evidence your equipment was inferior. I can grab countless examples of wide angle lenses that don't have those problems with simple image searches.
Firstly, of coursed its shopped, it's a digitally processed image that had the distortion corrections applied. Secondly, stop using shitty screen grabs people upload here. When I use your tool with a high res image there is nothing that appears out of the ordinary.
thank you. it's beyond sad the amount of time and attention spent on little photographic and video anomalies around here... and the theories spun around them defies any sense of logic. So yes there is the one question of WHO initiates the asinine theories, the other question is WHY so many run with it and not stop and question the premise of what they're being told about what they're seeing.
I don’t care about your “facts”. The Earth is flat and you can’t convince me otherwise!
Also worth mentioning is the distortion of the size of objects in the background vs the foreground. The closer to the camera an object is, the larger it looks. Wide angle lenses need to be really close to the subject to get the proper framing. So the distance between objects in the foreground seems exaggerated while objects in the background look fairly normal. That’s why Jimmy’s shoes look like clown shoes - he’s leaning back into his chair and the shoes are closer to the camera than the rest of his body.
I examined the original in a forensic tool and I didn’t see anything indicating it was photoshopped. This can be done with a wide angle lens without a doubt. I’m not arguing the comms implied by it however.
No shit there's something out of scale, it's a wide angle or fisheye lens. Why the fuck do people keep bringing this up like it's a god damn new discovery?
There's no need to take the Lord's name in vain nor to swear like a sailor. We don't communicate like this on this board, that's why you're getting downvoted despite the lens aspect being correct.
Why does the lamp appear to be the correct size? Shouldn't it seem even smaller since what you are implying is that things toward the edge appear larger, and things toward the center appear smaller?
Good point. They all seriously look like figures in a wax museum. And that lemon dress looks like a tablecloth. In fact most of her clothes look like they were sewn out of household remnants.
Yes - and the one made out of adult diapers and the one leather number that came off the upholstery in Joe's corvette. I tell ya, they stripped her of all her finery and make her scrounge for clothes. Sure makes me miss Melania!
It looks like a fake backdrop, look at the black right side (looking at the photo) above the chair. Its like they have forgot to clip the photo off where the back blue screen finishes?
Good to be reminded of clown world shenanigans. I thought at the time it was WH comms to tell us that inflation under Biden was gonna make carterflation look like a joke.
There would be no need to use a fisheye or other significantly wide-angle lens to get a shot like this, so why such an effort to say that is the reason for the distorted look (and the straight lines of picture frames and other things with straight lines suggests it was not a photo taken with a fisheye lens or very wide angle lens)
Think about how low these photographs are. If Joe stood up, the large photo behind the lamp would be just above knee height.
I think the biggest mindfuck is that the are almost no shadows in the photo and the ones that are there are totally inconsistent and don't make any sense
Before the deluge of shooped picture comments learn how lens distortion works and how software corrects for it.
-Stuff in center, less distortion.
-Stuff near edge and closer, much larger.
edit:
Learn some basics about photography.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wide+angle+lens+distortion+correction
When you compensate for distortions with software it can look like this
https://imgur.com/Ztb1wfT
If your only experience with photography is a point and shoot camera or smartphone, go away.
If you claim to have experience with professional cameras and want to claim there are no converging lines when there is, go away.
If you're claiming there should be aberrations and simple google search for wide angle and fish eye lenses have plenty of examples with equal clarity, go away.
If you don't think they would publish a distorted image because it looks bad to you, go away.
If you think the shadow's are odd it's because you never bounced a speedlight or strobe off a wall or ceiling. That's why all your family photos have redeyes, no facial definition and harsh shadows.
It doesn't look fake, it looks like a heavily processed wide angle shot. I know more about photography than most of you. If that bothers you, tough shit. The real conspiracy is who keeps floating these batshit theories of it being fake? Is it an attempt to discredit their opposition?
Regardless of how the image was created, I can't believe someone said "that's a good photo, publish it!"
I can.
Your argument is invalid.
What argument? You think this is a good photo?
I can believe someone thought that. Yes. If that's the best they had and within limited conditions, yes.
After processing the exposure is correct, the lighting is even albeit a little flat. It serves its purpose. It's a decent photo, yes. I'm not judging it based on personal tastes or political biases. If it were me composing a picture in a tight space I would have closed the door on the right and removed the picture behind Jill's head.
A huge percentage of people who see that photo immediately think it looks weird, regardless of political affiliation.
I'm not sure "WTF?" Is ever a good response to aiving room picture with friends.
Any lens wide enough to create that amount of distortion would show signs of converging verticals and spherical aberrations A tilt-shift lens could correct some of that out. Otherwise, it's a very bizarre photo.
Far left picture hanging on wall. Draw a line down the side.
Far right brown cabinet looking thing. Draw a line down the side.
Large picture in the middle. Draw a line down both sides.
Oh look, converging verticals.
Since when does one expect pictures hanging on walls to be straight? Hard to tell. I've shot everything from fisheye to 1200mm on 35mm to 8X10 rail cameras. I've never seen an effect that creates such a dramatic difference from a wide angle lens with people so close together without aberration of some sort.
Run the image through here and run ELA at 75%. Looks 'shopped to me: https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#error-level-analysis
It doesn't matter if they are hung straight. The frame sides should be parallel to themselves.
"without aberration of some sort."
That is only evidence your equipment was inferior. I can grab countless examples of wide angle lenses that don't have those problems with simple image searches.
"Looks 'shopped to me: https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#error-level-analysis"
Firstly, of coursed its shopped, it's a digitally processed image that had the distortion corrections applied. Secondly, stop using shitty screen grabs people upload here. When I use your tool with a high res image there is nothing that appears out of the ordinary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJimiVFCjJ0&t=5s
thank you. it's beyond sad the amount of time and attention spent on little photographic and video anomalies around here... and the theories spun around them defies any sense of logic. So yes there is the one question of WHO initiates the asinine theories, the other question is WHY so many run with it and not stop and question the premise of what they're being told about what they're seeing.
I don’t care about your “facts”. The Earth is flat and you can’t convince me otherwise!
Also worth mentioning is the distortion of the size of objects in the background vs the foreground. The closer to the camera an object is, the larger it looks. Wide angle lenses need to be really close to the subject to get the proper framing. So the distance between objects in the foreground seems exaggerated while objects in the background look fairly normal. That’s why Jimmy’s shoes look like clown shoes - he’s leaning back into his chair and the shoes are closer to the camera than the rest of his body.
shouldn't the picture frames over Jimmy and the Tramp's head show some distortion if it was the lens?
It does show distortion. Unless you think the bottom of the picture frame is semicircular.
Also, it is further away from the lens.
I am not seeing it, but I am using a small screen
I can’t get over how this photo makes the Carters look like little dolls in a dollhouse. The Biden’s look like massive giants.
Photoshop.
Yep, though they claimed it was the wide camera lens. Don’t know why you were downvoted.
There is something out of scale in the outer part of the picture though. Unless Carter is wearing clown shoes.
I examined the original in a forensic tool and I didn’t see anything indicating it was photoshopped. This can be done with a wide angle lens without a doubt. I’m not arguing the comms implied by it however.
His right shoulder looks photoshopped to me, but then I am not an expert by any means.
No shit there's something out of scale, it's a wide angle or fisheye lens. Why the fuck do people keep bringing this up like it's a god damn new discovery?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wide+angle+lens+distortion+correction
There's no need to take the Lord's name in vain nor to swear like a sailor. We don't communicate like this on this board, that's why you're getting downvoted despite the lens aspect being correct.
Oh fuck off, people talk like this all the time, ya friggin' Mary.
Predictable response. Just letting you know. Inb4 more vitriol.
That's fine. I just get tired of seeing old and easily refutable claims being repeated.
As I said above, a fisheye or wide angle lens would cause the edges of the picture frames to appear curved.
Most of the frame gets cropped off when the distortions are removed because there is no information to display.
Why does the lamp appear to be the correct size? Shouldn't it seem even smaller since what you are implying is that things toward the edge appear larger, and things toward the center appear smaller?
Thanks. If you look closely the shadows don't match. But people hate seeing the word "photoshop" all the time. The shills downvoted me, is my guess.
bidens look like massive FAILURES!
Good point. They all seriously look like figures in a wax museum. And that lemon dress looks like a tablecloth. In fact most of her clothes look like they were sewn out of household remnants.
Like "Gone with the Wind" She pulled down the curtains to make a dress! Ha Ha Ha.
Carol Burnett wore it better.
Drapery rods and all! Ha Ha Ha Ha. That was hysterical when she did that.
I saw it in the window, and had to have it.
Yes - and the one made out of adult diapers and the one leather number that came off the upholstery in Joe's corvette. I tell ya, they stripped her of all her finery and make her scrounge for clothes. Sure makes me miss Melania!
Maybe thats why they raided Melanias clothes, because that muppet was jealous.
When life gives you lemons brandon takes the babysitter
Von Trap family cast offs haha
This picture is definitely comms. That living room resembles the set of an 80s sitcom. Is it even their house?
Looks like an assisted living apartment.
It looks like a fake backdrop, look at the black right side (looking at the photo) above the chair. Its like they have forgot to clip the photo off where the back blue screen finishes?
Wow!
Yeah, bigger then Carter by a lot.
The bizarre manipulation of this photo truly conveys how psychotic the Democrats and deep state are. I hope this ends up in history books.
Biden could carry a Carter under each arm.
They look like hand puppets, they are so small compared to the giants next to them.😂
Good to be reminded of clown world shenanigans. I thought at the time it was WH comms to tell us that inflation under Biden was gonna make carterflation look like a joke.
I posted the same theory over a year ago, lol
That's what I thought when I saw it.
Biden looks superimposed into this picture. His left arm looks like a shitty job with an eraser tool. Not saying it's fake, just that it looks off.
There would be no need to use a fisheye or other significantly wide-angle lens to get a shot like this, so why such an effort to say that is the reason for the distorted look (and the straight lines of picture frames and other things with straight lines suggests it was not a photo taken with a fisheye lens or very wide angle lens)
No need unless the photographer had his back against a wall, right?
RIGHT?
https://imgur.com/Ztb1wfT
Think about how low these photographs are. If Joe stood up, the large photo behind the lamp would be just above knee height.
I think the biggest mindfuck is that the are almost no shadows in the photo and the ones that are there are totally inconsistent and don't make any sense
Bounce the flash off the ceiling and the walls to create a giant soft box.
Boom, few shadows.
When Biden makes Carter look good...
There were people at the time claiming it was a shopped image put out by white-hats...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wide+angle+lens+distortion+correction
Looks like distortion to me. Let's keep pointing it out guys, like wide angle lenses haven't been a widely available thing for more than a century
https://imgur.com/Ztb1wfT
Definitely shopped.
Until Bidet became resident I always listed carter just behind ford for worst president ever. Bidet now gets the WPE award.
Not Obama?
Bad, But Ford and Carter made Obama look intelligent
I think by the time Obama was put in office, the fake news did most of that.
The fake news gave up their pretense of being non biased, like they tried to do when Ford and Carter were in office.
I want to know where Bidens right arm is supposed to be!!
You can see that it is resting on the arm of the chair (part of his right hand is visible)
I'm pretty sure this is the thumbnail of an elderly swinging porn video.
That is such a fake picture......Look how tiny the Carter's are compared to the Biden's. Looks like they are taking a picture in a wax museum.
Its the same agenda, the puppets in the white house don't matter