yay, i win...and to the person who commented specifically about me....want a photoshop lesson?

/It's all in the pixels

On a side note, i love the picture on daily snap and am ordering a print. So photoshop or replaced glass, its still damn cool art.

Yeah it looked cool, but it kinda annoys me when someone says "Yeah it's real. Well, I mean it might not exactly exist still because of the...uh...abandoned building renovation squad! Yeah, they...uh...fix random window panes and stuff so it might not still be there..."

Feh, I figured there was work done (like someone sliding the contrast bar a smidge too much to the right...) but can't believe he bothered to actually make a film slide out of it.

I need to turn in my Fake Photo Detector badge. I just don't put the effort into it like I used to.

I think that building used to have the Terrel Owens "migrane" mural before that fantasy one.

I can make a honest man out of the daily snap guy and go break the photoshopped windows at lunch. Na I think I'll just go get a whopper.

Myth: BUSTED

If the photographer had the idea, why didn't he break the glass himself? Journalism is dead. No wait, this is journalism. Photography, that's what's dead.

Not that anyone cares, but the mural is of A Midsummer's Night Dream.

Crecente swashbuckles in for the win! Yarr!

seriously though, thanks for the heads up. i know several people who thought this was just the "coolest thing ever." feh. there's better game art out there.

I never was interested in this story much, but now THIS makes it juicy. The lying Dailysnap guy should have just said he took this picture while walking around some streek in Ukraine or somewhere harder to investigate...

Shananigans! Crecente Photoshopped the glass back in! I can tell.

What's wrong with you, Brian? To go through *that* much work...for what?

You should be ashamed.

Haha, this DOES make it juicy, no? We're living in a time where nobody believes anything they see anymore. When I took the photo, the building WASN'T to be demolished and I thought it was operational (to a degree).

When you posted your comment on FLICKR (you never did email me or try to speak to me after your photos), I replied back 'oddly defensive' because I had been emailed by hundreds of people asking the same question - is it fake? I was tired of it.

Why on EARTH would I even care to reply back to you - with a physical address, mind you - if I knew this was fake? I only provided a caveat since I did notice a few panes had been replaced. But again, why would I even care to reply back to you if I knew this was fake?

This was taken almost seven months ago. A lot changes in that time. Things do get replaced. LIKE THE WHOLE BUILDING WILL BE. It's right next to the convention center, and the building will be demolished in a few months.

From the start, you went for the "I'm out to prove it's fake" story rather than trying to have some sort of journalistic quality and try to see if a story made sense in any way, shape, or form.

Did you contact the demolition company? Did you contact the owners of the building? I DID. And if you call them, you'll see that some work was done to the panes, but they got bought out wholly instead of trying to renovate. Trendy lofts will be built there soon enough.

Also, I still have my slide film (http://www.dailysnap.com/images/docs/tetrisfark.jpg) if you want to see it in PERSON, something you can't fake; but obviously you'll probably never get to that level. It's there if you want to see it, though.

Overall, the main thing here is why would I even talk to you if I knew this was fake? That simple. The fact that you were from Denver meant I could prove this one for all the skeptics, not knowing you were the biggest one of all.

Brian, from the start you set off to make me look bad. Congrats.

Dude, giving any location on the internet is just asking to have your story debunked. If it wasn't Crecente in Denver, it'd be some 20 year old guy in the Ukraine who visted DailySnap and likes photography and wants to go see if that guys story checks out and get some shots of his own.

The lying DailySnap guy should have just not lied.

You got caught in a lie. Just suck it up, admit it, and move on. Then everyone will forget it in a month.

ok since this is just going to be a he said she said argument. I have this observation to offer. Why is every one of the open windows at the same precise angle in the two pictures supposably 7 months apart. If certain pains of glass are being replaced; you would think just one of those windows would have moved. That being said, its still really cool art. Be happy you got the press. Im sure you have had an influx of sales on this item. I myself have never heard of your site, but because of kotaku, i am brining you a profit on this item.

@ Daily Snap

The "replaced" glass is *just* as filthy as the other glass. Even if they replaced the windows the day after you snapped the photo, seven months is not enough time to do that.

stephenzerotwo: So cliche, BUT, it's not too much about the press or money, but simply about making me look bad. I will admit there are coincidences, but I have some of my side as well. Like I said before (and have invited Brian to see), the good thing here is that I shot this on film and not digital. I still have my slide, and it's something you can't fake. In the end, I guess that's all I have.

But again, just the fact that Brian went out to try to make me look bad - that's what irks me. Why would I even contact him if I knew in my heart this was fake? Where's the logic, you know? I know I won't gain much 'love' from this crowd (wrong turf, haha), but obviously an open mind is all I wanted from the start.

Oops Terrel Davis not Owens.

OK,
Because the photographer continues to insist that he did not photoshop out any of the panes of glass. I called the demolition company and talked to a guy there about the building.
I even convinced him to pull up Kotaku and look at the photographer's image and my image.
First some background:
This building has been empty for about a year.
The picture was taken six to seven months ago.
The demolition company got the contract in December.
While the demo guy said he couldn't say for sure whether glass was broken and replaced, he said it was both highly unlikely and that it wouldn't make any sense for someone to do that.
In particular he pointed out several things. First off, they wouldn't bother with some panes of glass and leave the rest broken because it really wouldn't serve any purpose.
Second, once a building is empty, what glass is replaced is usually replaced with plexiglass and my picture clearly shows, he said, glass not plexiglass.
Third, the "replaced glass" is just as dirty as the original glass. Something he pointed out.
He did say, thinking outside the box, that there is one possibility. It's possible that some of the pains just fell out, plummeted to the floor inside the building or the ground outside, without breaking and that someone then went back and put the panes back in. But he didn't think that probably happened.
I'm sticking with thinking that it's highly unlikely that the image was not played with a bit. It's possible, but just doesn't seem probable.
I am shocked that I managed to convince some guy at a demo company to spend a good 10 minutes talking to me about Tetris and building demolition for Kotaku. How weird is that?

Oh, and why would I care about making some photographer I've never met look bad? Come on, I love game art, I'm constantly pimping it. No hater here.

If he had put an extra hour or two into it, he could have just broken the windows and saved himself the trip to internet hatedom via the photoshop express.

Play much Phoenix Wright, Crecente?

Wow, Brian...just.......wow. I can't believe you did that. WTFG! Imagine that, "follow through" on a blog site. I'm stunned.

This is pretty fucking stupid to be honest. You guys act like complete morons sometimes.

Like Daily said, Why does it matter and who gives a fuck if it's real or manipulated. It's a artsy game photo.

He's proved it with the slide of film. Brian you're acting way too childish over the whole situation and you're attitude is atrocious.

Just because you live in the same city and run a blog doesn't mean you're the don fucking mega and have to go out of your way to attack some random photographer. Need your Ego stroked Brian? Looks it. Either way he said his side of the story. Who cares if its real or fake, its a photo. I understand it's probably a slow week for blogging but grow the fuck up.

The nut-swingers on this site is amazing.

While I LOVE that Mr. Crecente went through all of the trouble to point out the tricks of an obvious photo-shop using internet attention hog, and the certainly well meant, but ultimately misplaced and misguided attempts by the perpetrator to claim his doctored photo isn't a trick, I'm reminded of an old saying:

Arguing on the Internet is a lot like the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

:)

Who wants to lay the odds on ^^^ being the guys buddy?

It's a manipulated photo that the OP claimed was not. Regardless of how cool it is, which it isn't that much, that is the core point. It's a defacto standard Intertube argument. It needed settling. crecente settled it.

Hey guys my wiener has pacman for a bellend! Here's the pic to show it! What do you mean it's shopped? I don't care if you can tell by the pixels and having seen a few shops in your time, you're spoiling the fun.

LOL! Just came back from down there on walnut, and I had to do a doubletake when I saw the building from the tetris story. Knew that it looked familiar....

BTW - Congrats on your front page appearance!!

I'm gonna have to side with Brian on this one. It's a shame that the dailysnap guy didn't just admit that it was fake and move on.

By the way, the fact that Brian bothered to actually check the building is called responsible journalism, and it should be highly encouraged!

In all fairness, it's possible that the window panes are removeable (like they pop out and can be popped back in).

I'm sorry if facts make you uncomfortable Autocht. Instead of endlessly arguing about whether or not its real or fake, I went and looked. No biggie, but worth a post.

@ Autocht

Relax, buddy. No one is "attacking" anyone (except you attacking Brian).

I guess you're the only person who's allowed to criticize others. Hypocrite.

Liars deserve what they get...exposed.

"Also, I still have my slide film (http://www.dailysnap.com/images/docs/tetrisfark.jpg) if you want to see it in PERSON, something you can't fake"

In what world can you not fake a slide? There are two possibilities here:

a) you're a photographer that does not know your tools (because any photographer would know how to fake a slide using common photographic tools)

or

b) you are still trying to hoodwink the rest of us by assuming *we* don't know anything about common photographic tools.

Either way, pretty dumb.

Regardless, you've posted a *picture* of a slide that itself may or may not be fake. None of us knows if you even actually have this slide. For all we know, the picture of the slide could have easily been digitally manipulated as well.

But that's not the point. The point is even the slide itself *would prove nothing*. Take a photo, manipulate it, print it, take another photo of that print, print it, boom, you have a supposedly "legitimate" slide. Why would you go to all that trouble? I'm not convinced you have, but you *could* if you needed to - you're counting on not needing to. (And I don't think you will need to, because nobody's going to take this seriously enough to visit your house and check, nor should they.)

The original photo posted showed all the hallmarks of a photoshop job and the only *real* evidence we have shows that it was. Could Brian have manipulated all of *his* photos instead? Sure, but he's got six of them from different angles - not to mention a lot to lose if he gets caught (like, for example, his job). We've seen one photo from you, and you've got nothing to lose except a reputation that didn't exist in the first place. And you're not helping that rep by continuing to insist that your photo's legit.

I think the photo you made was cool, manipulated or not. I agree with those that said you should have just called it art and left it at that. There is no reason to continue arguing that it was real. We know that it probably wasn't, and a true artist probably wouldn't care what we thought either way. Real magicians don't give away their tricks.

it blows my mind that this guy would stick around and try to maintain such a silly little lie.

The most damning piece of evidence is the fact that the only panels that were "replaced" were ones that were involved in the Tetris pieces.

What a hole you've dug for yourself, dailysnap. This why mother tells you not to lie.

I'm sure if Brian took this guy up on his offer to see the original, the photographer would finally admit his lie.

Dailysnap:

The only one making you look bad is you.

If you haven't figured it out by now.

You should have claimed credit for the 'shop since many people enjoyed it. Including me. Defending the act that it's not an alteration when clearly it is... well, it makes me not want to look at your "original" any more.

Credibility. With the Internet it can be stolen or it can be thrown away. Guess which you just did.

Zadaz:

Fair enough. The whole thing is just stupid, in my opinion. Guess I do regret even saying anything at all, especially on Kotaku turf :-)

At least I'm glad some of you enjoyed the shot. As a request, for all of those who have or plan to - stop contacting me with all the juvenile emails (and for the few asses out there, stop with the death threats); very ridiculous, especially over something as dumb as this.

The whole thing is moot now. Let's just move on. Yada yada yada. I won't speak about it again...

*no more Korobeiniki*

so you did fake it?

Wow, all of this just to anwser my question from the last topic on this, is now full of flamewars.

Okay, I have one theory in defense of the photographer. If any of the panes of glass were merely "popped out" (for instance, by the vandals themselves, in order to make tetris block shapes), and were lying on the ground near the windows, it's not a huge stretch to assume that, if they were planning on renovating the building or something, workers would have popped those windows (and only those windows) back in, because they'd be in their way at the very least.

The rest of the missing panes were probably broken, which is why they weren't replaced. The tetris-loving vandals, though, would have just popped out their windows.

My point is, while the evidence seems weighed in against the photographer, it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. He'd be found innocent if he had OJ's lawyer.

Next on G4: "Is photoshopped window Tetris vandalism art?" Crecente vs the Dailysnap guy.

Now excuse me, while I go make me some Tetris pieces of my own on the crapper.

Hey dowingba,
Johnny Cochron (spelling?) died last year. But if he was still around, "If the glove don't fit you must acquit."

This is fraud.
The DailySnap guy falsified the image. The picture was clearly taken from "across it" and not at ground level. Also, it was image corrected (not just a generic PnS digital cam).
By creating a false image, and statements, this lures viewer (clicks) to generate traffic (revenue).
Validating the image (or invalidating as Brian investigated and shows manipulation) should be required.
Pretty low. Hmm, I'm bored but I want tools to visit my site and generate (traffic) so let me do this...
L0s3r.

I see two legitimate Tetriminos as well (not counting the two 2x2 window frames that are hinged open). Unless you're playing Son of Tetris, in which case there might be a few other legitimate ones as well (I think my most hated one was the one that had a single block with three others attached diagonally to the corners, because there was no way you could possibly set that one down without leaving a gap somewhere).

"In all fairness, it's possible that the window panes are removeable (like they pop out and can be popped back in)."

Nah. If you've ever seen that type of window, it's a metal frame backed by a caulk-like glazing that tends to break loose in chunks. The odds that you'd have that many panes (and only ones that comprise Tetriminos) have the glazing completely fall away, and _NOT_LAND_ON_THE_FLOOR_BENEATH_THE_PANE_ would be astronomical. Without that happening, you've got a significant enough fall (notice that only the vertical bar Tetrimino has a missing pane that could potentially be at floor height) from a minimum of a full pane's height that any debris located on the floor beneath or the edges of the pane would provide enough of a varied surface that the glass would break over it up on impact. Add to that the fact that some of the panes would be falling on other panes (the vertical bar is the worst offender, in that you'd have four panes stacked one atop the other), and you just magnify the likelihood of panes being destroyed when they fall out. And before anyone tries to suggest that perhaps all the glazing had fallen out and been swept away, window panes like those are never sized for a friction fit. You have to account for expansion and contraction (which metal will do a lot more than glass) due to the heat of the summer and cold of the winter, so the pane would necessarily be made with a loose fit, probably of about 1/8" in each direction. There's no way those would have stayed put long enough for the glazing to be swept up, since the slightest breeze would have been enough force to tip them out of their frames (not to mention the possibility that any of the hinged sections had been tilted out at some point). I'd say there would have been greater likelihood that some Tetris-hating glass salesman had gone to the trouble of replacing those panes by hand before being chased out for trespassing.

anybody notice how the building itself is alot more dirty in the photoshopped picture? granted alot of that could just be due to lighting, but not that much. why would a building being demolished be cleaned?