Raiffeisen: Golden Gate Enigma

golden gate

Magical Mystery Tours present the “Golden Gate Special”; includes the famous “Moving Bridge Conundrum”.

Thanks NightStallion. The original can be found in the current issue of Profil magazine. If you can’t see the PSD, please check out our red image gallery.

There’s an app for that. By Commie
My girlfriend can… *damned! Got no girlfriend!*  By Martin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • Commie

    There’s an app for that.

    • http://www.www.psdisasters.com Vernon

      Very funny! I cracked up when i read this.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001145933914 Martin Grüning

    My girlfriend can… *damned! Got no girlfriend!*

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=619586555 Leif Beaver


  • Nico

    They took the photo from another angle and then just turned the phone?

  • Amy

    Actually…Although its isn’t done very well, the perspective from the camera they are holding would be different from the perspective of the “photo” of the people taking the picture. Whether it was intentional or nor, the difference between the two at least suggests the two different angles. If the ad photo was identical to the camera display, then it would have been a worse PsD.

    • http://www.facebook.com/naich Naich Roolz

      The perspective is done the wrong way round – the tower should move to the right from the camera POV but it moves to the left.  Then again, the whole picture has been munged together and just looks shit in general, so it doesn’t really stand out as a PSD.

  • http://www.facebook.com/SonyFoLife Michael Arnold

    Th- There’s no PsD here
    that’s actually done really well
    if you look at it thats actually right about the correct view for that camera angle

    • http://profiles.google.com/ltpowers99 J. Isaac Powers

      WHAT?   No.  Please learn about parallax and what happens when you move a camera to the right.

      • Anne Shirley

        If you move the camera to the right, then through parallax the people will move to the left while the bridge remains where it is.  So the bridge tower will be farther to the right relative to the people.  So you’re wrong.  Try it with two hands in front of you, one farther than the other.

        Besides, they’ve also rotated the camera a bit, so the bridge tower will be even further to the right, possibly even off screen.

    • Jshook

      No, it’s wrong. From the viewpoint of the camera as we see it relative to the couple, the bridge tower behind them should be farther to the right, not the left.

  • Johan

    Even though it is obviously Photoshopped, it’s not a PSD. The person who made this knows more about perspective and viewing angles than ‘NightStallion’ who reported this as a PSD…

  • Spillage66

    The bridge tower would be either poking up from the middle of the bloke’s head, or slightly to the (our) right of it. It is a mistake. Think about it.

  • S.

    Remember when this site actually has PsDs?

    • Guest


  • Edward

    Im only confused as to why they didnt just use the front camera on the iphone which would let them see exactly what they are doing.

    • Jshook

      Because then we couldn’t see it, and it would be only a virtual PSD.

  • Dave

    The real error here is not really a Photoshop one, but a perspective one. The creator known about it, cared to not make a mistake but didn’t succeed. Not that much of an error, seen worse.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Leandro-Fiori/100000595992168 Leandro Fiori

      The curius thing is that, while this is not a psd and a perspective one, the art director DID correct the perspective, just to the wrong side, since the Actual perspective would hid the brige columm.

  • Jshook

    Also notice that the man’s neckline is different – there’s more of his plain grey shirt showing in “reality” than through the camera’s display, the woman’s head seems to be at a slightly different angle and other discrepancies.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YLREO5SQDTMCWXE62YE5AVTGNI Bird

      I don’t see the difference in his neckline. However, I thought the picture in the camera should be of them full-faced since they are looking directly at it, not from an angle as in the picture of them taking a picture.

  • Leprechaun

    His shirt — two buttons done up on the iphone, 1 open, 1 closed in reality.

    • Ty

      The second closed button is behind the text box, under ‘ist’.

  • Ambrose Carracho

    Whether or not this truly is a Photoshop disaster–and it most emphatically is not–there is neither merit nor utility in pondering problems premised upon position, parallax and personal points of view.

    The only pertinent perplexity posed .. okay, that’s enough of that .. the image the display didn’t pass through the lens of an iPhone (of any generation).

    Go to the Marin Headlands and see for yourself: An iPhone’s focal length will not permit the represented depth of field and field of view. And, no, there’s not an app for that.

    Well, there are some for depth of field, but I’m going to ignore them because they weaken my argument.

    • Gowssian Blerr

      Ah, but this is a German iPhone… viel besser! Might also explain lack of shutter/flash controls in the preview.

  • Martin

    Everything is wrong with that picture.

  • Ironsjon

    Aagh. It’s so horrible in all ways. I’ve walked passed the poster many times recently in Vienna and grumbled. You can argue about which bits are wrong, but it’s still just yucky.

    But hey, hey, they’ve got an iPhone in their ad. Now that’s a bank!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_VJK744EVW4MC22OFEKB7LUIOZI paul

    looks like the photo angles were taken correctly but then switched.  imho if they had the back image on the phone, and the phone image on the background, it would have worked.  would have still been an overused generic theme though, but likely correct.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sagebrushfire Leon Cooper

    This is pretty minor compared to some of the disaster’s we see. Maybe there should be a sister site called “Slightly Noticeable Photoshop Mistakes (That only slightly detriment the effectiveness of the ad)” or something.

    The bridge position is a pretty moot point though. From that close I’d imagine you;d see much less of the background anyway. Why even insert the image? It’s not like anyone would believe you could actually see the screen that well in broad daylight. It’s a lame ad all around, but probably not a “disaster”.