• Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
        143·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • Zak@lemmy.world
          36·
          3 days ago

          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.

          • Owl@mander.xyz
            121·
            3 days ago

            Also, the intent was never to deceive, but to take a cool picture

            • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
              51·
              2 days ago

              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.

          • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
            25·
            3 days ago

            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.

            • Zak@lemmy.world
              8·
              3 days ago

              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.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
                22·
                2 days ago

                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.

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              41·
              3 days ago

              An argument about the usage and contextual meaning of an aspect of language is very literally a semantic argument.

                • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
                  11·
                  2 days ago

                  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?

  • Formfiller@lemmy.world
    25·
    3 days ago

    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

  • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    10·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • CerebralHawks@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      2·
      1 day ago

      Shout out to Noita for having the same mechanic. In the default mode, you start with a flask of water, and if you get to the bottom of the first biome and go to the right, there’s a lake of lava. A full flask is just enough to make a bridge of lava.

      Worse, IRL molten lava is mostly solid like you see in the photo, not red water. If it’s as viscous as water (or close to that), it’s MUCH hotter and the air nearby would kill you. But that’s how it’s portrayed in the game. In a lot of games. Like Mario 1.

      Getting back to Noita, to be fair to it, it is a pixel physics simulator. Every pixel’s physics are simulated in real time. So it’s not a pure bridge. Some pixels stay lava, and if you touch them, you take a slight amount of damage. Mostly if you’re conservative with your water. Me, I like burrowing through the ceiling and dumping the lake above on it. Then again, if you can get under the lava, there’s a nice little present waiting for you… best to get to the third biome and come up from under, though.

      • Obi@sopuli.xyz
        3·
        2 days ago

        Yep I remember this picture and reading about how they put lighter fluid or something like that on the tripod legs and his shoes.

  • Smoogs@lemmy.worldEnglish
    8·
    2 days ago

    It would have been funny if the person taking picture of that person was surrounded in flames