You’re defence is terrified
Praise the cameraman
It would have been funny if the person taking picture of that person was surrounded in flames
This is why you can’t walk on lava, even when you’ve poured water over it to cool it down and turn it into stone, because it’s still hella hot and you’d burn your feet, unlike in computer games like minecraft.
You also don’t know how strong the shell is and you could break it and fall into lava.
This picture is staged
I don’t usually AI jacket but even if this were somehow real despite the absurdity it’s presented in an album with other clearly generated images.
I believe those pictures were from NatGeo before the AI craze.
But I have no source.I could maybe be convinced this one is fine but several of the other images in the linked source have wrong poses, deformed feet.
In many cases one would definitely get deformed feet in this situation.
Yep. Tennis shoes on 300C+ rock not particularly good protection
When I was a kid there was a volcanologist couple that used to do stuff like this with volcanos. I remember thinking how cool they were and how I wanted to do that someday. They ended up getting vaporized in a pyroclastic blast
They died doing what they love, which is cool as hell.
On 3 June 1991 at 4pm local time, Mount Unzen erupted, forming pyroclastic flows that rushed down its slopes, killing 43 people including the Kraffts, as well as their fellow volcanologist Harry Glicken, who had accompanied them to observe the eruption.
Well.
They have a cool documentary called ‘The fire within’
I’m over here 10 feet behind this guy like "I’m going to grab the 200mm, this 100mm zoom isn’t cutting it.
Hell yeah, loved this album. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyj1K5Lyr_Y
The headline is unfair; the photo is staged, not fake.
I would say fake is accurate, as the intent is to look like the lava made it combust, which it didn’t. The flames are real, but the combustion from the lava is fake.
I think the distinction is that in a fake photo, something you can see in the photo wasn’t really there. In a staged photo, the story the photo tells isn’t true to life.
Also, the intent was never to deceive, but to take a cool picture
I don’t think intent matters here really. People making marvel movies aren’t intending to deceive that it’s real. That doesn’t make it not fake though.
I think if the photographer did intend to deceive then it’d clearly be fake, but saying he didn’t doesn’t give us insight into if it’s fake or not. It isn’t part of the definition.
It’s an argument of semantics though. Neither are definitely correct. Most people would agree that adding effects in photoshop is “fake” but it still produces an image. Is it still “fake” when you use physical means to manipulate the image, like they used to do before CGI? If so, isn’t this fake? If not, what makes digitally manipulation fake? I can argue either direction, so the headline isn’t wrong —it just might not be the best choice of words.
Sometimes semantics are worth talking about.
Whenever The Verge interviews people from companies that have something to do with photography or image processing, they ask “what is a photograph?”. There doesn’t seem to be a consensus.
As a photographer, I’ve thought a fair amount about it. Many of the most famous pre-digital photographers did a lot of adjustment in the darkroom, and all digital photographs involve decisions about how photoreceptor data gets transformed into a viewable image, even if the photographer didn’t make them intentionally. Most of the time, most people still consider it photography and “real” with significant editing.
Where it becomes something else in my mind, or “fake” is if the image doesn’t reasonably represent light that reached the lens in the moment being depicted. There’s a whole lot of wiggle room there of course - photography is art, not math. Adding fire to something that wasn’t burning using editing software, however clearly crosses the line into “fake” for me if presented as a photograph, or digital art if it’s not.
For me, it depends on the context. Is it trying to portray something that actually happened?
That’s why, for me, I’d argue this is fake. Yes, the fire is real, but it’s trying to portray that he ignited from the lava. He didn’t. It was faked.
It’s a real photo representing something that isn’t real. Saying the headline that says it’s fake is wrong is taking a step too far into certainty. I wouldn’t say it’s wrong, even if the word choice could better represent the truth. That’s my point. I’m not arguing it is fake, but that calling it fake isn’t necessarily incorrect.
An argument about the usage and contextual meaning of an aspect of language is very literally a semantic argument.
That’s literally what I said…
So you agree that, as with this statement, it can come across as a tad condescending when people narrate the tautologically obvious as a way to make a point in an argument?
… Was the 2nd photographer also on fire?
We need someone to take the picture of the second photographer to be sure.
An ancient reddit thread, but I witnessed this one in real time it was cool: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cmwov/hey_reddit_what_tattoos_do_you_have/c0tpyls/
I remember that one. That was peak Reddit content.
I remember that! It truly is incredible. God’s reddit was good in those days
Okay and then the 1st photographer takes a photo of the 3rd photographer…
This reminded me of that famous reddit post of the guy who used ingenious mirrors and extra devices to keep taking the same picture from different perspectives
I’ll do it, but only if someone sets me on fire
Not sure I understand why they’re being called a bot, that explanation makes perfect sense.
But…but…who took THAT picture!?
Guess he never played the floor is lava as a kid.
When I’m filming or taking a photograph of something I swear my brain simply shuts down.
He’s just a dude and he’s on fire
