An immaculate, perfectly safe electrical installation...

[tony sayer]

You must have an amazing camera den!...

[dennis]

You must have a cr@p one, try putting it on auto if its too difficult for you.

[tony sayer]

So you can change the way light behaves then Den .. amazing;!...

[tony sayer]

I have to admit there is an oddity in the other pix the 4th (Blue) wire from the right on the lower connection frame that goes past mateys head, it seems to fade out or disappear just as it comes down.

Can the OP give us a better version of that bit for the jury to decide real or touched up;?..

[Tim+]

Can anyone give a plausible explanation of *why* anyone would bother to photoshop a sight that is probably all too common in India?

Tim

[dennis]

Go on then explain what you mean.

[dennis]

Because they wanted to pretend they had been to India and taken the picture?

Because they took a picture and decided to make it better?

Because they are learning photoshop?

How many plausible reasons do you want?

[tony sayer]

You can see such small angles of view in such high contrast lighting conditions...

Look up in a bright sky in the summer and see if you can easily resolve phone lines whilst focussing on something a bit nearer...

[tony sayer]

No not really but that does on reflection seem odd to behave just like that;!..

[dennis]

We are talking about cameras, what I can see is irrelevant.

In what mode should I set the camera? Auto, manual, hdr, raw or jpeg, which sensor/camera, what focal length, what aperture, to get the wires to behave as they do?

Just what mechanism do you propose to cause a wire to fade away when photographed against a more or less constant brightness background over a distance of a few feet?

How about the odd exposure of the different parts of the building, just what settings achieve that or are we using graduated filters?

[polygonum]

On 04/12/2012 09:49, Tim+ wrote:

No. Not a convincing one.

The site

says this about it:

Image Edited? Probably

electrical-safety.jpg

Photo has been resized since it was created.

Pixels only match software editors

image created 2005:07:10 09:59:08 Test another image | Show Exif information | Send Us Feedback Possible Image Sources

Based on the pixels, this image could have been created with:

software: Apple ImageIO.framework at quality level: 050 (Normal)

software: IJG Library at quality level: 080

software: GIMP at quality level: 080

software: IrfanView at quality level: 080

software: idImager at quality level: 080

software: FastStone Image Viewer at quality level: 080

software: NeatImage at quality level: 080

software: Paint.NET at quality level: 080

software: Photomatix at quality level: 080

software: XnView at quality level: 080 Raw Image Metadata (exif) File Size 137 kB File Type JPEG MIME Type image/jpeg JFIF Version 1.1 Exif Byte Order Big-endian (Motorola, MM) Make RICOH Camera Model Name Caplio R1 Orientation Horizontal (normal) X Resolution 72 Y Resolution 72 Resolution Unit inches Modify Date 2005:07:10 09:59:08 Y Cb Cr Positioning Co-sited Copyright (C) Caplio R1 User Exposure Time 1/176 F Number 3.3 Exposure Program Program AE ISO 100 Exif Version 0221 Date/Time Original 2005:07:10 09:59:08 Create Date 2005:07:10 09:59:08 Components Configuration YCbCr Compressed Bits Per Pixel 2 Aperture Value 3.5 Brightness Value 6.1 Exposure Compensation 0 Max Aperture Value 3.1 Metering Mode Multi-segment Light Source Unknown Flash Off Focal Length 4.6 mm Maker Note Type Rdc Maker Note Version Rev0107 Ricoh Image Width 1280 Ricoh Image Height 960 Ricoh Date 2005:07:10 09:59:08 Preview Image Start 1321 Preview Image Length 17317 Flash Mode Off Macro Off White Balance Auto ISO Setting Auto Ricoh Date Time 1 2004:11:27 Ricoh Date Time 2 2004:08:05 Flashpix Version 0100 Color Space sRGB Exif Image Width 960 Exif Image Height 1280 Interoperability Index R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB) Interoperability Version 0100 Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Compression JPEG (old-style) Thumbnail Offset 19279 Thumbnail Length 5183 Image Width 600 Image Height 800 Encoding Process Baseline DCT, Huffman coding Bits Per Sample 8 Color Components 3 Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2) Aperture 3.3 Image Size 600x800 Preview Image (Binary data 17317 bytes, use -b option to extract) Shutter Speed 1/176 Light Value 10.9

Make of that what you will.

[whisky-dave]

well if you want to get the best of the worse, then yes that's worth faking. people fake picures all the time for various reasons, even those that aren;t looking to make money from it.

[John Williamson]

In the case of this picture, jpeg. Hell, you can get a very similar effect with the naked eye if your glasses aren't pristine.

A combination of local over-exposure, and jpeg compression. I'm pretty sure that on the original camera file, they're visible. There are traces of the wires in the picture posted. By adjusting the contrast in the sky area in the picture, the wires can be seen to continue along the lines they follow in the easily visible part of their trajectory, although fine detail is seriously lacking due to the amount of jpeg compression that has been applied atleast twice. Once in camera, and once when re-saving the file after it has had its resolution reduced.

Someone's adjusted the picture to show more shadow detail by increasing the brightness. I do it on a lot of stuff that I print and post, but not always so drastically. In this case, the adjustment has caused a lot of the detail in the sky area to burn out. This can be reversed to give a more natural picture at the cost of losing some easily visible shadow detail.

I'm sure if you tried, you could do the same within a few seconds of opening the file in, say, the GIMP.

I'd say there has been no material alteration to the picture, just some badly judged adjustments to the brightness.

[Jules Richardson]

An entry on one of the numerous websites which hold photoshop competitions would be my guess, themed along the lines of "dangerous electrical" or somesuch.

[John Rumm]

Agreed, and possibly even not much adjustment...

Given its an old camera, and the EXIF indicates the file was direct from the camera, I would expect the combination of mid range optics optics, lack of sensor resolution, and most importantly, lack of dynamic range in the sensor, would easily account for the loss of detail. In these cases it is also quite common to lose more detail on one axis than the other - say fading vertical lines more than horizontal (or vice versa)

By way of example, take this shot that I took of a model ship some years back (image straight from a camera):

observe the result of over exposing the background (there was a slave flash unit bouncing off the rear wall with too much power). You get the same fading and loss of detail - "burning out" fine detail in the same way:

is caused by the lightening of the fringes of the wires (or rigging in this case) such that when the camera tries to anti-alias them, the lighter shades are pushed out of the available dynamic range of the RGB colour space, and in effect are simply lost in the "sky"

[John Rumm]

A reverse image search in TinEye does not find any other examples of it:

[Jules Richardson]

One of the images gave me a comment in Portuguese to say to check flickr for similar images, and there is indeed a copy of it on there which is tagged as Udaipur:

although it only seems to exist via the URL, and isn't visible when viewing the user's photos, despite the privacy being set to "visible to all". I'm not a flickr user, so I have no idea why that would be the case.

Unfortunately Udaipur is a big place, and there's just not enough detail in the photo to pull out useful clues to give a more precise location.

cheers

Jules

[philipuk]

This one is nice and safe too:

[dennis]

Must be some super camera as at no point did any of the overhead lines disappear into the sky background. 8-)

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

Any would do. How many have you got, apart from total mince?