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.
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.
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.
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