Weird edited photo of SWB Land Rover

Is it just me or has somebody used a photo editor to create their own SWB Land Rover

From the LWB one above ?

formatting link

Reply to
Mike Jones Super Hero (used to be sluff)
Loading thread data ...

Without a doubt, if you look you can see a fuzzy vertical line from the back of the cab where the foot or so of length has been cut, and the greenery behind also gives it away. Next question is...... Why?

Reply to
Bob Hobden

Exactly doesn't make any sense at all

Reply to
Mike Jones Super Hero (used to be sluff)

Odd isn't it. The rear overhang looks strange. Better make a mental note not to buy any photos from Patrick Smith of JS International Ltd.

But for an even better (worse) example take a look at:

formatting link
you believe the BBC have the cheek to let a YTS student loose with acopy of Photoshop to get an image of a house with the roof tiles missing? Ihave never SEEN a more ludicrous example of digital ineptitude... what werethey thinking of?

David.

Reply to
David French

On the same page, and excuse me for doubting it, but is the "1950 APA lightweight Land Rover" for real? As far as Google's concerned, it's unique ...

Reply to
QrizB

Thats definatly been edited, not only is the paint job identical, the positioning of the trees behind them both is too identical as well.

Trust me I'm autistic :)

Reply to
Larry

Yep. Easier than finding a similar SWB to photo I suppose. You can tell without looking too closely for signs of editing. The rear spring plates on a SWB are just behind the rear X-member, not 18" from it. The rear overhang is wrong for a SWB.

Makes you wonder how much they actually know about LR's in the first place.

Alex

Reply to
Alex

It has simply been stretched to make it look longer, look at the proportions.

Reply to
Larry

Is the site some kind of a wind up, they all look wrong to me.

The 109 is ridiculosly long, the 88 is the same vehicle which does not look that much like an 88,

Either one of thems been stretched or the other shrunk, the gash on the door is a giveaway as well.

Reply to
Larry

I've not checked, but it appeared to me that the aspect ratio had been changed on some of them, which made the lwb look longer and sleeker. Might be just me though.

David

Reply to
David French

To add insult to injury the web page says there are 5 photos, yet I think I can see 6?

Anyone else count 6?

Also next to the front wheel,drivers side, there is a white paint mark on the pavement that appears in the same spot on both the 109 and SWB. I know the military are know for precision, and painting things white that don't move, but....

Cheers

Phillip

Reply to
Phillip Simpson

Yes it is rather like the artists impressions you used to find in fifties car ads, where the length and sleekness of the vehicle was emphasised by false proportions and the capaciosness of the back seats exagerated by showing extraordinarily small people

They are both the same vehicle, no cut and paste there, merely the proportions are different, possibly the framing adds to the impression of extra length in the top example because it is cropped differently

In Picture number one it looks as if there is enough room for the second door and row of seats, but if I look at mine sitting outside, the roof looks higher, maybe I am misled there because mine has the tropical roof and roof rack.

Examine the whole thing close and up to the rear of the door both vehicles are identical, gash on the door, white paint mark, position of foliage behind.

Look then closely at the rears and you can see that the camo is a bit different, however the canvas from the top vehicle is identical to that on the lower picture except where some of it has been possibly cloned to give it the extra length.

I strongly suspect that the point in front of the wheel arch in the lower picture has been modified so far as the black stripe goes but examine the rear wheels very closely they are the same there is even a slight dimple forward of the rear wheel arch that shows in both pictures.

Whoever has done this is trying to disguise the fact. Something has been taken out of picture two and something added as well.

Larry

Reply to
Larry

check also the folds on the canvas of both vehicles, that is identical except for the bit that has been taken out of the second picture, and the reflections in the glass.

The two diagonal lines in the tarmac below show exactly which bit has been taken out.

Reply to
Larry

There are probably more marks of similarity between the two than are needed in court for proof positive of fingerprint identification.

Reply to
Larry

i think we all agree that the swb shot has definitely been doctored, but i agree with david. even the lwb shot looks a bit wrong. i think there is too much room between the door and the beginning of the rear wheel arch. but perhaps i am now just searching for mistakes that don't exist.

Reply to
samuel mcgregor

I had a tweak about with photoshop, the LWB is about 6% out.

Paul

Reply to
PM

Actually I think there's 7 photos on that page, also the wheel nuts also line up in the same position, on the alleged photos

Tony

: > To add insult to injury the web page says there are 5 photos, yet I : > think I can see 6? : >

: > Anyone else count 6? : >

: > Also next to the front wheel,drivers side, there is a white paint mark : > on the pavement that appears in the same spot on both the 109 and SWB. : > I know the military are know for precision, and painting things white : > that don't move, but.... : >

: >

: >

: > Cheers : >

: >

: > Phillip : >

: >

: >

: >

: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:26:10 -0000, " Mike Jones Super Hero \(used to : > be sluff\)" wrote: : >

: :

Reply to
TL

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.