Has the Indy sacked its snappers?

jon ryan

jon ryan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,845
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, I'm risking Green Wrath here by criticising a pic that hasn't been posted for crit, but this is on the website of a national broadsheet, and...well, really!

linky
 
It's subliminally telling us that Parliament is crooked.

(The photo credit is Getty Images btw)
 
Then Getty should be really, really ashamed of themselves.
 
That's quite a wide lens, shot from the edge of Westminster bridge? It seems quite distorted but I guess it was picked for the 'crooked' slant, or maybe the picture editor just through in any pic of parliament.
 
Nobody gives a fart about distortion, why should the papers.

Its horrific I know, but symptomatic.
 
I don't see what's wrong with putting that picture in a newspaper, i quite like it :cuckoo:
 
That's how it really looks, the government brain wash the population in to believing everything straight and level and honest about that building and the people who work inside, but a few of us are resisting and seeing the truth, you will still be thought of as mad if you go round telling people.:cuckoo:
 
I must be mad as well then
 
2j2urdl.jpg



2jbmn7k.jpg




ahhh, that's better:)
 
I originally couldn't see the problem with it. And was not going to face the humiliation of admitting that. However the above two images do show it well!

Anyone willing to advise how he changed that? Obviously something has been done in photoshop or lighroom but I don't know how.

I only ask as sometimes when I use my 10-22 it comes out a bit curved and basically looks a bit crap. Sorry if this is obvious.
 
There might be a distortion/perspective plug-in for PS, I dunno I don't use it.
If you shoot RAW with a Nikon, Nikon software has a distortion editor that reads the lens you used and corrects it for you.
There are a few free, stand alone programs that correct distortion.

Either way, its not ideal, shooting it without distortion in the first place is better but inconvenient, still....it does get you thinking about how that can be achieved and to question that which you take to be the norm..:)
 
Why does every shot of a building have to have straight verticals? Is there some kind of law saying it does? I like it...
 
Just to be clear, it's not distortion (where lines that should be straight appear bent) but perspective exaggeration from using a wide angle lens angled upwards, so if you are wanting to correct this in PS/Lightroom it's the vertical perspective adjustment that you'd be needing. Not that it needs correcting IMO - the effect seems quite deliberate on the part of the photographer.
 
I wasn't kidding about my "Parliament is crooked" comment up there - I'm sure that's why the photo editor chose this image, out of all the ones they could have chosen from Getty.

Lightroom 5's "auto" button for correcting this stuff is astonishing, by the way. I have no idea how it works, but it does.
 
The thread is about accuracy, in a newspaper story, its not about whether you like it or not.
Personally, I think its hideous, but your mileage may vary.

My point is that for a lot of peeps wonky buildings are pretty much all they see and as such they accept that that's the way things are.
I'm just pointing out that buildings don't look like that and if you want to be a little more accurate, some correction is required.

We are not critiquing a photo, we are critiquing the choice of photo for this particular application, I don't imagine it was shot for the story.
 
joxby said:
2j2urdl.jpg



2jbmn7k.jpg




ahhh, that's better:)
Click to expand...

Notwithstanding the dubious act of copying someone elses work, changing it in photoshop and posting here, not really sure if it's any better.

Oval shaped clock anyone?
 
jon ryan said:
OK, I'm risking Green Wrath here by criticising a pic that hasn't been posted for crit, but this is on the website of a national broadsheet, and...well, really!

linky
Click to expand...


supersammy said:
I originally couldn't see the problem with it. And was not going to face the humiliation of admitting that. However the above two images do show it well!

Anyone willing to advise how he changed that?
Click to expand...


Steve said:
Notwithstanding the dubious act of copying someone elses work, changing it in photoshop and posting here, not really sure if it's any better.

Oval shaped clock anyone?
Click to expand...


On topic constructive post anyone?
 
joxby said:
The thread is about accuracy, in a newspaper story, its not about whether you like it or not.
Personally, I think its hideous, but your mileage may vary.

My point is that for a lot of peeps wonky buildings are pretty much all they see and as such they accept that that's the way things are.
I'm just pointing out that buildings don't look like that and if you want to be a little more accurate, some correction is required.

We are not critiquing a photo, we are critiquing the choice of photo for this particular application, I don't imagine it was shot for the story.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that in the OP's post?

When i look at a building i dont see it being wonky, maybe i need me eyes tested!
 
joxby said:
The thread is about accuracy, in a newspaper story, its not about whether you like it or not.
Personally, I think its hideous, but your mileage may vary.

My point is that for a lot of peeps wonky buildings are pretty much all they see and as such they accept that that's the way things are.
I'm just pointing out that buildings don't look like that and if you want to be a little more accurate, some correction is required.

We are not critiquing a photo, we are critiquing the choice of photo for this particular application, I don't imagine it was shot for the story.
Click to expand...

An image to illustrate an article doesn't have to reproduce the real world in a literal, verbatim way. Publications would be very dull if they did, photographers would be reduced to the roll of photocopiers (though I suppose a lot of them pretty much are already), and cartoonists would be out of work over night.

It's an image to illustrate the theme of the article, I doubt it was shot specifically for this article, but I bet it was chosen specifically to illustrate it.
 
Jayst84 said:
An image to illustrate an article doesn't have to reproduce the real world in a literal, verbatim way. Publications would be very dull if they did, photographers would be reduced to the roll of photocopiers (though I suppose a lot of them pretty much are already), and cartoonists would be out of work over night.

It's an image to illustrate the theme of the article, I doubt it was shot specifically for this article, but I bet it was chosen specifically to illustrate it.
Click to expand...

I think i am with you on this one :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top