unforum

[Euchre]

As is so often the case with humans, we tend to dig too deep into details whilst losing the bigger, often more simplistic and accurate picture. In this case the picture is literal of course...

The edges of Lil in the image are not too incredibly jagged when examined closely, but that's not a guarantee that it's not a composite. The image I'm hoping to post somehow would bear that out. By using feathering of the pixels, the piece laid in doesn't need to have sharp edges. When such an effort is taken to blend things, the next place to look for clues of an object being in the original setting is to draw yourself back to a grander perspective and look at the thing most often incorrect in such forgeries:
Lighting

Look at Lil's face and coat. She's being illuminated from the front, quite strongly. Behind her we see a fairly overcast day, but still plenty bright and with the apparent lumination source behind her or to her right. As bright as that background is, having such a strong contrasting illumination of Lil's front means either a VERY strong (professional grade) flash, or a seperate light. The bridge wall behind her shows very little artifact of any such strong lighting, and isn't necessarily that well matched to the lighting of the background. This all points to a very peculiar lighting profile, or a composite image. What casual tourist carries a super strong pro-grade flash or sets up a stand light to take a quick picture like that?

[Hurley]

[brettoniasam]

I'd almost point to Jamie's background in professional photography, but it's *Beth McIntyre* who clearly states in the comment that it was SHE who took the photo of Lil. So I doubt Beth would have a pro's camera.

And about the suspension bridge --- rather than Alaska or Sandefjord, then, I'll refer back to Toronto (Lil's hometown)....anybody know if there's any place in Toronto that looks like that?

[Euchre]

And finally, I get to show you...

[Melampus]

I posted a similar thing on the myspace thread, but it's much more 'on point' here...

Someone way back when identified that bridge as being in an Asian city, but I can't remember the details, and I can't find the post. Anyone?

Also, Since the photo has clearly been doctored, doesn't that mean this is most decidedly related to a puzzle? Why else would they both screwing with a picture?

EDIT: Great example of photo-doctoring, Euchre.

EDIT: I read your comment on the myspace post, Euchre - my point is: if the pictures are just myspace 'scenery' then it doesn't matter AT ALL what they contain. There's no reason in the world to edit them - as long as they are pictures of the myspace characters (i.e., the actors), then who cares where the pics are taken? I just can't imagine why they'd go to the trouble. Even if it's no real 'trouble' ... still, why bother?

[Hurley]

Guys,
Is it at all possible that there are other doctored photos in other sets, and some of the scenes were actually right to begin with. But they have taken the correct person from one scene, and superimposed them in another. Sort of like those old kid's korner things, find the difference in the pictures, and you find the clues.

[MrToasty]

[Euchre]

[Melampus]

Many thanks, Mr. Toasty. So, here's what was posted (it was a "Guest", so...?):

[MrToasty]

Let me see if I can pose some possible explanations for the anomalies being seen in this image. Again, these are just my opinions/observations, so take 'em or leave 'em. I'm no expert, but I've screwed up my share of pictures with a point-and-shoot.

FLASH
First, yes I would say a flash was used in this picture given the lighting on her. Although the ambient light would appear to have been sufficient, nothing says the flash was set to AUTO. Leave the flash set to ON, screw up the exposure settings, and/or take the picture too close to the subject and you can easily get the bright overexposure of her face we see here. Another effect you get when using a flash and no fill is that people begin to look rather flat.

LILY vs. BACKGROUND
Lily does seem to pop out from the background due to the difference in lighting. If this picture were taken at night, no one would question it. The reason this looks odd and that there is the difference is that while Lily in the foreground is lit by the flash, everything in the background is sufficiently far away that the flash has NO effect on their lighting.

LILY vs RAILING
Lily's face is a smooth round surface that is most likely at least a little oily. Round shiny things have coherent specular reflections - here it is her cheeks and forehead and they reflect the light back at the camera. The railing on the other hand appears to be relatively flat and made of say concrete or rough granite. It is not smooth, more like the texture of sandpaper. It does not exhibit specular highlights, but rather acts as a light diffuser. Light hits the surface and scatters in all directions. Add to that the fact that even if the surface was reflective, you would not see a hot spot reflected from the flash unless the surface was perpendicular to the viewing angle of the camera.

SHADOWS
One thing that hasn't been mentioned but I think is another reason this looks odd is the lack of shadows. If she were casting a shadow on the bridge it would probably look less unusual. But, it is very overcast so there are few or no shadows. Any shadow she may have been casting would have been faint and blown away by the flash. Shadows cast by the flash itself are behind the subject.

SO?
I could go on, but this is already more than I care to write. Does it look odd. Sure. Could I be wrong. Absolutely! Does it matter? I don't think so. I'm of the opinion that any pictures that don't have at least two of the cast in them were merely supplied by the actors themselves to help fill out the MySpace pages. It would look a bit odd if all of their pictures included other cast. It's also easier and cheaper to have them supply random pictures of themselves than take new ones. Different locales and seasons in the images helps as well. Could these still be clues? Anything's possible.

[Finch]

My 2 cents

If you zoom in around the fur on her hood you notice the hairs fade to lighter, very fine fibers. I don't see any obvious "cuts" on any of them. It is ungodly difficult to isolate a lighter, whispier fiber like that in a picture. Personaly I wouldn't want to touch it without a high contrasting back drop but then I think we'd be dealing with a much higher resolution photo if that were the case.

The fibers become a barely visible blur. Personaly if I were the one photoshoping this I'd have to create an inner shadow on the fibers to negate any halo-ing effect caused by whatever background/backdrop was used but this would make the fibers to be more pronounced especially near their tips. Which is not the case in this photo.

So either we are looking at one hell of a photoshop job or this thing isn't altered.

My third cent- I don't think it matters either way.

[FTTM]

Surely a film company that's capable of producing the trailer with 'wobbly-cam' cgi matting all over the place with no obvious artifacts or matt lines probably has something a bit more sophisticated than Photoshop...

[Finch]

[brettoniasam]

TY, Mr. Toasty, for digging up the post about Budapest -- spot on! Looking at other photos of Budapest online, it's *definitely* where Lil and Beth visited.

(Strange that the info was supplied by a one-timer "Guest" -- either a particularly helpful Hungarian, or maybe a PM who knew there wasn't a chance in hell we'd figure out that location...? )

Anyway...as to whether or not the pics are significant: my own feeling is that any picture that has IG comments from the Slusho 7 is being referenced purposefully -- i.e., the comments are flags from the PMs saying "LOOK HERE! ANOTHER CLUE!" I don't see any other reason to include Slusho 7 comments other than character development -- and how could "Lil and Beth visited Budapest last winter" be classified as character development?

So yeah...I think there's something in the pic that's important. I'm just not exactly sure WHAT, yet.

[Euchre]

I see that the picture is indeed in Budapest. Her location on the bridge is apparently right on the bridge's tower, where there are masonry rails (the rest are metal). I also notice the slight turbulence in the water that confirms this.

As to her lighting, you'll notice the 'shine' off her hair and even her coat. Those are rougher surfaces. Whatever flash they used, it's VERY bright in contrast to her surroundings.

Selecting her out of another image with that furry hood is not so hard as it may seem - as evidenced by my own quick edit job above. If you look around her hood you'll see the fur part is fairly soft blend with the background. This is a matter of using feathering when selecting what you copy from another image, which yields translucent (partially transparent) pixels. Those allow the background to come through in a way that makes it look natural. I used the 'magic wand' selection tool, and worked only a little with the tolerance to get the selection around the furry hood right.

As to the question of the quality of software and Photoshop being in question, I use Photoshop 6 (yes, that's a bit older) and Photoshop Elements 2.0. Something most people don't know is that Photoshop Elements uses the exact same rendering engine as it's full Photoshop concurrent version, the tools and interface are just simplified. Photoshop products are basically the benchmarks in image editing software, and indeed the professional world uses this as one of it's best tools. The user's skills determine the quality of results, the software is up to the job.

I think the image could be a single image, but it's peculiarities make it just as likely to be a graft. I don't think it makes a grand clue either way, but quite the odd curiousity. Wonder what is so exciting for Lil and Beth in Budapest, Hungary? Did they go for the goulash?