I agree......after what happened to that other photographer, the papers should be pretty careful about this kind of thing.
Why forge a photo when there is plenty of oppurtunity to get the real thing anyway?
Unless we are being lied to about a great number of things, but I can't imagine that would ever happen.
(Why forge a photo when there is plenty of oppurtunity to get the real thing anyway?
Unless we are being lied to about a great number of things, but I can't imagine that would ever happen.
Mystery_Bob,
Tue 8 Apr 2003, 7:00,
archived)
OK thenwhat about the depth of field? The hall seems to be in good focus and yet the foreground is sharp. Isn't that difficult / highly improbable to achieve?
(
Ratsta,
Tue 8 Apr 2003, 7:16,
archived)
Noit's not. A large depth of field keeps everything in focus. Especially if the photographer uses a telephoto lens.
(,
Tue 8 Apr 2003, 7:25,
archived)
wider lensgenerally means greater depth of field.
Byproduct of the aperture; longer lenses tend to have smaller apertures ('cos the lens would have to be very wide as well, which means heavy & expensive)
(Byproduct of the aperture; longer lenses tend to have smaller apertures ('cos the lens would have to be very wide as well, which means heavy & expensive)
Duncan Disorderly,
Tue 8 Apr 2003, 9:13,
archived)
I think you're rightI'm also wondering about his height/perspective. To me he looks like he'd have to be standing on a box or something.
(
HairyCanary as Ann B. Davis as Alice,
Tue 8 Apr 2003, 7:27,
archived)
I think......we would have to see the original to be sure. As others have said, the Jpeg compression can do funny things.
In the meantime, why don't we all have a look at the moon landing footage :)
(In the meantime, why don't we all have a look at the moon landing footage :)
Mystery_Bob,
Tue 8 Apr 2003, 7:35,
archived)
In the immortal words of Buzz Lightyear...
You're mocking me, aren't you?
(You're mocking me, aren't you?
Ratsta,
Tue 8 Apr 2003, 8:02,
archived)