which of these two is fake, which is real?
which of these two whats?
works here. you need a better interweb.
tried opening your eyelids? that did the trick for me.
Posted by
Sul_DUPE1, around 20th January 2006:
I get that quite often with Saltis posts (might not just be his but he posts images more often than the rest of us so Ive only noticed), thought it was just me. Have to go to source and cut and paste the images in one by one and then they magically appear. Strange.
Firefox 1.5, happens on an earlier version also. If anyone cares.
Its a tough call: Rome - real, Hoover Dam? - fake. Though they both look like models. Rome seems a little more detailed.
Posted by
Brock, around 20th January 2006:
no worky for me.
You aussie fuckwad.
Posted by
ellipse, around 20th January 2006:
seriously salty we see nothing
*i* see 'em
mac, osx, netscape. what's YOUR problem?
eh. Didn't work here either and I have very good web access..
A little help please?
errr... dunno. i just copied in their locations.
i note tho, that they are blogger.com images -- perhaps blogger's restricting leeching?
if you can't see them, suggest you rightclick/controlclick on them and choose OpenInNewTab or -Window. that should force loading them.
then come back here and compare&contrast
added to quiz: fake or real?
Posted by
Sul_DUPE1, around 21st January 2006:
heh - same problem
What happens if I post it?
Posted by
Sul_DUPE1, around 21st January 2006:
Hmm. Fake. Ive seen Pushing Tin. Unless thats whats happened to that mans speedos. Sandblasted away.
Posted by
Sul_DUPE1, around 21st January 2006:
Although I think Ive seen this on snopes.
Edit: Cant find it.
Posted by
Brock, around 21st January 2006:
I can't even see anything to right click.
Same here. There isn't even a tiny box to click in.
I see two little red crosses.
Posted by
Brock, around 21st January 2006:
I see the two red crosses if I use IE (and painful it was), but they aren't clickable links, and I can't get any info from them.
Posted by
Brock, around 21st January 2006:
The only way I could get them was to view the page source, like Sul. I could nick the links then and copy/paste them into a browser. Fuck all there otehrwise, though.
Fake. Both of them.
oo, they've both gone now
they WERE:
photos1.blogger.com/blogger...
photos1.blogger.com/blogger...
and then:
rinonapo.atspace.com/images...
EDIT: grr, all gone.
here we go. now i just have to remember where i found the 3rd one...
EDIT2: there ya go:
Posted by
Brock, around 21st January 2006:
That second one had a dam in it last time. You changed teh pic.
Bastardos! You cheateth! or something.
whoops, it did too. sorry, wrong one.
&^%$$&(^!&
all better now.
dude! it's like i totally... CHANGED TIME!
here's another one to puzzle over, by way of recompense for the accidental loss of your valuable surfing time:
Posted by
WarHead, around 21st January 2006:
WGASA!
Posted by
Brock, around 22nd January 2006:
I guessed on the photostream. I think they are all (except the plane) fake. I suspect there is a great big Model World somewhere.
Posted by
Sul_DUPE1, around 22nd January 2006:
If you made a giant model world would you make it a globe or flat?
Posted by
WarHead, around 22nd January 2006:
Yes.
Posted by
Brock, around 22nd January 2006:
Sul: Depends how big it was. If space was no object, it would be really cool to make a glode and have one of those things that they fix streetlights with (are they called Cherry pickers?) to zoom around and poke things.
Of course, there is no way that I could be arsed to make something that big in any sort of detail, and why bother anyway when you have Google Earth to look at?
"a glode" wasn't one of the options.
Posted by
Grim..., around 25th January 2006:
All the photos are real, they've just been shopped to hell.
ANSWER:
all real
all unphotoshopped
the plane photo is taken on the "lowest approach in the world" -- i saw a better pic but this one's light looked a bit dodgier so thought it might trick people into assuming photoshopping
the building photos are real and taken from helicopter using something called a tilt-shift lens.
this one's from the ground, in shanghai:
the chap doing them is Olivo Barbieri:
www.artnet.com/artwork/1506...
www.metropolismag.com/cda/s...
It's often hard to convince people that Olivo Barbieri's aerial photographs are real. They look uncannily like hyperdetailed models, absent the imperfections of reality. Streets are strangely clean, trees look plastic, and odd distortions of scale create the opposite effect of what we expect from aerial photography--a complete overview, like military surveillance. "I was a little bit tired of the idea of photography allowing you to see everything," Barbieri says. ...He achieves the distinctive look by photographing from a helicopter using a tilt-shift lens
Posted by
WarHead, around 26th January 2006:
I take it all back.
Posted by
Grim..., around 26th January 2006:
bldgblog.blogspot.com/2006/...
Damnit, I should read more carefully - I have no idea where I got 'photoshop' from from that article...
I thought they were fake models mainly because they look so shit.