Aren't newspapers supposed to not do things like this? (I mean real newspapers, not National Inquirer or the British tabloids.) Isn't there some sort of oath of journalistical ethics that they have to swear or something?
Original is on page 15 of this huge pdf. Thanks to Robert S!
[Edit: The image is from Getty, not AP. The Washington Post Express actually phoned me up to say there was no Photoshopping on their part.]
Original is on page 15 of this huge pdf. Thanks to Robert S!
[Edit: The image is from Getty, not AP. The Washington Post Express actually phoned me up to say there was no Photoshopping on their part.]
163 comments:
fake!
uh...let me see... if the chest of the guy on the right is behind the elbow of the guy on the left... the stick is behind his head, on front of the other´s one head... uhh, I mean...
"The two will be pair together again..."
It seems like they have also lost their ability to form grammatically correct sentences.
MC Escher would be proud
Who photoshopped this? M. C. Esher?
The left guy is wondering: 'What the hell does that club there'
so if they're willing to change the photo in a story, is there any reason to think that they wouldn't change a story's facts or exaggerate things?! Mainstream media is turning into a complete farce.
lol @ google ads: 'Fix photoshop.exe' :D
Quick point -- this is from the Washington Post's freebie Express, not the "real" paper.
I guess real journalism costs real money.
As a photographer, this is appalling but sadly quite expected. The only alterations that should be made to images in a journalistic context are related to light - brightness, exposure, contrast, and the like. I just hope this was the doing of the editor and not the photographer.
Wow, it just looks so unreal and looks like it came from one of those optical illusion books!
SO FAKE!!! Now can we bring in some REAL news???
If they did a photo illustration, then it's likely that it was "okay." But if they labeled "photo by..." then their photo editor needs to be replaced.
no one is claiming it is REAL! you are all acting like tiger is raming his club (not stick..) in to phil's butt! these guys are the two most important figures in golf... y not have a picture of both of them in you r story?
That's right, it is the freebie Express, but the Express is a Washington Post publication, nonetheless.
They hand this paper out at all of the Metro stops. And the print edition looked just the same.
Seems like it wasn't just the golfers playing with an extreme handicap.
"these guys are the two most important figures in golf... y not have a picture of both of them in you r story?"
Yes, both of them in a picture is fine... but defying the laws of matter/physics is not.
for the record, the photo says it came from the Associated Press. It's possible it was meant to be an "illustration" of the two players, not a photo of them.
Wahahahahaaa!!! XD
No more needed to be said!!! *lmao*
Maybe they're both lying down, and TW is really big.
If you look very carefully, it may just be a tangential cooincidence. That white patch that looks like the tip of Phil's elbow may also be a highlight on Tiger's shirt.
If the silohuette of Tiger's shirt matches the contour of Phil's arm... it may just fit, and then it looks like he is actually behind him. :)
This might be real.
"The guy on the left"?! You mean possibly the second best player in golf Phil Mickelson?
There is a slight chance it could be real if the shot was taken with an extreme zoom that kills any depth and if Tiger is shorter.
The weird thing is...it takes (a little bit) of extra effort to shop this. You need to create two layers of TW: one in back one in front, and then insert the layer of PM in between. I suppose the shopper cut and paste the club head for some reason and then forgot about its placement. This is a total fail...by any measures.
Being a photo editor, this is really frightening. Even if it was labeled a photo illustration the caption definitely doesn't lead you to believe that it is not an actual photo. I'm sure someone is getting reamed this second.
Notice the headline says unlikely pairing.
This may be subtitle humor.
Chris is right, it's actually legit. It's just a coincidence how Phil's arm lines up with Tiger's side. And as anonymous says it was shot with a long lens that throws the background completely out of focus. The one thing that is wrong is the caption - Phil is clearly not watching Tiger's shot (assuming that Tiger IS...).
As a photographer who subscribes to the NPPA.org ethics for photojournalists this is appalling. More than likely it was done by an editor who doesn't understand ethics and was never taught ethics. I mean it so obvious and their eyes aren't even looking the same direction! I'm hoping this is either an optical illusion or a fire able offense.
I'm going to float the possibility that there's an optical illusion at work here, and not Photoshoppery.
I'm not a photo expert, just some dude on the internets, and I cannot emphasize just how wrong I might be. But zooming in on the image in the top post and blowing up the PDF version as big as I can get it in KDPDF, it looks like the white glare on Mickleson's shirt, and the white spots on Woods's shirt combined with some reflected light are mixed and the mixture is exacerbated by the pixelation in the digitized photo. Because of the way Woods's torso lines up with the curve of Mickleson's upper arm in the 2D photo, you have this distorted perspective and can't tell who is in the foreground, but with Mickleson's arm appearing larger because of the way his shirt sleeve hangs, the brain says "bigger=closer" and interprets the picture that way. I'm sure there's a technical name for the effect I'm describing so badly here.
And again, I could be wrong. But look at just that chunk of the photo and see if you see what I'm talking about.
...it looks like David, Chris and anonymous beat me to it while I was typing. Thanks for mentioning the long-lens effect--that's something interesting to know. (I'm a novice who recently picked up a digital SLR to use while hiking.)
Interestingly I just had a photo shoot done by a newspaper photographer for a feature story they are doing about me where he wanted to put a photo of me on a computer monitor. He took a snapshot of my face and we loaded it on the computer for the shot. I asked him why he didn't just photoshop it in and he said that they weren't allowed to do that kind of photo editing--that they were only allowed to use Photoshop for color corrections and stuff. Which I found reasonable for normal news reportage, but I thought that baring it in an artistic shot for a lifestyle feature was a bit excessive. Apparently the Wash post doesn't have the same standard.
It's nice to see two definite Photoshop disasters in a row, not a page fold problem or bad lighting and composition.
Not photoshopped.
The photo would have been taken with a long telephoto lens, which compresses space between objects (i.e. the two golfers) and throws much of the image out of focus (background).
What's going on is just an unfortunate composition: Woods' torso cuts off at exactly the same point that the other dude begins, so there's this weird "kinda looks overlapped" thing going on.
What I will say is EWWWW! the lighting/contrast is gross.
So, I checked through the AP Photo Archives trying to find that photo, but, it wasn't there. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it may have been moved off, so, who knows whats going on? I also couldn't find a photo of them separately if it were a poorly put together composite. I'm gonna try to do more detective work.
It looks to me like the highlight on Mickelson's shirt just happens to match the contour of Woods's torso. This could be legit.
Chris is totally right. I'm gonna go with the telephoto lens explanation. I just zoomed in on it with a picture viewer and it changes the perspective once you no longer have the illusion of PM looking larger than TW. Look around his elbow and you can see TW's shirt overlapping his arm. Its just bad lighting.
As for the eyes not lining up bit, I'm sure PM was just making sure he didn't get whacked in the head with that club.
On the same article, scroll down and check out the black balls on the beach picture. Shadows from two directions!!
I downloaded the pdf and zoomed in on the shot. If you look that close you can see there is sliver of space between the two golfers, except for Mickelson's elbow which is behind Tiger's shirt. It looks to be an optical illusion.
It is also obvious at that zoom level that Mickelson is slightly out of focus where Tiger is in focus which is what a long lens (400mm or more) would do. It is unlikely if a person would fake this that they would have taken the time to blur Mickelson but not layer him behind Tiger. (Then again, seeing some of the obvious mistakes shown here, maybe I shouldn't say that.)
The caption on the other hand really leaves something to be desired, unless they were referring to maybe Mickelson looking at Tiger's club. Either way they both don't seem to be watching the same ball, but I have seen editors mangle captions before.
It's real.
The photo is from 2006 and is archived at gettyimages.com
I found the photo by searching for:
stuart franklin Tiger Woods Phil Mickelson 2006
Stuart Franklin is the photographer.
Nobody would stand that close to another golfer while he's teeing off. You get off the tee or stand at least 8 feet away. That picture is impossible.
It's real.
http://tinyurl.com/5gx3ee
ah yes, it seems this is just a case of a bad crop making a weird composition look even worse.
see the full image here
you can see that this really is just a case of the two silhouettes lining up in a way that looks bizarre. Terrible choice for a photo, especially cropped that way.
What a group of irresponsible morons.
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Detail.aspx?axd=DetailPaging.Search|1&axs=0|71679575%2c71674484%2c71673337%2c71674477%2c71673350%2c71674487%2c71674485%2c71674409%2c71673339%2c71674408%2c71674199%2c71674469%2c71674464%2c71674553%2c71674531%2c71674624%2c71674621%2c71674150%2c71674489%2c71674160%2c71674488%2c71674528%2c71674496%2c71674753%2c71674406%2c71674741%2c71673315%2c71674179%2c71674175%2c71674403%2c71674147%2c71674152%2c71674972%2c71675069%2c71674755%2c71675061%2c71675073%2c71675071%2c71674739%2c71675033%2c71675000%2c71675030%2c71675038%2c71675034%2c71675119%2c71675082%2c71675075%2c71674976%2c71675099%2c71675007%2c71675085%2c71675029%2c71674632%2c71674631%2c71674726%2c71675021%2c71675020%2c71675028%2c71675022%2c71675019|0&id=71675030
There is no way this is a real photo, zoom in the PDF all you want, you will note:
-The place Wood's Shirt Wrinkles end is gone (that is because they are behind Mick
-It is clearly visible that Mick's elbow is OVER Wood's Shirt
-The lightning, if Mick is really behind Wood, how come we can see the white line indicating the lightning of the scene?
Picture:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2234/2574570102_3d664bb5fd_o.jpg
Yes, the grammar mistake in the caption is the only unprofessional thing here. The rest of you wack jobs probably don't believe terrorists hi-jacked planes and ran them into the WTC which alone caused the towers to tumble.
Hi there!
This is Chris Combs, photo editor at the Washington Post Express.
This is a Getty photo and I ran it verbatim. I don't have time for Photoshop.
The one error to which our sports editor will likely admit is that it is credited to "Stuart Franklin/AP," whereas it is "Stuart Franklin/Getty Images" that took the photo. Here is the picture on Getty's site.
You may also find it on editorial.gettyimages.com by searching for :
"Stuart Franklin" tiger mickelson
I can't say that Stuart Franklin didn't 'chop the image, but Express didn't touch it.
Big fan of this site, believe it or not.
Cheers, Chris Combs
What everyone seems to be missing is one fundamental law of physics: two objects cannot simultaneously occupy the same space. There is absolutely no way that Tiger could physically take a shot with Mickleson standing so close to him. Let alone the fact that they have different shadowing. Unless they're playing on Tatooine, they're not likely to have more than one light source when playing outdoors.
@ J Pollack, even editors are not allowed to do that I hope that was a sub who was new on the job, perhaps they just got demoted to the press room.
Look at their faces. Look at how they are lit and then tell me again it's real. This is professional alright but still a disaster, a professional one.
It's like an Escher photograph...sfula
No no, you're all looking at it wrong. The camera captured a projected image of Phil Mickelson who has latent psychic abilities he's just discovered, and tested by sending a mental projection of himself next to Tiger. It's not fake, it's supernatural! ;-)
This is Getty photo not AP
http://tinyurl.com/5gx3ee
okay, Chris Combs, i beleive you. it is real.
it is also, however, a very bad crop.
very, very bad.
If crops were always up to photo editors, the world would be a lovely place.
The journalistic standard would be to label this as a photoillustration, and that would cover it. I did plenty of (better) photoillustrations for the papers I worked for, as well as standard photojournalism, but the illustrations were always labeled as such.
I'ts like an optical illusion...lol
You know, if you look at the sequence of shots on the Getty page linked above, you'll see that this is just an unfortunate illusion. No fakery involved. There are shots just before and just after that show how they were standing...
This would be a very difficult thing to do on mistake. I'm going with optical illusion on this one.
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Detail.aspx?axd=DetailPaging.Search|1&axs=0|71679575%2c71674484%2c71673337%2c71674477%2c71673350%2c71674487%2c71674485%2c71674409%2c71673339%2c71674408%2c71674199%2c71674469%2c71674464%2c71674553%2c71674531%2c71674624%2c71674621%2c71674150%2c71674489%2c71674160%2c71674488%2c71674528%2c71674496%2c71674753%2c71674406%2c71674741%2c71673315%2c71674179%2c71674175%2c71674403%2c71674147%2c71674152%2c71674972%2c71675069%2c71674755%2c71675061%2c71675073%2c71675071%2c71674739%2c71675033%2c71675000%2c71675030%2c71675038%2c71675034%2c71675119%2c71675082%2c71675075%2c71674976%2c71675099%2c71675007%2c71675085%2c71675029%2c71674632%2c71674631%2c71674726%2c71675021%2c71675020%2c71675028%2c71675022%2c71675019|0&id=71675030
Weird photo.
Anyway, these highlights have been altered in some way. Maybe the intention was to reduce the "Esher Effect", but it only made things look worse, making Mickelson's left arm appear to be in front of Tiger Woods.
It's an unbelievable photo, even if it is real... It would be nice to see it in a photographer's portfolio, but not in an article. Makes me feel like I can't trust the laws of physics anymore.
Anyway, I love the blog, and you can keep the name as it is... Greetings from Brazil, STPE.
Here's a link to a shot that was clearly taken only a second or two later that confirms the illusion.
http://www.gettyimages.com/....
this is really trippy! Woah. To me Getty would have to have a complete ethical stuff up to allow photoshop editorial images on their site? I wanted to believe it's real, after seeing the rest of the series, i'm forced to. Let's say Mickelson has a very mouldy shirt.
Go to the Getty site gina linked to and look 2 pictures back (#71675033). There's another photo from the same location, almost the same time. This provides a clear indication of what this photo would have looked like unaltered. Mikkleson appears shorter relative to Woods, and is out of focus.
So many of these commenters are incredibly ignorant.
First of all, this photograph is clearly not Photoshopped. You can see ridges in Tiger Woods shirt where it overlaps Mickelson's.
Secondly, the photos on Getty were taken by a different photographer with different equipment. That's why in the Getty photos, Mickelson is out of focus. But the Express photo is from AP.
It's a shame people are so quick to accuse the WP of image altering when they really have little related knowledge and an untrained eye.
This blog has been getting a little bit ridiculous lately.
it's supposed to be fake
@ Photoshoped (rofl at spelling)
No, really?
Lol, that remembered me when I was young and used to cut and glue together photos from different magazines, with similar odd results...
It looks photoshopped, but an understanding of photographic equipment goes a long way.
OMG, it's amazing! Is Tiger in front or in back? Is he in front or in back? Is he about to hit Phill in the head with his club and is Phill worried? That's not a Photoshop Disaster, people, it's GENIUS! It's DRAMA! :D
@Will. Who's being ignorant?
On what evidence do you base your claim that there were 2 photographers ? Both are credited to the same person, and their object names are sequentially numbered.
Nobody bothers to photoshop a picture when covering an event with several scores of fellow photographers who provide hundreds of pictures. Perhaps you may fake the picture of a ball entering the hole in a hole-in-one, or something very special, but risking your great or small fame for putting two guys together?
It's legit but a cool mind-perception trick. Conceal the border of Tiger's Torso and Phil's arm with your thumb. Suddenly it's obvious the pic is real. It's a case of mind trickery. Your mind THINKS it sees Phil's whole arm but it doesn't. Tiger's body is in fact in front of the edge of Phil's arm, but the arm is so nearly complete that your brains thinks it's got it all and interprets accordingly. Not fake, but by chance a supercool example of a optical illusion.
LMAO @ that picture.
So horrible!
Absolutely shameful that it was not identified as a photo composite or photo illustration. These guys want the public trust? Shameful.
Todd Maisel R2 Director NPPA, NYPPA VP
Well, after seeing the Getty images, it's pretty clear to me that it isn't photoshopped apart from some color and contrast alterations. Still, couldn't they have picked a different picture? Didn't it look odd to the editor in the first place?
Todd, as one of the regional directors of NPPA you should look at all the evidence before condemning people (especially people in your own field). If you look at the complete set of photos at Getty you'll see that it's an optical illusion that occurec in-camera -- not photo manipulation.
Perhaps it's time to remove this, or at least say up top, "Oops, this wasn't Photoshopped after all. Our bad."
Speaking of ethics, this blog needs to get some. Posting a picture that could very well be an illusion and not a Photoshop job and passing it off as a "Photoshop Disaster" is the kind of thing that's going to kill off this blog because people are going to get sick of it.
This picture is not Photoshopped. It's an illusion. The main disaster here is how quickly this blog is going downhill.
seriously? seriously??
jeez.
I love not only the horrible photoshop cutout/place job, but the fact that the headline says phil "watches tigers tee shot".... what did he do, pop it strait up in the air? LOL. obviously 2 different shots comped together.
And, yet, as I scroll through all these comments, no one points out the dude on the left's hand (the one on the club.)
If ya'll would just read the text of the article, you'd notice that the picture was taken at the M.C. Escher invitational tournament.
Well, after reading all the comments, and knowing that Stuart Franklin is a well-known photographer who would know better than to do this, and after looking at the photo again and again, I believe it's entirely possible it's not a fake, but a very unfortunate twist of fate.
What I think is the case is that by some odd chance, the edge of Mickelson's shirt just happens to line up with the edge of Woods' shirt, looking like it overlaps. The slight rim lighting makes it look like a bad Photoshop job.
I'm going to have to go 60/40 that it's not a hack job, based in part on the reputation of the people and organizations involved.
To Chris Combs:
Your defense is pathetic. The caption purportedly shows Tiger and Phil during yesterday's round at the Open. Having watched it for a good part of the day, I was surprised to see Tiger NOT wearing blue and Phil NOT wearing black. Geez, if you're going to defend your position, at least get the facts straight. Turn the TV on, for chrissake.
Dear Anonymous, re-read the caption, thankyou.
One interesting thing that's going to come from this is the discussion and debate that will likely occur in the NPPA magazine.
Whether this photo ends up being real or fake, issues of photo manipulation and picture choice may come up, resulting in constructive discussion of the subjects.
In that regard, PhotoshopDisasters has performed a beneficial service by choosing to examine this photo.
Sure, the WPE called to say they didn't do it. But they still chose to USE it. How on earth could that make it better? :)
@ Mac_Tonight
IM TOTALLY SERIOUS!!!!
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=1&language=en-US&family=images&ebd=2006-01-01&eed=2006-12-01&p=tiger%20%20woods&src=standard#35
Image is near the bottom. Calling someone out without the facts. Nice job folks.
Yes it has been cropped poorly, but so what ?
The only failure is the majority of people posting misguided comments on here attacking the retouching without reading any of the comments already posted, least of all reading chris combs post who courteously explained the story (yes for those who haven't bothered reading, he's the editor responsible) - yet you people still attacked him
- Get off your high horses, unless you really understand the pressures and ridiculously tight deadlines these guys have to work to, don't be so quick to judge.
What's amazing is that this is NOT photoshopped!
It may be one of the cooler optical illusions I've seen.
If you look on Getty's site and compare
Editorial
#71675030
and
Editorial
#71675033
You will see it's actually legit. Very very cool!
I'd be shocked to find this isn't a 'shop. Look at the eyes, the body positions and phil's clubhead.
I think there were three shots in succession
1) Phil in focus off the tee box, with driver on the box, not watching the shot (used) while Tiger addressed the ball (not used).
The photographer then moved a couple feet and shot
2)
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Detail.aspx?axd=DetailPaging.Search|1&axs=0|71672791%2c71672790%2c71672955%2c71673132%2c71672698%2c71672661%2c71673761%2c71672718%2c71675007%2c71672789%2c71672786%2c71675030%2c71674199%2c71675033%2c71674150%2c71675075%2c71675034%2c71674528%2c71674726%2c71674632|0&id=71675033
Phills club is in the same place on the tee box, but it's closer to tiger's feet. Phil is stepping onto the tee and watching the shot. Tiger's Club is still in motion.
3) a photo of Tiger at rest watching his shot (used) with phil out of focus taking the next step behind tiger (not used).
Photographer set up for the shot he wanted, didn't get it, move a couple feet and Tiger hit before if got it composed. He fixed it on the laptop before sending along.
My goodness, everyone sure is in a hurry to bury the guy and the company he works for... might be worth waiting to see what actually happened
Gina's got it:
http://tinyurl.com/5gx3ee
verdict: not photoshop
you folks better calm down and scroll down that page and see the other shot in the sequence. It would also be helpful if more of you knew a little bit about the optical effects of shooting with really long lenses: two objects (or people) many feet apart can look very close together.
Wide angle lenses do the opposite, which is why they're used for real estate photos, and the balls on the beach picture mentioned by txb. that view covers such a wide area that you have to think of the shot as an almost-panorama, and so the shadows seem to go in different directions across the image.
Oh yeah, I'm a photographer with a physics degree who teaches photoshop, if that helps.
i agree with the last anonymous commenter, you should read all this before making one more "photoshop'd comment" but i work on tight deadlines too... it would only take a second or two to pick the picture before or after this one. that is the difference between quality and crap!
who cares about lenses and photoshop??!! it doesn't matter here. the picture should have been DISMISSED and picked the one either before or after it.
a good photographer would appreciate that.
I agree.
http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/71675033.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF193875DCB1DD8387ABB40DF30FB89293C2F4E9C89C783688B46
Dear friends,
I would like to clarify something. Several people have been writing to my web address which is stuartfranklin.com complaining about some fakery etc. Please do not confuse me - the current President of Magnum Photos - with a sports photographer of the same name who licenses his work through Getty (I believe). I have little interest in sport except cross country running and no interest in photographing sport. You will need to take up your issue via Getty. Cheers.
It is indeed photoshopped. If you go to gettyimages.com and search woods, mickelson and pga 2006 you'll find the whole series of that one swing.
Besides being in front of Tiger's torso, there's other telltale signs:
First off, the perspective is all wrong...despite being 20 feet back mickelson's as big as woods in this photo and just as in-focus.
Secondly, they're not looking in the same direction.
Thirdly, Mickelson's right arm has a sharp edge (read: cut) but the same side of his pants are blurred.
Finally, there are other shots in the series that were taken a split second earlier in tiger's swing...they're both standing in their respective shots except Mickelson is out of focus and actually looking at the ball...a real shot, though not as desired as he's not in focus.
It appears as though the photographer wanted them both in focus for this "money shot" and so he took a picture of Mickelson in the on-deck circle and clumsily cropped him in.
DUDE. We've already been there. Don't make all those photographers start talking crazy lens things again.
=)
Yes, Getty may have created it, but the Post used it, and more importantly stuck the caption on it that claimed it was a picture of Mickelson watching Woods' shot. Which it obviously is not. So "it wasn't us" doesn't mean much here.
Chris Combs says his guys didn't touch the picture. Ok. Getty needs to say that this is an undoctored image. I think we can all see why there are questions regarding this picture. Tiger is standing behind, but the club is in front.
Background is also looking doctored.
Let's have Getty talk to this one. I have an open mind at this point.
Todd Maisel
R2 Director NPPA
NOT FAKE!
Want proof?
Compare Tiger's head size compared to Phil, clearly Tiger's head is bigger because he is closer to the camera.
This image has been mislabeled as a photoshop disaster. Additionally, it is a Getty Image mislabeled as an AP photo. This is a tricky image to figure out, but what we are seeing is an optical illusion caused by the compression factor of a telephoto lens. Photographers typically us focal lengths of 400mm and above to shoot golf in order to minimize camera noise and clean up the backgrounds with the compression of space such lenses provide.
If you look at the higher quality version of the image on Getty's website, you can clearly see the sharp and defined line of Tigers shirt against the blurrier Mickelson, who is standing in back of Tiger during the swing. The edge of Tigers shirt would not be sharp if Mickelson's body was overlayed on top of the image. This image is totally legit, just freaky looking. Check it out for yourself. You have to scroll down towards the bottom of the page to see the image in question.
http://tinyurl.com/5gx3ee
So what the post express didnt do it, they RAN it. This should cause two job openings. First as a getty shooter, (Ive seen the name for a while, hard to believe someone whos been around would do something along these lines, maybe back at the "lab",...) but second the Post express sure needs a photo editor.
Look. It's fake. Doctored. A fraud.
He took a picture of Mickelson in focus and edited him into the picture of Woods in focus that he took in the shot subsequent to this one:
http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Detail.aspx?axd=DetailPaging.Search|1&axs=0|71672791%2c71672790%2c71672955%2c71673132%2c71672698%2c71672661%2c71673761%2c71672718%2c71675007%2c71672789%2c71672786%2c71675030%2c71674199%2c71675033%2c71674150%2c71675075%2c71675034%2c71674528%2c71674726%2c71674632|0&id=71675033
If he had indeed stepped to the side to get a better shot, it would've had the same depth of field as the first one (Mickelson would've still been blurry and shorter.
Both shots are from the same tee, so he didn't have time to switch lenses.
"Both shots are from the same tee, so he didn't have time to switch lenses."
Unless he was using a long zoom lens. Admittedly, I haven't been shooting pro for a number of years, so I haven't kept up on what's available, but I do remember that there were some pretty darned long zooms available.
It's Mickelson's ability to simultaneously be in front of Woods and behind him that makes him such a dangerous opponent.
LOL at the fact that no one in this thread has suggested that the photo should have not been used at all simply because of that garish shirt Tiger Woods is wearing. Yikes!
Its A REAL PHOTO. Their bodies just happen to line up in a way that makes it appear funny to your eye. If you look at the hires, you can plainly see its a real photo. He's about ten to twenty feet behind Tiger and he does NOT overlap Tiger.
People love to just scream fake like they are experts or something. Slow down and look twice.
Having, you know, actually used a camera, they in fact do not need to swap lenses to change the depth of field. You just set the aperture. I can do it with my thumb without even taking my eye away from the viewfinder.
You can also change the zoom. You turn a ring on the lens.
All of this is totally feasible in-camera.
Does no one wonder why Phil Mickelson, a left handed golfer, is holding a right handed golf club?!
Many of these commenters are not interested in discovering the truth; they only want to push their agenda. If they had bothered to click on any one of the many links posted in this thread, it would be clear that this picture is part of a series, proving beyond a doubt that it is NOT photoshopped.
Props to commenter eric who resisted jumping on the bandwagon before the rest of pictures in the series were revealed.
Illicit photo-manipulators must have gotten so good that this blog can't find any examples that show it more clearly.
"Both shots are from the same tee, so he didn't have time to switch lenses."
Look at the Getty collection. In two photo next to each other, the time sequence for Phil is the opposite of Tiger.
Photo 1: (The Photshopped image of the thread) Tiger's swing is more complete, yet Phil is still out of the box and hasn't yet stepped towards Tiger.
Photo 2: Tiger hasn't finished his swing, yet Phil is stepping into the box.
Tiger goes back in time from Photo 2 to Photo 1, while Phil steps forward from Photo 1 to Photo 2.
I have no agenda. I am a photographer. I say fake.
And also, did Phil grow 5 inches taller in the questionable photo? I think not. Just compare the Getty images. It's not an optical illusion. More depth of field (smaller aperture / less blurry Phil) would not make Phil taller people.
Yes, because the angle of the shot NEVER makes people look relatively taller or shorter.
Try harder!
You're kidding right? Look at the photos. They're split seconds apart. Tiger is in exactly the same spot. Same angle for the shots.
Phil mysteriously grows, moves in reverse time, moves too quickly, etc etc.
Look at the photos.
"Yes, because the angle of the shot NEVER makes people look relatively taller or shorter."
Exactly. Tiger doesn't change at all. The angle is the same. Phil is 'not.' :^)
It's true that Michelson is about 4% taller in relation to Woods in the allegedly doctored photo (#[...]30) than in the other photo (#[...]33). That wouldn't make sense unless Michelson stepped backwards between photos, or if #30 was taken after #33.
It's possible that #30 was taken after #33. In #33, the head of Woods' club is slightly blurry, which could indicate that Woods' club is still moving slightly in the shot (yes, it could also just mean that it's out-of-focus). Also, Phil looks like he's stepping towards Tiger, in which case it makes sense that he's closer in the next photo.
A half-wit said:
"Both shots are from the same tee, so he didn't have time to switch lenses."
Many professional photographers carry at least two cameras with them with different lens configurations so they, umm, don't have to swap lenses at a crucial moment.
Andrew said:
"Does no one wonder why Phil Mickelson, a left handed golfer, is holding a right handed golf club?!
June 13, 2008 1:41 PM"
Only in the first Getty image. The second image in the sequence it looks to me like a left-handed club.
"And, yet, as I scroll through all these comments, no one points out the dude on the left's hand (the one on the club.)"
Could this be because there's nothing wrong with it?
It's not shopped. The original photo is clearly taken with a long zoom lens, which is "flattening" the perspective. The focal point of the lens is between the two players, which is why they are both equally in focus (Tiger's shoes are about as blurry as Phil's elbow.)
The second photo taken shortly afterwards has clearly dialed back the zoom ("unflattening" the image and lending more perspective), and the focal point has been adjusted to fall squarely on Tiger.
It's a bad crop of a real photo which looks like a shop to people who don't understand how zoom/focus/perspective relate to each other in real-world photography.
"It's a bad crop of a real photo which looks like a shop to people who don't understand how zoom/focus/perspective relate to each other in real-world photography."
Exactly. Ever seen that effect in movies where the actor seems to stay the same size but the background either zooms in or receeds? It's just a simple combination of camera distance and zoom. Trying to assert their relative size using these photos because one subject's "4% taller" is absolute, uninformed bunk.
P.S. They don't Photoshop that effect. It's physics.
This photo is real. It definitely appears fake but it is caused by the collapsed DOF associated with a 400mm+ focal length. This collapsed look is easily obtained by using a long lens and is further emphasized by a TC which could have been used as well which would only further the situation.
LOL that is too funny. You just have to love Photoshop!
JT
http://www.Fireme.To/udi
This is good stuff. I've been wanting to switch cat heads for awhile, but now I think perhaps I should put cat heads on Tiger Woods.
there goes any credibility this site had. just because a pic has some weirdness to it doesnt mean photoshopped. however in a bizarre race to show off your nerdiness the commenters here just step deeper and deeper in the poo. and thats even after multiple explanations of how very long telephoto lenses create this tpe of effect.
A lot of people are talking about everything else but the elbow. Is the elbow in front of Tiger or not? It does look like it to me, but I'm willing to hear an explanation.
But what would the motive be? It's not the perfect picture by any means. As a staffer, Stuart doesn't get paid any more if a picture is "perfect" or even better than some.
Also, there's no time to noodle around in photoshop when you are transmitting after an event like this. I'll bet this photo was even filed during the event by a Getty image tech, a staff member with even less financial interest in the photo than the photographer. A major event like this almost certainly had a tech there.
Although the photo looks wrong, I don't see the motive or opportunity to change it. Their typical workflow takes the picture away from the photographer fast, and hands it over to other staff who couldn't be bothered with fancy photoshopping.
Superscout said: "Is the elbow in front of Tiger or not? It does look like it to me, but I'm willing to hear an explanation."
The explanation has been presented NUMEROUS times above, but no one seems to want to read it and try to understand it. Therefore these people won't ever understand. Instead, like 9/11 consipracy theorists, they'll just believe whatever stupid B.S. sounds cool, fantastic, and controversial. I guess it's just fun to be a looney.
Its in the pixels, can't you see it? and the lighting's all wrong!!! lol (sarcasm)
Well, someone could probably purchase the image from getty and zoom in with photoshop and see if they can find the manipulations, pixel descrepancies, light and shading differences with the various angles, etc.
I think it's clearly a fake.
this isn't photoshopped. get a life
As a news photographer, I think it's photoshopped - for Mickleson to appear that close to Tiger, it takes a longer lens - which would make the DOF narrower, which should make Mickleson more blurry - notice the even blurrier background. Why is Mickleson looking in a total other direction?
Phil Mickelson is standing a few feet behind Tiger Woods. It's an optical illusion: http://tinyurl.com/4yds8u
It's a real photo. I love how you so called experts think you know what you're talking about. So much for all your self respecting journalistic blather. Try actually looking at a picture before you copy and paste your imarealjournalistandwouldneverdothis.txt auto response into the comments.
hello all.
I am the lord jesus christ. I see that so many other prestigious people were hopping on this i thought i'd give my two cents. it's actually real. i was down for a few days to see the game (i'm a big fan). plus i'm omnipotent so i know what's what.
see you all next year!
P.S. i'm just gonna visit... not the apocalypse or anything...
Good Job! :)
i pee in the mouth of mexicans every day
It looks like a collage!
They may have been in the same area at similar times as the light falls on them both in a similar way.
But someone has cut them out to fit them closer together to make a collage of the two most important golfers in the tournament.
Tiger Woods is clear, sharp and possibly the focus of attention, Phil Mickelson is slightly blurry like he was originally peripheral to the shot with Tiger Woods front and centre.
Either that or Tiger Woods cheats with space and gravity defying golf clubs.
Did anyone see the picture of Ovechkin on the next page? Looks like they 'shopped out a trophy in his hands or something.
Well now I have seen it all.
That this is sooo obviously a montage (fake) and was accepted by Getty, Unbelievable.
We are talking about that on one of polish newsgroup. Here is my opinion: when I've selected a few characteristic points on both photos, and compare it together (on sample #3, ghost-points of photo 1 layed on pointed photo 2, yellow points aligned for scale) I think these are shoots taken from two different places, but Woods position doesn't match! What do You think about that? Here're samples: http://akapit.info/gc/1.jpg , http://akapit.info/gc/2.jpg , http://akapit.info/gc/3.jpg .
How the hell did this photo ever get on the blog? There's clearly no Photoshop, even if it does look a little bizarre at first sight.
The problem is photoshop is used so much now that people now suspect its deployment even when photos have actually been left alone.
honey, the bad photoshopping is the least of their problems. Talk about bad grammar... "The two will be pair together...???
very nice
Silly Tiger! You use your nine iron to do cranial surgery! The wedge is for appendectomies...
Getty images says that this is real and not photoshopped!!!
Quote from Getty: "Hi R, our team conducted a very close inspection of the image, their
notes are as follows:
There are no irregularities in the pixel patterns. Please see images
# 71675034 and 71675033 for sequential shots. What is seen is an
optical illusion due to the edge lighting on Phil's sleeve and its proximity
with Tiger's shirt...and the cooincidental flush angle-alignment of
both. If the photographer had moved a couple of inches to the right or
left, there would be a clear separation of the foreground and background.
Hmmmmmm....
Washington Post probably asked an intern to put this together, to save on cash.
the man with the bat actually stands in front of the other man. look closely and you see that no part of him is in front of the man with the bat
Man with the bat? You mean club! Welcome to the 21st century.
I think I just winced
What? I thought the most eye straining thing about the whole photo is Tigers shirt. It might look good in person but it stinks in pictures.
holly crap, I dont know shit about editing but xD anybody can do something better than that!
Wow, a lot of fuss over a real picture, well two real pictures blended together........
One of the most frustrating things about reading this site is whenever there's a real photograph with some effects (wide angle distortion and telephoto compression seem to be the most common) that these supposed "expert" Photoshop users doesn't understand, they yell "fake!". They point out some facts that they think are sure proof that the image is a fake like "the hand are bigger than the head" or "the perspective is all wrong", when those same facts just tell a person who know a bit about photography, what type of lens it was taken with. At lease we can take solace in the fact that if these "expert" photoshoppers decide to fake a photograph, it would probably be easy to spot by people who know photography because they will be creating what they think a photo should look like instead of what a lens and camera should produce.
Well at first, second, third,.....,twenty-first looks I had at this image I would have yelled, "fake! fake!" from the bell tower.
I agreed with a few of the arguments about how the swing sequence is out of whack and just looking at the DoF in the three images from that tee said NO WAY.
However, the answer is in the captions.
Image# 71675030, the picture in question has the image captioned as "takes a practice swing" while the image #71675033 is captioned, "Tiger Woods plays his tee shot."
Looking at the two images side by side now i can see that in the "fake" Tiger is actually much closer to Lefty, look at the fringe of the tee box in relation to Tiger's feet, as well, on the lower right of the frame you can see a tiny piece of dirt that is sharp in the "fake" but out in the other frame.
haha ké finte que c'est un fake!!
Beau paradoxe visuel, bel illusion ceci dit
c'mon guys, it's very fake, no optical illusions, no telephoto lens tricks, it's cut and paste, the physics teacher and that Steve and Chris guy are defending it but you can't deny th fact he's both infront and behind Tiger at the same time, no arguments can beat that. Two real photos, simply comped together poorly, it would have took the Washigton Post 2 seconds to correct that lebow, then it would have looked fine.
What do you mean?
>> but you can't deny th [sic] fact he's both infront [sic] and behind Tiger at the same time
Yes I can, because that's not a fact. It's your opinion. And my opinion is that the edge of Phil's sleeve and the edge of Tiger's torso are in just the right alignment as to create an illusion of contradictory depth. In reality, no part of Phil is in front of Tiger.
This is my opinion. Oh, and it's also the opinion of Getty Images -- the most respected name in commercial stock photography and an organization that would hardly hang their reputation on it if they weren't damned sure.
Actually, I'd call that last one "fact".
Post a Comment