Note the hand in the frame on the lower left. This is a better example of how hard it is to clone certain elements out of the photo. I tried to pay attention to detail, but it becomes obvious when you repeat a pattern from somewhere else in the photo over the part you want to clone out, particularly when there is not much background to choose from. I also took out my sweet granddaughter but just left the light color of her clothing and it looks like a jacket or backpack, perhaps.
As a follow up to my prior post I had given up on getting the geese as the focal point of my photo. I could have cropped it down, but the focus was too poor to be useful. I just removed my neighbors for the heck of it to show how photos can lie.
Errol Morris in his book that I am reading wrote: "It is an error engendered by photography and perpetuated by us. And it comes from a desire for "the ocular proof," a proof that turns out to be no proof at all. What we see is not independent of our beliefs. Photographs provide evidence, but no shortcut to reality. It is often said that seeing is believing. But we do not form our beliefs on the basis of what we see; rather, what we see is often determined by our beliefs. Believing is seeing, not the other way around."
And photos today are used to deceive politically; so definitely not seeing is believing. I saw one recently on FB where it supposedly was the daughter of our president and the exwife of a billionaire media mogul. It looked as though both were posed on the arm of the chair in which sat the leader of Russia. It was posted to prove how connected to Russia our new leader is. But the photo looked photo-shopped to me. Someone could have added the man's head or the women's but the photo itself is not anywhere else online. It doesn't have to be as on FB it's treated as though it's gospel. The sharer wanted it as it suited her agenda. I didn't bother to comment there as I've learned it does no good but your post here is a good warning. I love that Marx line-- who ya gonna trust? Me or your lyin' eyes. Well, these days maybe not either ;)
ReplyDeleteIn cloning, it is best to use a clone that is a little transparent and then go back and forth to other areas to make sure no little circles show up. With enough time, it can be done in such a way that it would be very difficult to discern unless someone had the original maybe to see it didn't quite fit.
Fortunately on FB I have a few friends who will call me out on a link that is not what is purports to be. We have learned to trace our links to the original source or to check the facts. My liberal friends hold my feet to the fire. My conservative friends ignore my political posts on FB.
DeleteWe see what we want to see sometimes. I agree.
ReplyDeleteI edited my own photos so much that I rarely trust others as "the whole truth!"
ReplyDeleteTo simplify' people see what they want to see.
ReplyDeleteIt's to the point where everything has to be verified independently.
ReplyDeleteThe widest filter in use is the one in our heads.
ReplyDeleteI think you did a great job with that photo. I wouldn't have guessed what the original was like from your work. :-)
ReplyDeleteI'm hearing an Eagles song in my brain.
ReplyDeleteI read that same comment recently (what we see is filtered through our beliefs) and I have to admit that I had to stop and think about it for a bit. It questions the adage, "What you see is what you get."
ReplyDeleteYou're gonna be in trouble for removing your granddaughter. Hope she doesn't see it.
ReplyDeletein other words...we create out own reality.
ReplyDeleteExpect none of us are beyond being deceived. Finding others who we can trust to do the best they can to present accurate information is what we have to seek this day and age. Guess it was always so, just seems to be a lot more complicated now.
ReplyDelete