Ladies~
OK here it is....
Let me preface the following by saying that after this post I am retiring forever from photo sleuthing so I assure you won't have to read any more comments from me about it ever again: so this may seem rather detailed:
This afternoon my photographer Matt ran the famous Josh shirtless photo in question through Advanced Adobe Photoshop on his 48 inch monitor. Here are the results. There were 5 of us in the room at the time all watching the same thing. I'll explain later why I decided not to bring my camera and film it:
1) Each photo (remember there are two different shirtless poses) is NOT one single photo, but two photos that have been overlaid in photoshop.
2) In each of the two poses Josh's head was definitely inserted from a different image. The woman, the balcony and the torso and the sky are all from one single image. The head in close magnification clearly shows different halo lines around the skin than the halo lines around the arms shoulders and torso. (skin in close pixilation level has a unique 'halo' effect from one photograph to the next kind of like a fingerprint). The skin showing through his glasses is clearly different than the skin on the rest of the arm, and those should be an exact match if they were the same photo but they're not.
3) In the photo where Josh has his hand on his head there are clearly smudgy shadows in front of his nose and mouth indicating that whatever head was in the original photo was more forward and had to be erased. On close up it was a terrible erase job you could clearly see gray shadows where it should have been solid white background.
4) The back of Josh's neckline clearly shows a very bad editing job with pixels bleeding into the window behind him. That would never happen if it was all one photograph, the pixels from neck to window would be clearly defined.
This all took about 30 minutes today and there were several other points in the discussion but I think I covered enough highlights above. The reason I decided not to film our findings is that a post came across this forum this morning that Josh had tweeted it was a real photo. I don't in any way want to get crosswise with JG or his team. Which is why I'm retiring from photo sleuthing after this post. Josh's brother Chris is quite more capable of finding and scrubbing fake photos from the web.
So here are my conclusions of some possibilities:
1) Photos of Josh were taken in quick succession and for whatever reason the photographer decided to use the head from one Josh photo on a second photo from the same photo sequence. This is the theory I would most like to believe and if this one is true I would ask whoever did it in the future please clean up your editing. This would also confirm Josh's tweet that the photo was 'real'.
2) Josh spent time with this woman for real so the head insertion made it a 'real' scenario even if the exact moment never really happened and the torso may have been someone else's. But I don't think Josh would do something like that and say it was real.
3) The photo was faked to make Josh look bad with a heavier torso, as was already pointed out in this forum. It's possible Josh said it was a real photo to save a big controversy esp if he was seeing this woman anyway. But I don't like to believe our Josh would do that.
So my final conclusion is that I would like to believe point #1 above about the shirtless photo. The lesson here is now you can NEVER believe still photos on the web any more.
Feel free to post your own findings below in comments as I'm sure there are some things I missed....
| ROMANTIC LOVE THERAPY FEATURED ARTICLES BY uZiSuZi ENDORSEMENTS uZiSuZi TWITTER FEATURED LINKS |
No comments:
Post a Comment