Dallas Photographer Trapped In Shooting Captures Powerful Photos Of The Police Officer Protecting Him

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

The shadows are wrong. Totally wrong.   Also, the shadows beneath the cars are darker, and the other shadows paler, this just doesn't happen.  Also, the meters seem to have different shadow directions.  Which seems most odd.

Does it?
Because you say so, show up some evidence because hearsay, does count for nothing?

HoratioTarr wrote:

sassy wrote:Are you on a wind up HT?

Being a painter I study shadow, and they are right.  Light from overhead slightly to the left.

It's FUCKING GOOGLE STREETVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do the car shadows face in the opposite direction from the meters and the building?    I'm not saying this has been photoshopped, I'm just questioning things.  

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


Does it?
Because you say so, show up some evidence because hearsay, does count for nothing?

Just my opinion. No need to get your truss twisted.

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Just my opinion. No need to get your truss twisted.

No I am simply now challenging your co called claims

The question is why are you gettong so worked up when I do?

HoratioTarr wrote:This Google shot has the shadows all going the same way.    The shadow density is uniform also.

eddie wrote:That's why I always ask WHY does someone think something has been photoshopped. Because if there's a rational and logical explanation as to why, then of course it follows that the said photo [i]could[/] be photoshopped.

Didge wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:This Google shot has the shadows all going the same way.    The shadow density is uniform also.

Different picture and again where is the sun?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:


No I am simply now challenging your co called claims

The question is why are you gettong so worked up when I do?

I'm not getting worked up and I'm not 'making claims'.  I'm merely stating my opinion.  I have no idea why that particular shot has shadow anomalies.  

eddie wrote:Didge have a look at the shadows and disprove what Horatio has said.

Disprove it by your own description of the shadows using what you know about the sun and shadows.

If not, anything else you say is deflection.

eddie wrote:

eddie wrote:Didge have a look at the shadows and disprove what Horatio has said.

Disprove it by your own description of the shadows using what you know about the sun and shadows.

If not, anything else you say is deflection.

eddie wrote:

eddie wrote:Didge have a look at the shadows and disprove what Horatio has said.

Disprove it by your own description of the shadows using what you know about the sun and shadows.

If not, anything else you say is deflection.

In recent years, there has been a trend towards blue reflective glass. In Downtown Dallas, Thanksgiving Tower, Bank of America Plaza and the new Museum Tower all have this effect. However, none of the downtown skyscrapers pulls of the blue-tinted-glass look as well as Fountain Place. This pointy spire was designed by I.M. Pei, the same guy who made the Louvre Pyramids (which I love) and Dallas City Hall (which I don’t really care for.) I love Fountain Place not just because of it’s reflective glass, but because it looks different from every angle.

Ben Reilly wrote:

In recent years, there has been a trend towards blue reflective glass. In Downtown Dallas, Thanksgiving Tower, Bank of America Plaza and the new Museum Tower all have this effect. However, none of the downtown skyscrapers pulls of the blue-tinted-glass look as well as Fountain Place. This pointy spire was designed by I.M. Pei, the same guy who made the Louvre Pyramids (which I love) and Dallas City Hall (which I don’t really care for.) I love Fountain Place not just because of it’s reflective glass, but because it looks different from every angle.

http://steve-lovelace.com/the-towers-of-downtown-dallas/



See how reflected light creates shadows going in different directions? That's just life in Big D.

Ben Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:That's why I always ask WHY does someone think something has been photoshopped. Because if there's a rational and logical explanation as to why, then of course it follows that the said photo [i]could[/] be photoshopped.

Exactly. What motive has Google to alter a scene that people can see for themselves?

Do people realize that there are dozens of people right now where that picture was taken? Thousands who live in the area and know what it looks like?

They'd all be posting about how (for some unknown reason) Google is altering the way the city looks!

sassy wrote:

eddie wrote:

AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Re google pic HT.  They don't.  The shadow from the building is less dense because it is over a large area and therefore mixes with light, it runs left to right to back.  Under cars is more dense because less light getting under, shadow runs left to right to back.  Meter is narrow, straight, which makes shadow shorter with light nearly overhead, runs left to right to back.



If HT is an expect of photoshopping, I'm an expert on shadows for art.

Tommy Monk wrote:Oh FFS...


Just view whole picture... look at direction of shadows...


Now...


For big building shadow on left of pic to be real... then sun must be somewhere above and to the left and behind of camera position...


Yes...?

Agreed...?


Now... look at bottom right corner of pic... you can see a shadow of what looks like a plant of some kind... and it is going in a totally different direction!!!


Suggesting the sun must be above right and behind camera position...!!!



While the cars shadows suggest sun is directly above cars and camera position!!!

Ben Reilly wrote:I still go back to the idea that why is the most important question here. If you can't theorize as to why something was done, why theorize that something was done anyway?

Ben Reilly wrote:I still go back to the idea that why is the most important question here. If you can't theorize as to why something was done, why theorize that something was done anyway?

sassy wrote:Well, the moon might be made of blue cheese, but I'd be bloody stupid to theorise that!

Tommy Monk wrote:




You can't say that something isn't so just because you might not be able to think of a reason for it to be done...


That's pretty pathetic...

sassy wrote:Well, the moon might be made of blue cheese, but I'd be bloody stupid to theorise that!

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not that I can't come up with reasons why the pics might be photoshopped...


It's just that it detracts from the actual fact of whether the pics have been photoshopped or not...


The first question is whether they have been photoshopped of not...


And I am pretty sure they have...


I may or may not be able to come out with a string of possible reasons why this may have been done... but that doesn't affect my previous finding that I believe it has been done...

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:Well, the moon might be made of blue cheese, but I'd be bloody stupid to theorise that!

If you think the moon might be made of blue cheese then why wouldn't you want to theorise it?
That's stupid!

No, Noooooo - that's a Metaphor used in a reply to our Village Idiot's consistent behavior when nothing else seems to fit! 

met·a·phor

NOUN

1. a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable:
"“I had fallen through a trapdoor of depression,” said Mark, who was fond of theatrical metaphors" ·
synonyms:
a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract:
"the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a metaphor for an industry that was teetering"

eddie wrote:I know what a bloody metaphor is.
Never mind.

OH, were you being snarky/sarcastic and funny ...   
Exccccuse me, I misunderstood ...when you told her that "that's STUPID" ...I just missed the intent!

eddie wrote:

eddie wrote:Didge have a look at the shadows and disprove what Horatio has said.

Disprove it by your own description of the shadows using what you know about the sun and shadows.

If not, anything else you say is deflection.

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:
Well, the moon might be made of blue cheese, but I'd be bloody stupid to theorise that!

If you think the moon might be made of blue cheese then why wouldn't you want to theorise it?
That's stupid!