Quote:
Originally Posted by Calboner Does anyone remember the verb "retouch"? It seems to me to make poor sense to use the verb "photoshop" when you are talking about the physical alteration of photographs rather than their alteration by computer processing. It is also anachronistic to speak of photoshopping being done before there was any such thing as Photoshop. The photos should be described as retouched, not photoshopped. Anyway, they look fake to me. |
I'm not scolding you on the term "photoshop" Calboner, I just used your quote as a launch for what I was going to say. The term photoshopping refers to the act of retouching, compositing, and color correction. I think the word that we are both looking for is
photo manipulation. Either way, you have a GOOD eye for spotting these as a fake.
The biggest problem I have with these pics is the fact that the light source in the room is fairly ambient and not directional at all. the photographer was standing directly in front of the boy and his flash should have illuminated his penis evenly because the photographer is standing in
front of the subject. The shadows on his penis are all on the left side which would imply that there is a strong light source coming from the right hand side of the room and that the rest of his body and face should be illuminated the same way. They are not, there is a strong black shadow running along the entire length of the penis on the left hand side and there is no light source in the room that would have provided that shadow. There is also some aliasing and quantization distortion artifacts on the base and sides of his penis, which imply that there has been photo manipulation done on the pics. I have included some blow-ups and have drawn arrows where the offending photo manipulation tactics where employed.
Again, this lad has the skeletal frame of a 15 year old boy, if not younger. His ribcage has not matured yet... not only is his penis fake, but the boy is DEFINITELY under 18.