Good Evening!

Objects With Faces - Good Evening!

Submitted by: dunno source via Submit a Photo

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Good Evening!

  1. PhotoKat says:

    This was photoshopped. Been making the rounds for years.

    • S.C. says:

      I dunno, it looks legit to me. What makes you say it’s photoshopped?

    • C-Rock says:

      He can tell from some of the pixels, and from seeing quite a few photoshops in his time. Duh.

    • Spelling Nazi says:

      Like I said, I took that picture. It is totally legit.

    • PainSled says:

      Those the pixels around the bird doesn’t tell u that it’s photoshopped… It tells you that the .jpeg compression sucks asscream, I mean ass, if you don’t use adaptive compression.
      Don’t go scream wolf, when it’s just a sheep in wolf-clothes 😉

  2. Marzillius says:

    So… birds are inanimate objects, are they?

  3. SteveG says:

    You can tell it’s photo-shopped by the odd pixel distortions around the birds. That’s always the easy way to tell if something is shopped or not, just look for the distortions around the edges of the image that ‘makes’ the picture.

    • PsychoDad says:

      And that would be completely unrelated to the fact that these objects were actually in motion when photographed?

    • glen says:

      That is not always the case. In some instances, a legitimate image can appear to have been edited because you are seeing compression artifacts. These can appear at the edges of images due to the compression algorithm trying to guess at the best pixel arrangement/ratio. It will sometimes dump pixels it should have kept and vice-versaThat is not always the case. In some instances, a legitimate photograph can appear to have been edited because of compression artifacts. These can appear at the edges of parts of an image due to the compression algorithm trying to guess at the best pixel arrangement/ratio. It will sometimes dump pixels it should have kept and vice-versa. This is often the case along contrasting edges and colors leading some people to assume it was edited. Keep in mind, that digital photo editing software can do more than “rubber stamp” edits, but they are capable of color and contrast adjustments, sharpening and blurring, air brush techniques and so on. These adjustments also alter the pixels and may create misleading “clues” to those wanting to debunk a photo’s composition, even if the composition is as shot.

      Even though forensic image detection software is in development, there are some ways to check an image for a variety of digital enhancements and alterations. You can adjust the brightness and contrast of an image to see where drastic pixel changes occur. Check channels to look for inconsistencies (outside of normal channel differences. For example the blue channel is considered the “garbage” channel as it typically has more data than the other channels. Many edits are made to the red and green channels so as not to effect over-all color cast in the final composite output).

      As a professional graphic artist, I can create an altered image that would be difficult to detect, or adjust an original to make some one think it was doctored. I have also seen amazing photo-realistic images created in photoshop that you would swear was an un-doctored photograph. Bert Monroy ( is one such master.

      So my point being that, sometimes you can not always judge as having been “shopped” – which BTW I think is such an ignorantly lazy “buzz” word. In all my years of working as a professional, I have only ever heard non-professionals use the term.

    • Dark-Wraith says:

      Your points are excellent, glen. I, too, use Photoshop for professional work and know how effectively it can be utilized both to make superimpositions look real and to make actual photographs looked faked. On that last matter, the story goes that CGI jockeys for some of the modern movies actually have to back off their best skills because they actually don’t want some scenes to look as real as they could. (This was claimed to be the case in the movie “Cats and Dogs” with respect to the movements of the animals’ mouths when they were made to talkL the oral-facial movements could have been made to look more natural, but that would also have made for a little too much creepiness, apparently.)

      As an addition to one point you made, JPG images are notorious for “ghosting” around steep light and color gradients, which is why I prefer the PNG format or, even better, just the PSD format when possible. Ghosting artifacts in a JPG image are not in any way by themselves a means of determining the authenticity of the composition. As a matter of fact, if I want to use some JPG image in a composite, the first thing I do is remove the ghosting that was there in the original.

      As one commenter astutely noted below, this is an enjoyable photograph. It should be taken as such, and everyone should be grateful that most professional Photoshop users don’t have time to demonstrate just how real a composite can look when crafted by a professional graphics artist with a malevolent streak (or a commission from someone who wants to make someone else’s life miserable).

    • jb says:

      You guys are SUCH nerds…..

    • Dark-Wraith says:

    • Jimmylou says:

      Hooray, a two image-animation! -_-

    • Dark-Wraith says:

      It expresses the sentiment succinctly, Defender of the Indolent.

  4. Sherry says:

    Ether way I thought these faces were suppose to be made out of objects, not animals.

  5. Inu says:

    Fail, these birds are animated objects.

  6. Dang! this must be fake! LOL What are the chances!

    • Name Last name says:

      99% of the pics on the cheezburger network are fake(according to people like you) Saying “It’s real!” on pics that are real would’ve saved cheezburger for hundreds of comments

  7. Eric says:

    Well, for one the whole picture looks old, maybe the people how took it didn’t have the money for a scanner, so they waited, and bought one, uploaded it. Another thing is, well, in photoshop, anything and everything is possible.

  8. The Little Myrmidon says:

    This site must get a hundred submissions a day – and they choose this old hackneyed photoshopped image? Couldn’t they have used an original image from one of their submissions?

  9. carnifex says:

    jesus guys,just enjoy.

  10. sweedy says:

    i just think the photo is really sweet.

    i think the idea behind “happy chair” is that a combination of items (animate or inanimate) come together in a serendipitous manner, to make a face. that’s just my definition of this website and if that is so, this photo belongs here.

  11. Nysythic says:

    It doesn’t matter if the picture is photoshopped or not to me. I see a smiling sky and for some reason…it makes me smile. Isn’t that what this is all about anyways? To make you smile?

  12. Spelling Nazi says:

    Dude, that is so legit.
    How I know- I took that picture and still have no clue how the hell my pictures get posted on here.
    And no, I’m not joking. I totally took the pic.

  13. vanessa says:

    No shit. You’d think people PAYED to go to this site.

  14. Jack says:

    The teletubies baby head in sky is happy

  15. bryan e says:

    wait, wait. all those comments are shopped! you can tell by the font…

    … no, wait a minute… this one is real. i’m so confused!!!

  16. josh says:

    i know the guy who took this, i have the real one on my memory card!

  17. Jimmylou says:

    What a hell of a snapshot! 😀

  18. popbon says:

    i uploaded this pic

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s