Ok, fine. I'll do one using the damn product next time. ahh, the well. Like I say, even if you don't win, it gives ya a chance to refine and practice your talant.

"that hippity hoppity music"

Yea, the original rules never said anything about using the Swiffer...not until after the contest was judged did the judges add that. Still had fun posting and thanks to those who thought the entry was good.

Digzasta wrote:

Ok, fine. I'll do one using the damn product next time. ahh, the well. Like I say, even if you don't win, it gives ya a chance to refine and practice your talant. "that hippity hoppity music"

So, uh... Seeing as I'm new to this and all, what comes next? Should I expect an email, or what?

Saucer you got mad skills! It looks so good that I couldn't tell it was shopped! Props to ya 8)

Motown wrote:

] Excellent work saucer! Did you only use the one source photo? If I had seen that earlier I would have put that in my top five. It’s probably too late for the real judges to take into consideration.

thanks for kompliments :)

i had some problems to integrate the window so i took my digi-cam and made a shot of a window from my neighbourhood and used it to but i cant post cause its on my girlfriends-computer (i made the image there)

the rest is scratching and enlighting the proper parts and so on.. difficultest part is bad quality of the source :)

unknown255 wrote:

Saucer you got mad skills! It looks so good that I couldn't tell it was shopped! Props to ya 8)

well, it took even about 3 hours :)
thanks you very much dude,


and best wishes to the winners!!

Wow, I didn't even expect to be in the top 5. Thanks!

My vote was for SnuggleBunny's Doom 3 - that's one hella scary game - would've given me less heart attacks if there just as many cute kittens and cat pictures. Who knew zombies love cats?

Saucer's entry was "AWESOME" - too bad the original source wasn't posted - I too only appreciated it afterwards.

-=A

gummyAvenger wrote:

bartendermagic.com wrote:  gummyAvenger wrote: http://www.somedumbsite.com/videos/swiffer/swiffer1.jpg http://www.somedumbsite.com/videos/swiffer/swiffer2.jpg http://www.somedumbsite.com/videos/swiffer/swiffer3.jpg http://www.somedumbsite.com/videos/swiffer/swiffer4.jpg And for a little extra umph, check out the video I made: http://www.somedumbsite.com/videos/swiffer/ Yeah, I know the video doesn't technically fall within the scope of this contest (and I don't expect to win based on the video), but I ran across the original commercial and I just had to do it. :D Unfortunately, I only had time to finish the first half of the video because since I don't have a copy of After Effects, I'm actually using Photoshop to do it frame by frame. :P WOW! Cool movie. I wish I knew how to do that. Thanks :D I just took a peek at your website. Very cool! Definitely bookmarking it :)

I love the contests. There are definately some talented folks in the community... (either that or a lot of people who need to get out more) :wink:

It looks as if Saucers "source" image is that one that is actually chopped. I think the first picture he posted is the original and the second is his attempt to make us believe he chopped the first.

houdini wrote:

It looks as if Saucers "source" image is that one that is actually chopped. I think the first picture he posted is the original and the second is his attempt to make us believe he chopped the first.

Houdini is absolutely correct.

If you switch back and forth quickly between the 2 pictures, it becomes VERY obvious that the one with the german writing on the sheet is the photoshopped picture, NOT the one with the sheet going into the window.

It's a damn good thing that this one wasn't picked as a winner, otherwise woot would have a "Milli Vanilli" situation on their hands! :oops:



P.S. - If you can't switch between the 2 pictures quickly, then just look at the one with the german writing.
Notice how in the one with the german writing, you can still faintly see the sheet going into the window in the center?

P.P.S. - Saucer, posting your "source" image (the one with the german writing) was a big mistake. :lol:

Slayd wrote:

So, uh... Seeing as I'm new to this and all, what comes next? Should I expect an email, or what?

do you have a paypal account? if not you should set one up. They will probably send you an email shortly looking for your paypal account so they can deposit the money

Sweet I cant believe I won something. That really happened once when I was younger. My parents were fighting about who would mow the yard, they both thought they did a better job than the other. So I just mowed it one day while they were at work. Noone told me that they had it lowered for the back yard. I mangled the yard, it didnt have to be mowed for a month. Oddly enough they did not argue about it any more.

EDIT
Will they just send that to my house, or do I get an email or need to email them?

Cant believe I won.

linnaeus wrote:

do you have a paypal account? if not you should set one up. They will probably send you an email shortly looking for your paypal account so they can deposit the money.

Okay, thanks. I'm kind of worried that they'll try to send money to a paypal account linked to the email address I used to sign up for Woot... There's nothing set up with it.

Slayd wrote:

linnaeus wrote: do you have a paypal account? if not you should set one up. They will probably send you an email shortly looking for your paypal account so they can deposit the money. Okay, thanks. I'm kind of worried that they'll try to send money to a paypal account linked to the email address I used to sign up for Woot... There's nothing set up with it.

ls3mach wrote:

Sweet I cant believe I won something. That really happened once when I was younger. My parents were fighting about who would mow the yard, they both thought they did a better job than the other. So I just mowed it one day while they were at work. Noone told me that they had it lowered for the back yard. I mangled the yard, it didnt have to be mowed for a month. Oddly enough they did not argue about it any more. EDIT Will they just send that to my house, or do I get an email or need to email them? Cant believe I won.

Welcome to the club, Is3mach...the club of talentless photoshop hacks. We're our own breed.

SuperNinja wrote:

houdini wrote: It looks as if Saucers "source" image is that one that is actually chopped. I think the first picture he posted is the original and the second is his attempt to make us believe he chopped the first. Houdini is absolutely correct. If you switch back and forth quickly between the 2 pictures, it becomes VERY obvious that the one with the german writing on the sheet is the photoshopped picture, NOT the one with the sheet going into the window. It's a damn good thing that this one wasn't picked as a winner, otherwise woot would have a "Milli Vanilli" situation on their hands! :oops: P.S. - If you can't switch between the 2 pictures quickly, then just look at the one with the german writing. Notice how in the one with the german writing, you can still faintly see the sheet going into the window in the center? P.P.S. - Saucer, posting your "source" image (the one with the german writing) was a big mistake. :lol:

I think it's a compliment to Saucer that people thinks his shopped product was a real picture.

Some people just don't want to believe that there are others out there with incredible skills.

One way to know that the shopped picture is not real is that the cloth is too perfect. Saucer did an excellent job with the creasing and lighting, but don't you think a real construction site cover be a little dirtier than that?

-=A

Motown wrote:

I’m not sure I agree with you 100%. He did say that he didn’t have the pure original source photo and this is probably an early version where he added the creases to start the effect. Even if you take the source he provided and enlarge it and brighten and change the contrast there are still serious skills if he did what you alledge. Also if the source is really the final edit, why wouldn’t he take out all of the wrinkles and creases? It would appear that upwards of 80% of them are missing. I’m willing to take saucer at his word unless you can unequivocally prove his edit to be fraud, I feel you’ve failed to establish that. Saucer, hopefully you will enter again this weekend, and make sure you include the original unedited source photo AND the final product to prove your skills.

It is much more difficult to see what I am talking about if you don't do exactly what I said.

I use the photo viewing program "ACDSee" to view and switch back and forth between both pics rapidly.
When you switch back and forth between the 2 photos, the photos must overlap for you to easily determine where the differences and similarities are.
A program like ACDSee will allow you to view pictures in that way.
Looking at the pictures side by side is NOT good enough!
When you do this, you can easily see which is the original and which is the altered picture. If you have another program that can do that, you will have a better idea of what I am talking about.

AD wrote:

I think it's a compliment to Saucer that people thinks his shopped product was a real picture. Some people just don't want to believe that there are others out there with incredible skills. One way to know that the shopped picture is not real is that the cloth is too perfect. Saucer did an excellent job with the creasing and lighting, but don't you think a real construction site cover be a little dirtier than that? -=A

I never claimed that it was cloth to begin with. I believe it is yellow plastic sheeting

hi there y'all,
at first - please notice (as i ever mentioned) that these both images aren't just 2 steps!
what i posted as "source" was some file i saved during my workflow - im used to try new appendages on old/similar files to not destroy my "real"-image. *hmpf* it's just passed midnight here in germany and i got no sleep for approximately 36 hours so please excuse my bad english :)

maybe it could help to describe my workflow:
i searched 'bout half an hour for a proper "poster on house-wall"-image, [ http://www.pixelbag.de , http://www.sxc.hu , http://gulli.snygo.com , http://images.google.com ] and downloadet a few. I opened them and tried some stretching&crushing and often dropped the image so my original source-image got lost and i've just got a version after some trying (stretching, colour correction etc.).

(Just to be detailed: hereupon i searched an image with some bed-linen to copy the crinkles and took a photo of a house in my neighbourhood to get the window.the rest is some prosy "stamping" (about 100 minutes) and a lot of cigarettes :wink: )

well, i don't won't here to start a discussion about my photoshop-skills!

Respect the merited winners, the rest will show the next photoshop-contest

Motown wrote:

I’m not sure I agree with you 100%. He did say that he didn’t have the pure original source photo and this is probably an early version where he added the creases to start the effect. Even if you take the source he provided and enlarge it and brighten and change the contrast there are still serious skills if he did what you alledge. Also if the source is really the final edit, why wouldn’t he take out all of the wrinkles and creases? It would appear that upwards of 80% of them are missing. I’m willing to take saucer at his word unless you can unequivocally prove his edit to be fraud, I feel you’ve failed to establish that. Saucer, hopefully you will enter again this weekend, and make sure you include the original unedited source photo AND the final product to prove your skills.

I could be wrong, but I think SuperNinja's right.
Notice the "vacuum cleaners by woot.com" text. If he were that good, he would have made the letters follow the creases in the yellow tarp. He also wouldn't have made them truely black. I'll bet there are very few, if any at all, totally black (#000000) pixels in that image.

Another thing is that it would not be possible to get that level of detail (talking about everything else in the photo... cars, bikes, etc) in the image if you started from the "original". I don't care how much you adjust the levels, the pixels just aren't there.

Also, the edge on the top of the tarp in the "original" are too flat and their curves are too unevenly spaced. Why would someone hang a tarp with 5 support ropes on the right, and only 3 on the left? Why are there rips in the tarp on the left side?

I could be wrong, but I don't think I am :)

saucer wrote:

hi there y'all, at first - please notice (as i ever mentioned) that these both images aren't just 2 steps! what i posted as "source" was some file i saved during my workflow - im used to try new appendages on old/similar files to not destroy my "real"-image. *hmpf* it's just passed midnight here in germany and i got no sleep for approximately 36 hours so please excuse my bad english :) maybe it could help to describe my workflow: i searched 'bout half an hour for a proper "poster on house-wall"-image, [ http://www.pixelbag.de , http://www.sxc.hu , http://gulli.snygo.com , http://images.google.com ] and downloadet a few. I opened them and tried some stretching&crushing and often dropped the image so my original source-image got lost and i've just got a version after some trying (stretching, colour correction etc.). (Just to be detailed: hereupon i searched an image with some bed-linen to copy the crinkles and took a photo of a house in my neighbourhood to get the window.the rest is some prosy "stamping" (about 100 minutes) and a lot of cigarettes :wink: ) well, i don't won't here to start a discussion about my photoshop-skills! Respect the merited winners, the rest will show the next photoshop-contest

...and if you really did do it, then mad props to you! :D 8)

How do you say "poster on house wall" in German? Why don't you replicate the original search and find the image again? Why don't you tell us how we can replicate the original search and find the picture ourselves? Nothing adds up.

Don't be so damned gullible, people!!!!!!

Here is some proof of the fakery:

[size=18:d63275e0a9]Here is my "photoshopped" :wink: image[/size:d63275e0a9]

Here is my "original" :wink:

greg123456789 wrote:

this is the 1st time ive ever done something

That is like soooooo deep, man

houdini wrote:

[size=18:54b1319282]Here is my "photoshopped" :wink: image[/size:54b1319282] Here is my "original" :wink:

How about some English for those of us who don't "sprekenze deutch" [aka speak English in my bad German spelling] ?

Saucer, the gauntlet has been cast; it's up to you to prove your skills this weekend. I strongly advise that not only do you provide your pure original source photo, but that you also include the http: link to its location on the web so there is no confusion or allegations by anyone as to what you did or did not do.

We haven’t had a controversy like this since the OBL to OJ Simpson plagiarism entry with the first photoshop contest.

Look [size=18:99f529454d]**VERY**[/size:99f529454d] carefully at the borders of the banner, when the picture switches to the banner with german text.

Notice all the distortions (especially in the upper right)??? :lol:




Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

Here's a rough translation of what I wrote.

Does anyone here speak english?
Bathing Forbiden! I am Saucer.
It is correct somewhat does not have naked photo.
I'm a liar! I have a smelly
buttocks.
Saucer did not make it!
I eat garlic sausage!

Look at the lower left hand corner wrinkle and you will see it in his source image as well.
Also if you notice in the Stylomat image towards the right hand bottom you will see two poles sticking up from the ground that also show up on his source image.

located the real source image : http://www.stylomat.com/images/symphcard_3v2.jpg

ratwithwings wrote:

http://img103.exs.cx/img103/8420/symphcard3v27nh.jpg Look at the lower left hand corner wrinkle and you will see it in his source image as well. Also if you notice in the Stylomat image towards the right hand bottom you will see two poles sticking up from the ground that also show up on his source image. located the real source image : http://www.stylomat.com/images/symphcard_3v2.jpg

[size=24:dcf7357eb3]Ratwithwings, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/size:dcf7357eb3]

I did my detective work, and the evidence that I posted should have been more than enough proof for the rest of you wooters,
but Ratwithwings just BODYSLAMMED saucer into his coffin, and buried him 6 foot under!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm glad I wasn't one of the few wooters that was easily fooled by that CON MAN, saucer!!!!!!!!!!

EVERYONE, please SCRUTINIZE all photos [size=18:dcf7357eb3]THOROUGHLY[/size:dcf7357eb3] before you dish out praise to CON MEN (like saucer)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What's wrong Saucer? Nothing to say now that so much proof has been raised against you? You have the testicular fortitude to lie to all of us, but once you're proven to be a liar your testicles disappear?

damned unforgiving bunch, you are...
it was kinda funny though. that'll learn any of yeh to try and pull one over on the wootkins.

ratwithwings wrote:

Look at the lower left hand corner wrinkle and you will see it in his source image as well. Also if you notice in the Stylomat image towards the right hand bottom you will see two poles sticking up from the ground that also show up on his source image. located the real source image : http://www.stylomat.com/images/symphcard_3v2.jpg

Rat, this is by far the most damming evidence, and closes the book in my estimation.

Also, look at the "box" or light at the bottom edge near the left corner which appears in both images.

Although, I still give some credit to saucer for the kahonas to do what he did and to fool so many. It wasn't a simple cut and paste, he had to do a bit of work to get to the "before" image.

It really doesn't take much skill to do what he did. I did my spoof of his in about 5 min. I could have made it look more real but I wanted it to be obviouse that it was chopped. Regardless of skill or not, a liar is a liar. I won't give him any kudos for trying to cheat.

houdini wrote:

It really doesn't take much skill to do what he did.

I agree.

You know that a person has REAL skill when you CAN'T find ANY flaws in their pictures.
I pointed out a few of the OBVIOUS flaws in his FAKE "before" picture, but unfortunately, people tend to overlook the flaws in their "heros". :lol:

houdini wrote:

I did my spoof of his in about 5 min. I could have made it look more real but I wanted it to be obviouse that it was chopped. Regardless of skill or not, a liar is a liar. I won't give him any kudos for trying to cheat.

[size=18:31a0c2bfae]ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!![/size:31a0c2bfae]

Deception and lying should [size=18:31a0c2bfae]NOT[/size:31a0c2bfae] be congratulated, regardless of the level of effort involved!!!!!!!

And I KNEW, in my heart that I was right, and I tried my best to keep the rest of you wooters from being decieved. But some of you wish so strongly that there could be someone here with that level of skill, that you are willing to ignore (and in some cases, perhaps even put down) the people (like Houdini, Ratwithwings, and myself) that are trying to keep the FRAUDS out of here!

AD wrote:

I think it's a compliment to Saucer that people thinks his shopped product was a real picture. Some people just don't want to believe that there are others out there with incredible skills. One way to know that the shopped picture is not real is that the cloth is too perfect. Saucer did an excellent job with the creasing and lighting, but don't you think a real construction site cover be a little dirtier than that? -=A

I know that there are people "out there" that have incredible photoshop skills. But that doesn't mean they are here, in the woot forum.

Hopefully, now everyone should see the reason why they shouldn't believe too strongly in anything they see or hear, regardless of how realistic it may seem to them at the moment.

With a little detective work, the Wizard of Oz is easily defeated!!!

Ninja, out of curiosity, what was your opinion of the “entry” before you saw what he claimed was the original?

I could clearly see what you were referring to early on, the reason I cut him some slack was due to the story that he didn’t have the true original and this was after a few changes he made, so I took those visual inclusions as being his first edits as he was attempting to figure out how it would “stretch” the way he claimed to finish it. I could see that the upper right wasn’t what it should be.

Did he fool you? No, you’re clearly on the record as such. He did have me fooled early on, I can admit that; but I also try to put faith in trust into individuals on something this trivial (in the grand scheme of life I’m referring to).

I still give him credit for having the balls to try to pull it off. Is he a con? Sure. In actuality to me, it’s entertainment. He didn’t win a prize, no one lost any money or was maliciously harmed, and we’ve had something to talk about for a few days.

Let’s see what he tries to come up with this weekend, hopefully he’ll post something; meanwhile you and the others can satirically enter your own entries.

Who knows maybe it could be a theme for one of the contests, take a real “after” image and modify it to a possible “before”.

Motown wrote:

Ninja, out of curiosity, what was your opinion of the “entry” before you saw what he claimed was the original?

Because saucer didn't show both photos at the beginning, I really didn't have much of an opinion at that point. I also was thinking that saucer might know some photoshop tricks that would make it simple to create the illusion of the wrinkles in the sheet
I didn't suspect that he was trying to fool anyone, and I just looked at the picture and I thought "Ok. Kind of neat, but it is missing the item which I thought SHOULD be visibly incorporated into the picture, the Dirt Devil".

BUT, after I heard what houdini mentioned, I copied the two photos to my hard drive so I could do a better comparison of the two.
After a very brief comparison, I was absolutely sure that houdini was correct and saucer was a fraud.

And once again, I THANK Houdini for raising suspicion, and Ratwithwings for bringing the evidence to close this case.!! :D

Ratwithwings, did you search for and find that picture on your own, or did you send an e-mail to that company to get the link for the picture? :?

Side note:
I was also a little confused when saucer referred to the yellow sheet that was being pulled into the window a "bill". Is that what germans call a banner? :?