5 ms·

Off the top of my head, the German bird probably does. It probably gets muddled if the cage bars overlap it.

eridius 10y ago
There are other birds on the same stamp and they're all behind bars. Only in that one cage is the bird in front of the bars.
- conductr 10y ago
  This is still a good example. The bird he is holding is a more important object than the other birds. It's a focal point. This is also true with the ship ropes cutting through the moon, if they don't the moon shape stands out more. Omit a toe so the foot looks like a foot, otherwise the toes are too small and look jumbled anyways. There's even the building with the tree shadow. If the tree shadow was in the foreground it would not even be visible on the stamp. If the light source was really respected, the building would be casting a shadow on the entire scene and the building would probably look poorly lit itself. More than likely, the image was drawn based on a view where the light source created the best light on the building thus the shown shadow of the tree. However, that left the sky empty - so let's just draw in the sun and it looks great. Is it photo accurate? No, but it doesn't make it an error.
  - eridius 10y ago
    I don't know why you're trying to rationalize this. It's much more likely that all of these examples were genuine errors than that someone decided to introduce something that is obviously incorrect because they thought it was somehow more aesthetically pleasing.
    - conductr 10y ago
      Seriously? How about because you asked for examples. And it's something I personally do all the time. I'm in photoshop zoomed in to perfect some detail, then I zoom out and it looks like garbage. So I purposely make an "error" so it looks better at 100%. I don't know why you insist on having such a literal photo realistic illustration or else the only rational explaination is that artist must have made an error. Error implies unintentional, which many of these are. But many are not.
      - eridius 10y ago
        I get the concept of introducing tiny errors to make it look better, but I disagree with almost all of the examples you cited. For the bird one, the shape of the bird in that cage is different than the other yellow birds, but is identical to the black one. So that bird was probably originally black, then was edited to be yellow but they forgot to restore the black bars over it. For the moon one, that's extremely implausible. It's a tiny rope, right next to a large shape that clearly cuts across the moon. Having it go behind the moon doesn't make the moon stand out any more, it's simply an error. In addition, the moon isn't even the focal point of that image, it's a fairly incidental detail (hell, it's almost hidden behind the house). The toe one is the only one that I think is plausibly intentional. For the tree one, I agree that the scene was likely drawn without a sun, then the sun added in after. But that does make it an error, because they decided to stick a sun somewhere that clearly contradicts the lighting on the rest of the stamp.

There are other birds on the same stamp and they're all behind bars. Only in that one cage is the bird in front of the bars.

conductr 10y ago
This is still a good example. The bird he is holding is a more important object than the other birds. It's a focal point. This is also true with the ship ropes cutting through the moon, if they don't the moon shape stands out more. Omit a toe so the foot looks like a foot, otherwise the toes are too small and look jumbled anyways. There's even the building with the tree shadow. If the tree shadow was in the foreground it would not even be visible on the stamp. If the light source was really respected, the building would be casting a shadow on the entire scene and the building would probably look poorly lit itself. More than likely, the image was drawn based on a view where the light source created the best light on the building thus the shown shadow of the tree. However, that left the sky empty - so let's just draw in the sun and it looks great. Is it photo accurate? No, but it doesn't make it an error.
- eridius 10y ago
  I don't know why you're trying to rationalize this. It's much more likely that all of these examples were genuine errors than that someone decided to introduce something that is obviously incorrect because they thought it was somehow more aesthetically pleasing.
  - conductr 10y ago
    Seriously? How about because you asked for examples. And it's something I personally do all the time. I'm in photoshop zoomed in to perfect some detail, then I zoom out and it looks like garbage. So I purposely make an "error" so it looks better at 100%. I don't know why you insist on having such a literal photo realistic illustration or else the only rational explaination is that artist must have made an error. Error implies unintentional, which many of these are. But many are not.
    - eridius 10y ago
      I get the concept of introducing tiny errors to make it look better, but I disagree with almost all of the examples you cited. For the bird one, the shape of the bird in that cage is different than the other yellow birds, but is identical to the black one. So that bird was probably originally black, then was edited to be yellow but they forgot to restore the black bars over it. For the moon one, that's extremely implausible. It's a tiny rope, right next to a large shape that clearly cuts across the moon. Having it go behind the moon doesn't make the moon stand out any more, it's simply an error. In addition, the moon isn't even the focal point of that image, it's a fairly incidental detail (hell, it's almost hidden behind the house). The toe one is the only one that I think is plausibly intentional. For the tree one, I agree that the scene was likely drawn without a sun, then the sun added in after. But that does make it an error, because they decided to stick a sun somewhere that clearly contradicts the lighting on the rest of the stamp.