**Football 5th-9th Mar 2010/2011
- Thread starter Greenlizard0
- Start date
Well, for one side there are no positives
Ah, is that the reason for the focus on a different matter?
No but seriously , it was an exciting match, even for utd fans I'd wager,it at least lived up to the hype better than if both teams had been cagey and it had been 0-0, that's a positive right there, for whichever side you're on.
well you spotted it and you've displayed a disturbing lack of knowledge regarding photography techniques so it can't have been that deeply or maliciously hidden can it? You're not actually arguing any consistent point here. It's been 'shopped ok it's not been shopped but it's been zoomed and that makes it look bigger than it did from 20 feet away. ah but they've only zoomed one bit, that bit wasn't shown on sky so it shows how it was shopped. it was carrick. Seems to be your gist.
The injury happened, it was nasty. You initially claimed that the photo was faked, now you're happy to admit that it was just a close up. Point done.
The injury happened, it was nasty. You initially claimed that the photo was faked, now you're happy to admit that it was just a close up. Point done.
To be honest, at the start I would have taken a 0-0 too.
Isn't enhancing 1 part of a picture not a form of photoshopping Dan or am I mistaken?
Maybe I should have been clear from the start by simply saying the size of the cut has been enhanced rather than shopped so that people like yourself, who would rather argue the wording of somebody's post rather than the point, wouldn't have anything to argue about.
The picture has been altered (innocently or not) and as a result doesn't give a true reflection of the size of the cut on Nani's leg.
Maybe I should have been clear from the start by simply saying the size of the cut has been enhanced rather than shopped so that people like yourself, who would rather argue the wording of somebody's post rather than the point, wouldn't have anything to argue about.
The picture has been altered (innocently or not) and as a result doesn't give a true reflection of the size of the cut on Nani's leg.
Did Rafael cause an injury to apologise for?
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 1,807
- Location
- State of Volatile Apathy
Kinda like Schumacher offering to pay for Battiston's dental surgery, is it?
Better than nothing though, fair play to Carhacker if he did.
more by luck than anything else
Oh gosh you're just being a one man army. You've been arguing a non consistent point against pretty much everyone for over a page.
Fair enough, as a mark of respect to the mods after a fractious weekend I think it's best that we don't get involved on the issue. I've already said that the incriminating picture is the first one with carragher's leg up.
That's a no I guess.
I think the point he is trying to make is, the the photo has been manipulated for effect, which would compliment the website's article sensationalist heading "Nanis Horrific Injury..."
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 1,807
- Location
- State of Volatile Apathy
Oh come off the semantics Baz, if you take that line then anything that isn't the original digital file the photographer created is 'shopped' (as 'resizing' is a form of photoshopping too). Fair enough it did make the injury look worse, but only through our increased perception of it and nothing to do with the photographer; I don't think you can accuse the paper of deception as the frame around the zoom lens is hardly hidden.
You know what you originally meant, so just take it on the chin and move on.
That picture's fake
Well no, that was his original quote but as I've said I'm leaving it to be fair.
a bit of a cut
both challenges were more about potential than what actually happened
Nah, Rafael is innnocent guv, he slipped!
I'll take that as a yes, enhancing part of an image is a form of photoshopping
My first post saying it was a fake probably wasn't the best but when asked to explain I said and have maintained that the size of the cut has been photoshopped or enhanced (which ever word you prefer) which makes the damage to Nani's leg look bigger than it was.
And to make it clear, I've not defended Carragher once for his tackle. You're right, the tackle itself is what is incriminating not the injury. Much like Rafael's challenge on Lucas.
