• Rashnet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The top photo was taken (I suppose by a satellite?) with a polarized filter and the bottom photo looks like a drone shot without a polarized filter. The polarized filter will make the water appear more blue and ‘see through’ the non polarized photo shows the sunlight and smoke reflecting off the water.

    I am quite unsure what any of this has to do with the fact you can look at both photos and see clearly that most of the buildings are burnt to the ground in the second photo. Does the lack of a polarized filter in the second photo indicate that those buildings really didn’t burn to the ground?

    • blanketswithsmallpox@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Thanks for the info. And no, you’re just looking way too into what I said lol.

      It legitimately looks sepia filtered. On a near similar photo showing damage which has pretty vibrant colors everywhere including the ocean. The ash and or filter makes much of the colorization look exactly like someone put a snap filter on it to make it look worse than the already terrible event it is, as if it needed a more grim look to popularize the picture. If they did end up applying a filter, I doubt it needed it, and may even look worse without one.

      Trying to spread this weird implied false flag shit out of nowhere is literal insanity, Rashnet lol.