[Closed] BBC and photoshop, can you spot it?

I don't see any photoshopping, the after picture is taken slightly closer though.

Yep, no photoshopping, the after picture is just taken closer or with longer lens (as his head has also increased in size unless that was the secret to gaining height!
Still actually increased in height though by one square which I guess is an 8cm square.

He has stretched the scale from handle upwards. IMO.
Keeping the doo handle nearly level was key to the optical illusion, I think.
It's no worse than some of the graphs I have just marked, just sneaky.
If he was on a conveyor belt, he would definitely be taller.

yep, I'm not seeing it?

Edit: Whoa didn't see those black lines the first time.

Still no photoshopping that I can see, you appear to have highlighted badly the grids are different?

ahem, look again.

look at the handle, look at his forarm

if any stretching was done it was done on the bottom half.

Also: if you are marking graphs... SURELY you'd count the squares and rationalise the whole picture against the data provided!

No photoshopping there. Just a poor level of photography consistency by the clinicians. Maybe just because, maybe to make the punter feel taller and differences more marked looking at his photos.

The photos have been taken by people of different height (or at least holding the camera at different heights), standing at a different distance from the object and possibly a different focal length. But not photoshop. Soz.

The photos have been taken by people of different height (or at least holding the camera a different heights), standing at a different distance from the object and possibly a different focal length. But not photoshop. Soz.

i did wonder if it had been taken on a tripod by him... new height new tripod level

His forearm should be higher (has anyone RTFM?) he has had his legs pinned and lengthened, not his torso. If his bottom half was not stretched, I would be asking for a refund.

The photos have been taken by people of different height

Pre- and post- op?

his forearms ARE higher? so are his fingertips, bracelet, shoulders, chin and the top of his head all consistantly so... almost as if someone had stretched his legs...

Am I looking at a different picture? Christ I hope you don't teach science.

He has stretched the scale from handle upwards. IMO.

He hasn’t. The photo has been taken a different spot and angle, regardless that wouldn’t be any photoshopping.

Stick to drawing boxes.

His forearm should be higher (has anyone RTFM?)

I think you need to see about some new glasses.

He is taller. His arm is higher

I know SFA about photoshop - or height-altering surgery

In both photos there seems to be a block of the same grid pattern, randomly on a funnily proportioned brown wooden frame beside the guy. Can't see why that pattern's there and also it seems to be slightly different in each shot (the bolder horizontal line is in a different place and the width of the first "column" seems different). I don't think those differences would be related to the placement of the tripod unless that's a weirdly shaped mirror and the reflection of another grid with much larger squares on it

In fact that whole brown "frame" is a bit weird - which wall is it on? The angle of its base seems wrong if the guy's standing right next to a corner of the wall

Whatever, the 2 images aren't directly comparable

In both photos there seems to be a block of the same grid pattern, randomly on a funnily proportioned brown wooden frame beside the guy.

That’s called a mirror an amazing invention but they might not catch on.

Doubt it's photoshop, just not photographed in the same manner, this surgery is well known and been in use for a long time, but is a horrific way of gaining a couple of inches, essentially having your legs broken and then settinga small gap which fills in during healing, then once healed they break it again and so on.

It is basically one of those cosmetic surgeries that realistically doesn't do that much, just gives confidence i guess.

Look at the position of the door hinges relative to the lines, there's no photoshop stretching involved

In fact that whole brown “frame” is a bit weird – which wall is it on? The angle of its base seems wrong if the guy’s standing right next to a corner of the wall

Oh god. Perspective!

The camera is at the level of the bottom of the mirror, it appears horizontal. The skirting appears at a different angle because its not at the camera height.

it's an arched frame with an angular mirror on it - OK, maybe

If it's on the wall that's perpendicular to the door it's reflecting what's on the door. Fine, there's a grid but I think there should be some vanishing point/perspective weirdness in the reflected grid and what's the bottom bit of it reflecting - where there's an angled cut-off of the grid? Or is the mirror some sort of rhombus?

But his head has definitely got bigger so whatever they have done to him that would be my concern and my head is on the large side already.

Fine, there’s a grid but I think there should be some vanishing point/perspective weirdness in the reflected grid and what’s the bottom bit of it reflecting – where there’s an angled cut-off of the grid?

You’re not going to get any noticeable vanishing point with such a small section. The angle cut is the shape of the mirror not the reflection. 🤦🏻‍♂️

The angle cut is the shape of the mirror not the reflection. 🤦🏻‍♂️

So the top of the mirror is geometrically angled whilst set on an arched frame - fine
... and the bottom of the mirror is also not parallel to the bottom of the frame. Also fine

Don't get me wrong - I don't care what the provenance of the picture is, I still can't see who'd have a mirror that ****ing stupidly shaped

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t care what the provenance of the picture is, I still can’t see who’d have a mirror that **** stupidly shaped

Someone who likes the style of the mirror?

"He has stretched the scale from handle upwards. IMO."

err, your black lines show that the scale on the before photo is "lower" above the handle, how would stretching the scale on the after photo make him taller? Would he not be shorter when compared to the scale?

On a side note. Why has no one imprived this photo in the thread.

@Jamie just one more pleaaaaaaaase!

Whatever the configuration of the mirror, it's a useful reference and is closer to the top on the RH image indicating a difference in cropping (along with the absence of the 6ft line)...

There's a combination of things going on there, camera positioned closer/higher to take advantage of the lens angle? images cropped slightly differently and then scaled together with the bottom aligned, the subject's posture (slouching a bit on the left, chest out stood tall, chin up on the right?), Clothing is longer and baggier on the left hides his frame/posture, closer fitting shorter T-Shirt and shorts in the RH image trick the eye into seeing him as taller too...

It's "image manipulation" but not actually photoshopped/stretched, he might really be an inch or so taller in the RH image, but you'd still need to ask yourself is having your legs broken and pinned, all the pain and potential complications, really worth an extra inch?

I have a fairly competent understanding of photography and photoshop.

I see some incompetence. They are amateurish photos taken at different times likely by different lenses/focal lengths and from different angles/distance from subject.

And/or

It’s no worse than some of the graphs I have just marked, just sneaky.

Or a combination of happy amateurish accident that has the bonus of making people look twice.

I just automatically compare the subject with the graph and work it out from there.

Don’t have the available evidence to make a judgment either way (or to assess. I could project/imagine all manner of stuff that would more easily be explained by Occam.

OTOH, what has the BBC to do with it? The photograph is clearly credited to a Dr Robert someone.

I like Sherlock Holmes.

Also standing with your legs apart and your legs together changes the measured height, not by much but still counts.

kerley
Free Member
But his head has definitely got bigger so whatever they have done to him that would be my concern and my head is on the large side already.

Head is the same size against the grid in both images, just the viewpoint changes the perception of how big his noggin looks.

I don’t think Kerley was being serious.

I asked some very important people and they said that the BBC is a red flag. And by red they mean a big red square. Which as you know is indicative of Marxism. Everybody knows this. So I asked some very high up people. Very high up. Good people. And they ran it by their people and they said this is more evidence, indeed overwhelming proofevidence ...

...of a clear Globalist agenda here. Sad. What they don’t want you to know is that we are onto them. Oh we are very much onto them. More onto them than you know or would believe. As you can see by the science evidence presented below, the green square is the real size of the squares of his head graph chart. The red square that they WANT to you to think is the SAME as the green square is obviously bigger. Very much bigger. Look again:

The red square is the red herring. It’s worth bearing in mind that Satan is also depicted as being red in many many pictures over many many historical epochs. The devil is in the details folks. Very very much in the details.
If we show them in red and green side by side then the obviousness becomes deafening. Obviously the BBC wouldn’t tell you this. They want to keep you deaf, dumb and blind to

IMHO..
In the right hand shot the photographer was slightly closer to the subject with the lens set wider. The effect gives the impression of a much greater difference in height gain when both images are displayed next to each other - that may or may not have been a deliberate act by the photographer.

In the right hand shot the photographer was slightly closer to the subject with the lens set wider.

That’s what Dr Bolshevik Broadcasting Communists wants you to think. Sneaky.

Luckily we’re onto them (see above). Some very good people have also noted that in fact the subject may have an unknown bigger twin brother. So if the bigger twin brother was to secretly stand in front of a bigger graph then the bigger graph will get blamed on photographic inconsistencies. They’re muddying the water but if you look at the evidence it all becomes very clear.

#RIPsatire

He has stretched the scale from handle upwards. IMO.

Agreed. But they want you to think it’s the effect of parallax error and object-camera proximity/lens-differences.

#freewaltersobchak

This article shocked me.

I've had limb reconstruction surgery on both tibias to correct a rotation issue (my feet were externally rotated by 45 degrees). I've had 3 mates send me that article today saying I should have asked for a limb extension while I was there!

The process involved 4 operations, 5 months of being unable to walk without crutches, and dozens of sleepless nights due to the pain. But in my case it was that or severe arthritis at an early age.

I'm frankly amazed anyone would voluntarily go down the process, and that's notwithstanding the cost. The excellent NHS surgeon said the metalwork was the best part of £10k alone!

Obviously chopped part of his forearms out to make his shoulders a neck bigger.

He hasn’t. The photo has been taken a different spot and angle, regardless that wouldn’t be any photoshopping.

Pretty much, different photos taken from different distance from the subject and probably with a different focal length, and photos cropped to a different percentage value will give this effect.
Absolutely loving p7eaven’s explanation; well done that man! 👏🏻🎩

Confusing. I don't see how the upper grid blocks can be longer than the lower ones on the 2nd photo.

It would make sense if they gradually increased in size as you go up, but they clearly don't.

Arms and head are longer in 2nd pic so camera is closer or zoom.

Even a crap camera lens isn't going to get things this badly wrong surely?

Pro photographer,

This is just different: angle, distance to subject from camera*, camera, focal length*, etc. Name as many as you like and pick a couple and you'll be bang on.

* these affect a LOT

Not 'photoshopped'. (Better word: altered)

enigmas

This article shocked me.

Yeah, this more than the "cheat" photos. The operations people put themselves through in the name of vanity (ok, mental health, he reckoned) is quite astounding.
Also...
As long as there's been cosmetic surgery there's been cheaty before and after photos to make the results look better than they are. That is a particularly good example - making 3 inches look like 8. (We've all done that though, eh fellas 😀 )

So the top of the mirror is geometrically angled whilst set on an arched frame – fine
… and the bottom of the mirror is also not parallel to the bottom of the frame. Also fine

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t care what the provenance of the picture is, I still can’t see who’d have a mirror that **** stupidly shaped

Luckily the Dr put his name on the picture - so you can google other pictures he's taken

its an odd bit of furniture on the wall with with either a mirror in it - or something like a leaflet holder with a clear front which reflects from the angle the photo is take from. You can see it at about 1.25 here too 

Hold on now he’s taller than graph that’s definitely photoshopped.

Where’s Wally? Is he having to remark the student’s papers?

^^ What globalists/Marxists don’t get is that things which don’t look funny to them actually stand out a MILE to everyone else.

Look again. See any inconsistencies? A simple look at normal head proportions throws up an anatomically inconsistent doozy here that only a demoncratic would ignore. So unless Dr BBC here actually stretched the top 2/3rds of the subject’s head via surgery then we are left with only two options:

1. Imposter/bot

or

2. The camera lens is calibrated by the fake media or photoshoppery (actually are same things) to distract from the demoncratic agenda

3) It’s simple lens distortion caused by the camera, they subject now standing closer to the door and the position of the camera.