Holographic planes vs the real thing?

samncheese · 11-07-2008, 11:54 PM

Sorry, it looks like an old person standing on old stubby legs to me, shadows and all. I didn't claim to have any answers, in fact I claimed to not have enouph. You can print this picture everywhere it still does not address the issue, it does point out that something is wrong. Which I think was my point from the beginning. Do I think the answer lies in the fussy end of some womans leg? well that will have to be argued by someone a whole lot smarter than I.

You claim to see it, ok. What sort of camera was used?
What lens?
What light setting?
What film/ digital/chemical?

I do know a little about photography and what you call photo shop mistakes can be reproduced by many tricks of light/ angle of veiw/ and combinations there in. Without the original pic in hand for study you are standing on a limb that all you can do is point to and say " this looks wrong to me, what do all of you think?"

Where is the original? Can it be found for comparison? yes some times I am stubborn on insiting that real hard evidence be found.

I will tell you what else bothers me about that pic, the person who took it made sure he owns it " Charles Marsh" If that pic has been doctored then it leads straight back to him. Who is he and does he stand by the photo here on the net?

11-07-2008, 11:54 PM	#10
samncheese Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Puyallup, Washington state Posts: 138	Re: Holographic planes vs the real thing? Sorry, it looks like an old person standing on old stubby legs to me, shadows and all. I didn't claim to have any answers, in fact I claimed to not have enouph. You can print this picture everywhere it still does not address the issue, it does point out that something is wrong. Which I think was my point from the beginning. Do I think the answer lies in the fussy end of some womans leg? well that will have to be argued by someone a whole lot smarter than I. You claim to see it, ok. What sort of camera was used? What lens? What light setting? What film/ digital/chemical? I do know a little about photography and what you call photo shop mistakes can be reproduced by many tricks of light/ angle of veiw/ and combinations there in. Without the original pic in hand for study you are standing on a limb that all you can do is point to and say " this looks wrong to me, what do all of you think?" Where is the original? Can it be found for comparison? yes some times I am stubborn on insiting that real hard evidence be found. I will tell you what else bothers me about that pic, the person who took it made sure he owns it " Charles Marsh" If that pic has been doctored then it leads straight back to him. Who is he and does he stand by the photo here on the net? Last edited by samncheese; 11-08-2008 at 12:00 AM.