AceOfSpades wrote:
After doing some research, this whole situation really confuses the crap out of me. The dude is a convict who has a record for trying to pimp a 14 year old girl and he was on parole. He was shot with a .380 and apparently the cops carry .40 cal's but are they also allowed to carry back up pistols that aren't standard issue? It is really strange that they didn't found his gun but he was shot with a .380. They found a .45 cal somewhere but they couldn't find the .380. Now that I know he was a convict, it isn't a stretch to imagine that they probably did have good reason to treat him as a threat. But still, the cops are being really sketchy. Witnesses taking his gun sounds really BS and it doesn't sound plausible at all that the dude shot himself and yet they can't find the .380. All they found was a .380 bullet in his jacket pocket.
btw they didn't say they found a .380 bullet through his neck into his head, but that the chief of police believes it went though his neck and into his head. The chief medical examiner said her office's preliminary autopsy suggests that he was killed by a .380 bullet. Nowhere does it say they found the bullet lodged in his neck and head or that they found it anywhere near where he killed himself. I can't tell if they're being sketchy or if this is just biased reporting.
Anyways Inuyasha I'm a photoshop noob and the most experience I've had with it was back in comm tech but there are some pretty obvious edits.
1. So? There's a blemish on his nose in the top photo and not in the AP photo.
2. It looks like they emphasized his cheek bones making him look even more menacing.
3. How do the light sources look like they come from different locations? His skin looks somewhat lighter in the top picture and that's about it.
As for how this picture is skewed:
1. Notice the noses
1. The blemish on the nose could be the result of an injury or just noticible due to the lighting changes.
2. It is rather hard to actually photoshop someone's face like that in a really short period of time. The more zoomed in the final photo is supposed to be, the harder it becomes. It is a lot easier to quickly photoshop edit a nonorganic object. Remember a photoshop picture is 2D, and would have been starting from a jpg or a bmp. They didn't have a digital model of the man where they could alter the face model while using the same texture.
My area isn't animation/gaming, but from my experience the kind of edits you are talking about would take even a photography professional a bit of time. Dealing with red eye, and flash glare is entirely different then actually distorting bits and pieces of the image.
3. If you look at the edges and the sides of the images you can see shadowing in the AP photo that is washed out in the top photo, this is why I'm suggesting the possibility the two photos were by different cameras. The fact shadows and shading seems washed out can be a combination of factors.
i. could be top photo was taken with a flash which would explain the shadows being washed out
ii. lighting conditions could have been different with added light sources for the top photo
iii. the camera for the top photo had a contrast issue. This would explain the washed out look and if they had used photoshop in that situation it would be to attempt to fix the photo (which would be difficult to do because all the inputs would have been messed up when the camera took the photo).
iv. It could be AP obtained a family photo of the man, and the top photo is a more recent photo.
The Skew effect, can be caused by multiple factors including camera tilt. There is a line in the AP photo that is not present in the top photo, which leads me to speculate the photos were taken at different times. It could be that he broke his nose sometime after the photo the AP obtained was actually taken.
Then we have to consider the Top photo is zoomed in, when trying to edit a photo you do not want to have it zoomed in like that because it makes the work stand out more. If you were editting a photo, you shouldn't be any more than 110% the scale of the original photo in the final version, or you start getting pixelation (it could be larger with some of the more modern cameras).
I'm not sure if there are programs out there that can do some of these edits automatically, but the fact the top picture is zoomed in like it is, leads me to believe it probably wasn't photoshopped. It looks more like it was taken by an amateur photographer whom had their digital camera setting set wrong.
22 Jul 2011, 4:54 pm
