Danger! Why do people do this?!?

[midnight302]

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=456862491029183&set=a.164925810222854.32201.109904739058295&type=1&theater

Baby in glass jar!!

[cameraclicker]

Because they can?

It appears someone figured out Photoshop.  The babies left ear was not taken very cleanly from the original image, and the candies look huge compared to the baby, but otherwise it is believably done.

The bad idea part of this is that someone will think the photo was done in camera and will try to stuff a baby into a tub full of candies and suffocate the baby.   It is amazing to me but evidence suggests most people don’t realize the images they see in magazines are airbrushed/photoshopped.  They think if it is in a photo it must be true.

[Intuition]

Camera the photographer claims the mom brought in the glass jar and that this was not a composite, Quoted from the photographer in the comments:

Jackie Romine Photography Lol, I figured that out after I was like compsite? Ha Like I’ve said before I don’t use photoshop. Would love to learn, but I honestly don’t have a big use for it. And Jason truth be told I Loved the idea that she brought with her and it wasn’t a cheap flimsy container. It wasnt like we left her in there with out having both her mom and aunt and grandma 2 inches away from her for the whole minute that she was in it.
6 hours ago · Like

So yea, not a composite unless she’s lieing in the wrong direction.

[cameraclicker]

I don’t use Photoshop… I have a retoucher.

I don’t use Photoshop… I use Paint Shop Pro.

 

The baby, container and white background are in the same frame as another image on the same FB page.  There is a white vignette, the candies at both left and right edges are faded out.  Artifacts are not consistent.  They are all over the container and part of the background, barely there and a different shape on the baby.  I think the scale is off, too.  How big is a newborn’s head?  How about six inches in diameter?  Moving that measurement on to the container, the container would be a foot wide at the very top and about fifteen inches tall.  That would make those candies about an inch in diameter, talk about horse chokers!  If mother dilates ten cm, that is about four inches, so perhaps the head is only four inches in diameter?   Using that as the measurement, the container would become eight inches at the widest part of the top and only ten inches tall.  Newborn girls are about nineteen or twenty inches tall (long) and six to eight pounds.  By three months they are twenty-three or twenty-four inches tall and eleven to fourteen pounds.  You would have to hold up the baby’s arms while holding her upright in the container and pouring in all the candy, then position the arms and take the picture.  She must be pretty sleepy to put up with all that cold candy pressed against her.  The container is tapered, if it is only ten inches total height, there are only eight inches for the baby, where are her legs?  At mid-point the container is only about five inches in diameter.

Maybe Jackie is telling the truth and they filled a jar with a baby and candy, which would be a bad and dangerous idea.  I still think it was done in an editor.

[lolkat]

Wow- that was a lot of numbers, estimates and so on…. It is obvious that was NOT a composite. You can read the whole list of comments on the fb page. Why would a photographer lie and pretend to not use a composite when she is being harshly criticized by her friends/clients for the lack of safety and skill involved in this shot? It’s only bad publicity for her…. and will probably affect her amount of business she receives later on. BTW- you can tell from  the shot that she would not have the skill to use a composite, anyway- and I find it hard to believe a fauxtographer like this would have a retoucher.

[Intuition]

This picture was taken it looks like by another camera off of a monitor. And it does say ‘via Mobile’ so probably with a cell phone as well. That might explain some of what you are seeing camera clicker. I don’t think it was a composite, because like Lolkat said she’s been getting some harsh comments and still holding on to it. I dunno, people are really weird haha

[cameraclicker]

I see.  The frame is actually the screen of an LG monitor.  You can see the LG logo at the bottom of the picture of a little girl kissing mommies belly.  I have no idea if the artifacts are accurately reproduced or created by the way the monitor works, but it is interesting they are on the background right behind the baby’s head but not on the baby’s face.  It is what I would expect to see if the image was a composite from a couple of cameras — her photo of the baby and a stock image of a glass full of mints, for instance.  If the artifacts were coming from the monitor, I would expect them to be evenly distributed over the whole image.

The best match I could find for the container is a Libbey 10.5 Oz. Irish Coffee Mug, turn the mug so the handle is at the back and the handle holds up the ribbon.  And, the candies look like Bob’s Sweet Stripes Soft Peppermints which come in a 290 candy tub.

People are weird.  Perhaps she would rather take heat for endangering the baby than admit to being good at Photoshop (or some other editor).   After all, if she did it in camera she is a photographer, and if she did it in Photoshop, she is a graphic artist.   Obfuscation keeps her competition from copying her.  If they really did do it in camera, I would love to know where they got the vase.

I see from the comments on her FB page that I am not the only one who thinks it is a composite.

[CapuchinK]

and the trend continues…

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=386560761417391&set=a.386560751417392.88863.186321708107965&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-snc6%2F229519_386560761417391_203068360_n.jpg&size=780%2C960

[cameraclicker]

I bet that’s good for the neck!  NOT!!

There are a couple of good shots in the gallery, but more bad ones.

[fstopper89]

This whole setting looks unsafe to me. That little guy is at a prime age to roll over whenever he feels like it, and I kind of doubt they did a composite (though I’m not sure). Plus, in the middle of a highway? Maybe it’s a seldom-traveled road, but setting up a shot like this would have taken some time and patience and you’d think a vehicle could come by. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=437953589600160&set=pb.359234840805369.-2207520000.1359094333&type=3&theater

Someone else linked this image in another forum:  https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=409862705742582&set=pb.359234840805369.-2207520000.1359094875&type=3&theater I was shocked until I scrolled further down. It is a composite. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=406644599397726&set=pb.359234840805369.-2207520000.1359094920&type=3&theater (But a really weird idea in the first place).

This photographer has a handful of decent images, and then a ton of bad ones… many are not in focus or are grainy.

[Author]

Posts