It's strange how some documents are spoon-fed to the press.
That royal photo for example. Even the humblest smartphones can do editing now. Drag and drop. Not as sophisticated as a Canon 5D MkIV with a 50mm f1.2 lens and subsequent Photoshop editing.
Yet no-one seems to have checked the basic EXIF data, which accompanies most original photos. Like the type sent to the Press. EXIF includes the date of capture, the shutter speed, the make of camera, the ISO and how many times it's been edited, and with which software. If it was taken, say, last November, it would be obvious in the original EXIF. and if it had been edited multiple times with Photoshop then that would also be obvious.
I guess the foliage is another real-world clue. Is it appropriate to the time of year?
But I suppose the version in circulation now has had all the EXIF stripped away.?
Living is easy with eyes closedMisunderstanding all you seeIt's getting hard to be someone, but it all works outIt doesn't matter much to me
Let me take you down'Cause I'm going to strawberry fieldsNothing is realAnd nothing to get hung aboutStrawberry fields forever
Or occasionally such a photo could be a distraction away from another story?
No comments:
Post a Comment