UKC

Cool pic of a soloist on the Ribblehead viaduct:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/picture/2012/jul/05/1

Don't remember it being quite that sunny last time I was there...

In reply to tony:

I wonder how they did on the roof?!?

In reply to tony: It's an interesting pic but doesn't it just make you want to kill folk that use fotoshop

In reply to tony: I'm not an expert but is it shopped? Looks like she's stuck on. And she seems to be in an unlikely body position, looks a bit like the Leeds Wall logo.

In reply to tony: It's 105ft high. She must be about 12ft tall.

In reply to tony: Can't see a shadow from her going by where all the other shadows are?

Beautifully composed pic, albeit a bit heavy on the saturation.

In reply to graeme jackson: Next you'll be saying this is photoshopped:

http://www.chrisfrazersmith.com/index.php#!/photo.php?id=245

Or this:

http://www.chrisfrazersmith.com/index.php#!/photo.php?id=212

In reply to Steve John B: Wow he really likes his photoshop! If this one isnt shopped then it would have been messy

http://www.chrisfrazersmith.com/index.php#!/photo.php?id=212

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Actually I don't think the scale is far off even if it is photoshopped.

Have a look at this vid: youtube.com/watch?v=q9OirN1e9W0&
At about 09:14s the chap is stood on the ground about 6 inches below the bottom stone and is roughly the same height as 3 stones. A fully stretched climbing pose doesn't look unreasonable at 4 stones in height.

Agree that is does seem an odd place to be. Surely a 'real' climber would just be traversing low to the ground?

In reply to Steve John B:
They certainly look like they've been processed. If there's been no jiggery pokery then i'd be very interested to learn his techniques.

In reply to EZ:
At 6 foot for 3 stones in video, the climber in photo covers 4 stones from base of left heal to top of head so that would make them 8 foot

In reply to EZ:
>

I love the irony!!!!


Chris

lol.

That is all.

In reply to tony:

Rubbish sequence. There's a huge jug on the left she's missing.

In reply to Conan:

Ah, but you use smaller stones as you get higher.

ALC

In reply to Red Rover:

I wouldn't assume it's photo shopped, I saw some divers on TV diving down a cliff face into a pool of water from high up on a ledge, and the distances were similar to those in the pic you linked to.

In reply to Timmd: Is that not straight down though?

In this picture judging by his body angle, the guy needs to be moving at a horizontal speed of 40mph* or he's going to get splatted

*completely made up speed

In reply to Boulderdash86:


?? There's a very long shadow right where you'd expect it from the low angle of the sun, along her left leg and extending down from her left foot; which makes her look a lot longer than she is. Compare the figure to the stone wall.

This is not photoshopped.

In reply to tony: I think they were trying to rescue that goat trapped on the ledge..

http://tinyurl.com/dxrotw4

In reply to Tris:

Like it

In reply to digby: Agreed, this is not photoshopped as is being described by some on here. Another term for this is Composite Photography, and an art in its own right in my view. Shadows are key, many an evening I've sat through comps at my local photo club when objects look obviously stuck on. This doesn't, although the figure is so small in the frame it would be easy enough to alter the lighting on them to correspond with the background.

In reply to Mark Collins:

Definitely photoshopped!

The shadow of the head is in the wrong place, it's too high up given the angle of the shadows from the corbles(sticky out bits of stone), The shadow of the left arm isn't right either, too narrow for the position of the arm. The right foot is way too high for there to be a foothold, as is the left hand. There is also no strong shadow of the chalkbag.

There are also a few other things I've seen, such as pixel size difference between the climber and the rest of the photo to suggest photoshop.

In reply to Timmd: Its not the height but the fact the diver doesnt have any water below them, going to be a messy one onto the boulders

In reply to Tris:

I'm not sure, on TV I saw people diving down a diagonal into a pool at the bottom of the cliff, they'd climb up the side and stand on a ledge, and make the sign of the cross before diving off again.

It looked nuts to me but they landed into the water alright after diving down what was a slab, it was a steepish slab but still a slab all the same. Was somewhere in South America I think.

I'm not sure it did any good, but i'm not surprised they made the sign of the cross, there was a lot to go wrong.

In reply to tony: It's a bit over exposed!

In reply to graeme jackson:

Just to clarify my original comment - I have no interest in whether or not the climbing has been faked. I just really hate these over-processed photos where all the colours look oversaturated.

In reply to Mark Collins:

I suppose this isn't photoshopped, either:

http://www.chrisfrazersmith.com/index.php#!/photo.php?id=247

?!

In reply to graeme jackson:
Looks like HDR (High Dynamic Range)You can tell because you would expect the stonework to be in more shadow, but it's very clear.
Usually three pictures are over laid on top of each other with varying exposure levels to give you and naturally exposed images

In reply to tony: This has to be photo shopped. The practicalities of climbing this make it unrealistic. Coupled with the fact no one in the climbing community has heard of or mentioned this before now.

In reply to tony:

look at his site, of course it's not a real climber actually climbing the viaduct, it's his style. geez

In reply to cap'nChino:

>The practicalities of climbing this make it unrealistic.

Maybe...

http://osp.com.au/?p=3307#!prettyPhoto

In reply to Calder: Wow, that's even more impressive Well judging by the rest of the owners work it seems I stand corrected. Not sure how this fits in the Guardian's Eye Witness series though. Shoddy journalism I guess.

In reply to Mark Collins:

Aye, I guess that because it was for a centre page spread they probably weren't that bothered about its integrity, and more bothered whether it was a good image or not.

I'll let them off this once....

In fairness though, some of the images are quite good, and it appears he gets his fair share of commissions out of it, so who are we to criticise..... (?!!!)

In reply to Calder:


Speaking personally as both a climber and photographer, 'photoshoping' to improve contrast, colour fidelity etc. is acceptable.

To use the same techniques in order to place a climber in a position he or she is not actually in (if this is indeed the case with this picture) is totally unacceptable to me as a climber.

Pete.

In reply to Pete O'Donovan: I think it's ok to do anything creative with photography, as long as the end result is stood up for what it is and not what it appears to be. I suggest the problem here is that the photographer sells an image to a publication, and at that point loses control over how the image is presented.

In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

This thread was worth it for a read of that blog. Far more impressive than some ropey photoshop job.

In reply to Pete O'Donovan:

I was actually referring to the non-climbing related stuff. The Ribblehead one that triggered the thread (and that hurdling one) is actually really crap compared to his other work.