Are Spirit's Photo's EDITED!? Look!!!

well lets just say that im a freckin photoshop master alright? and i know a doctored photo when i see one. i can name 20 things they did to those photos off the top of my head.

actually i cant, ive done photoshop maybe 5 times in my yearbook 1 class. i know nothing. i really suck at it. nd if i doctored a photo of mars, itd probably look just like the photos on that site....really #ty. if the government was going to release doctored photos, im pretty sure theyd hire someone with more expertise than half a year in yearbook 1.

so lets just say the site is crap, and could have been made by me. except id prbably cut and paste in some photo of a pirate or something just to piss someone off.

heyits mapes haventbeen here for awhile.but i do agree that nasa is not being fair its our money that helped them get to mars and, i do belive that they are hiding things ,i think that if there is little things that dont look right and its just little stuff then there must be big stuff and they and hide that... and i hope we see more little stuff, little stuff is easier to miss and we all may get lucky

I have a feeling that stright line in the sky they showed on the site could have been a result of .jpg compression, but that's just my quick guess. Would some one have a link to the high res image that they used? Where on NASA's site would it be exactly?

These pancam photos are definitely doctored. The sky is cut out and replaced with a constant tone. It makes the picture look better. It is impossible to take a series of pictures of the sky and landscape over a couple of hours and not have the sky and shadows change. Also, the patchwork of pictures do not align exactly, and photoshop work has to be done to produce images which do not have obvious flaws in them. This is absolutemly normal and acceptable.

NASA is not hiding anything by doing this. The original images these are made of are available on-line. They make these pictures for people to look at and for press releases etc.

I have been using photoshop for over 10 years and I consider myself an expert in image analysis and editing, it's what I get paid to do much of the time.

Here's my take on the color argument:

If you want to know what the real colors are on mars, just go outside and look up, you can see it for yourself.

Thats appears to be a single frame zZub

It also isn't a perfectly consistent color.

Again its such a pity to see an application as good as photoshop being so horribly abused. Just because the tool is called the 'magic wand' it isn't actually magic.

Nor is the auto-equlization or auto-levels any sort of magical tool to show what an image really shows. Thats just ignorance.

Originally posted by jra
I have a feeling that stright line in the sky they showed on the site could have been a result of .jpg compression, but that's just my quick guess. Would some one have a link to the high res image that they used? Where on NASA's site would it be exactly?

Not to mention how he says he has used a process called equalizing. To equalize an image means to make neighbouring colors more equal or like. In a gradation (sorry don't know the Eng word for it) like in pictures of a sky, you may or will get such lines if you equalize the image. Atleast if you do it automatically

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by Hamilton]

Originally posted by Zzub
These pancam photos are definitely doctored. The sky is cut out and replaced with a constant tone.

Doesn't look like it. The simplest thing you can do in PS or imilar image editors is to change the sky. All you do is that you use the lasso tool and isolate the sky from the ground, and gives them separate layers. Then you place the desired sky behind the ground layer and 123 you have a new sky. Why would they fail in such an easy task.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

Originally posted by Zzub
I have been using photoshop for over 10 years and I consider myself an expert in image analysis and editing

Amateur!

I have used PS since version 1.0 when you could only work in b/w and the wildest stuff you could do was calculations (never understood how to utilize it though). PS 1 was released around 1990. That would make me a veteran. Though I am an expert in the various tecniques in PS, being an expert in PS wouldn't make you an expert in image analysis.

Added: It wasn't even called Photoshop back then as far as I can remember, but I think it was Photo Studio or something. It came on one single 1.44MB floppy. I am sure that this app was included on my first mac (a IIci @ 30MHz with 8MB RAM! and a 24bit display card and a Sigma 19" color monitor. I have never been so in love with a computer).

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by Hamilton]

Would you guys get over the Photoshop argument?!?! Who cares who's better at using Photoshop? These days just about anything is possible if you have the right computer equipment. Look at the comparison of the slot rock to the photo of the Petrified Forest, AZ. Does anyone else see the similarity between the two? Here's the link to the page
www.burlingtonnews.net...
scroll about half way down and wait for the pics to load (they must have a really slow server). That rock looks like petrified wood to me. It's even broken off like the petrified wood in AZ.

Well First Many of the panorama shots are actually several pictures put together. nasa makes no effort to hide this as you can see the line where the photo is added. but i do not belive that the images are fake. second look at the sorce. just because its posted on the internet does not make it real. check your sources. investigate allitle before posting