Undertoad Saturday Sep 27 12:57 PM
9/27/2003: Jumping frog
Elspode Saturday Sep 27 01:15 PM
That is a *great* picture, actually. What kind of frog is that, though? It looks like the same sort that the main character on "Dead Like Me" has.
xoxoxoBruce Saturday Sep 27 02:45 PM
I'm surprised the frogs back legs would be drawn up and "cocked" for another leap before the front legs touched down.
Archer Saturday Sep 27 07:01 PM
Just my opinion . . .
but it looks photoshopped to me.
tokenidiot Saturday Sep 27 09:41 PM
jesus, this is hot. do you have the rest of the series?
Cain Saturday Sep 27 09:53 PM
This looks photoshoped to me too. The position of the frog looks like they cut it from another picture of it laying there, and pasted it to this picture of the kid strugling to do a pushup (or whatever the hell he's doing). It's also strange this frog doesn't appear to have a shadow, and the lighting/contrast differs so much. If you compare the size of the frog to the kid, the frog's pretty big.
linknoid Sunday Sep 28 10:21 AM
I think the real reason it looks so strange is because the flash appears to have reflected quite a bit more off the frog's body than anything else in the picture, giving it very different lighting, so it looks out of place.
So while it's possible it could be photoshopped, I don't think it's very likely...just a real cool photo.
xoxoxoBruce Sunday Sep 28 10:54 AM
I'd like to see a better shot of the blond with the red top in the upper left.
LUVBUGZ Sunday Sep 28 11:02 AM
Looks like pixel magic to me too, but what the hell do I know .
juju Sunday Sep 28 11:14 AM
Is that a rhetorical question?
LUVBUGZ Sunday Sep 28 11:16 AM
Cain Sunday Sep 28 05:04 PM
Yeah actually, upon further inspection, I realize that I too would like to see a better shot of the blonde with the red top.
Pearcie (AUS) Monday Sep 29 01:54 AM
Blond in red top
I'd just like to say 'Good eyes!' to xoxoxoBruce for spottin that one.
Tobiasly Monday Sep 29 11:42 AM
I thought it looked fake as hell too.
SteveDallas Monday Sep 29 12:05 PM
This is one of the problems with the whole Photoshop thing... it has ruined our innocence and makes us suspicious of every picture we see. (Of course, in some ways, that's good.)
Anyway, your average dinky on-camera flash is rarely effective past 10 or 12 feet or so. This is why it doesn't do you any good to use flash to (say) take a picture of a stage from back in the audience. It's also one reason why you see professional and serious amateur photographers carting around monstrous-looking flashes that attach to the outside of the camera.
One of the issues of using a flash is that you light different parts of the scene differently. If you do this in a dark room or at night, you'll end up with the foreground subject lit and everything in the background dark. That's kind of what happened in this shot--the frog is lit (and looks a bit unnatural, because there was already daylight on it), but the rest of the picture is unaffected. But the flash does have the side effect of "stopping" the motion of the frog, at least a bit. So, all things considered, I'd be willing to believe this picture was legit.
Leus Monday Sep 29 05:46 PM