How does the Iranian made tank Karrar stack up against the other modern MBTs, such as the Abrams and the Russian T90MS?

How to make a picture look 90s Photoshop

Hereu2019s the Striker (Karrar) RWS on the left, side-by-side with the T-90MS RWS on the right.

I donu2019t think you have to be a tank expert to see itu2019s not just a simple knock-off:,So far, the dismissive comments Iu2019ve seen here on Quora and elsewhere are based on assumptions such as, u201citu2019s almost certainly not capable of abcu201d, or u201cthereu2019s no way the Iranians have developed an actual xyzu201d.

Basically, itu2019s non-experts saying they simply canu2019t believe Iranians can make something serious because of their ham-handed propaganda with the fake u201cstealthu201d fighter etc.

Their comments ooze with contempt, which, letu2019s face it, the Iranian regime brought on themselves by hyping or downright fabricating some of their achievements.

,Of note, even the few u201cexpertsu201d (not sure how being a staff writer for Popular Mechanics gives some guy a say about Tanks) seem to base their opinions on the argument from personal incredulity, essentially saying u201cItu2019s not possible for me to believe Iranians could have made a decent tank because of my innate hatred and contemptu201d without a single technical spec at their disposal, any references, or basically offering any kind of hard observations about the tank as shown in the footage publicly available that would lead one to believe any part of it is a hoax.

Apparently itu2019s too mind-boggling to accept that making a decent tank is whithin the realm of possibility for a culture that invented Algebra and produces world-class Engineers and Scientists.

,Another common refrain is that itu2019s a u201crip-offu201d of the T-90, or u201cjust an upgradeu201d of the T-72, which is very valid.

Just as valid as calling the American Vanguard and Juno rockets a u201crip-offu201d, or u201cjust and upgradeu201d, of the German V-2 since both US and USSR missile and jet technology was not only based on German know-how, but in fact employed captured Germans such as von Braun.

At least the Iranians havenu2019t been keeping Russian tank designers captive last I heard=D,Edit: In response to Ori Kojokro, the tank in the pictures is obviously a test model, hence the paint is irrelevant.

Your impression that the u201cmetal workingu201d is u201cterribleu201d lacks relevance unless youu2019re a Mechanical Engineer, and weu2019ll talk about how leaks occur under or behind vehicles, not in front of them.

You think maybe they washed the headlights and front end for the picture? Just a thought.

As for Sean Bryantu2019s observations, they are valid points, but unfortunately only backed up by personal disbelief that anyone other than the US or u201calliesu201d i.


the West can make a decent tank (with his disdain growing the farther East one goes until Russia is in the rear view, at which point apparently whatu2019s left is MC Hammer territory).

For a balanced view by someone without an ax to grind with Iran, inability to fathom u201ctowel headsu201d can build anything more sophisticated than a spear, or not upset that Russia wonu2019t be selling their T-90s to that country, read Rahbar Al Haqu2019s answer here:Rahbar Al Haqs answer to What are your thoughts on the new Iranian built tank Karrar?What gets lost in the noise are the real achievements of a country that has managed to fend for itself despite 40 years of crippling sanctions, and whose science and technology has been flourishing in spite of every attempt to block their progress.

Case in point is how the Iranians have not only kept their F-14s flying (a feat thought impossible by all the pundits) but have upgraded them.

Not to mention their indigenous radars, SAMs, smart bombs, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, etc.

Remember that America, Britain, Israel, Germany, Russia, and France had the benefit of unlimited access to the best minds and technology in the world while designing their tanks, while Iran has accomplished this feat while under the worst sanctions in history and with the highest rate of brain-drain in the world, and 1% of the US defence budget.

,The regimeu2019s previous antics aside, this one doesnu2019t appear to be all Photoshop and plywood:,TL;DR: How does the Striker compare to the other major MBTs? Probably not as well as the Iranian regime claims, but I bet you a helluvalot better than the average Western armchair general writing dismissive comments online would ever admit.

And if looks could kill:

70s photo effect Photoshop

I started print design in high school in yearbook.

Back then, in 1989/1990, we were still doing paste up.

Iu2019d have a pica sheet (a piece of paper gridded with picas, which are 12 points each, or 6 picas per inch, hence 72pt = 1 inch).

Youu2019d do your layout on this page, and then spec everything out.

Knowing the font and size, you knew how many lines and characters you probably had for body copy.

,Then youu2019d use this contraption called a crop ruler.

It had two L shaped brackets mounted on sliding thingies and they could rotate.

Youu2019d line them up with the u201csizeu201d of your photo and then slide it (so it was scaled proportionally) to crop the actually photo print you were using for that.

Youu2019d mark it with a wax pencil.

This would all go in a manilla folder (copy, markup sheet, photos, etc) and be sent off to the printer.

There they would do all the u201cpre pressu201d work, and send you back a u201cblue lineu201d proof of what it would print like.

You hoped color came out fine, since you didnu2019t get to see it.

,By the time I was design editor senior year (94u201395) it was Pagemaker all the way.

Since scanning was still low res or super expensive, we still did mark the photos up and send them in that way.

,Less than 10 years later I was art directing a magazine and everything was digital.

We laid out in InDesign with scanned photos, final copy, etc.

What it allowed me to do was try so many different things, especially with fonts and textures and masks on images.

Stuff that would have been nearly impossible without expensive custom prepress was simply a Photoshop session away.

,So Iu2019d say that everything changed, and it continues to do so.

Arguably, the computer has had as much of an effect on design as the printing press or the camera-style paste-up that flourished in the 60s and 70s.

80s photo effect Photoshop

The Transit of the moon across Earth, as seen by NASAu2019s Deep Space Climate Observer (DSCOVR) satellite:,This image is often cited by moon hoaxers and other voices of ignorance as u201cproofu201d that NASA is nothing but lies, damn lies, and statistics (though I doubt most such folks would get that reference).

,This is a completely authentic image of Earth and its moon.

But what does that actually mean?,Even accounting for the fact that the far side of the moon is somewhat darker than the near side, this image looks wrong.

Indeed, it looks photoshopped.

But it isnu2019tu2014it only looks that way because it defies your expectation of what a photo of Earth and its moon ought to look like, based on your experience down here on Earth.

,And there are several reasons for this.

,The first is the color rendering of the moon.

Humans (mostly) see the world in three colorsu2014(red, blue, and green).

Except we donu2019t.

Our third color receptor is a later evolutionary addition, and all three of our receptors are sensitive to broad overlapping ranges of colors:,Our brains use the relative strength of the signals from these three receptors to infer the true color of the scene, and they often get it wrong, leading to a whole class of optical illusionsu2014the best known being the distinct bands of color that all normal, healthy humans perceive in a rainbow (rainbows are really continuous).

,Most cameras are made to mimic the human eye and feed it what it expects.

When you photograph a baby or a super model, you arenu2019t generally interested in analyzing the spectral distribution of her forehead, you just want to capture the scene as you would see it.

But when NASA spends millions of dollars to send hardware into space, they are almost always after science data.

,The Earth-moon image in question was captured with the DSCOVR satelliteu2019s EPIC (Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera) which is custom designed to perform spectrographic imaging of the sunlit side of Earth in order to measure climate data.

It does NOT take images tuned to human eyes like a smart phone, but instead captures images using ten narrow frequency color sensors from ultra-violet to infrared, each tuned to the study of some elemental part of Earthu2019s atmosphere, in particular hydrogen, oxygen, and aerosols.

,By using a computer to render some of these frequencies as the color ranges visible to humans, itu2019s possible to produce a color image that meets human expectationsu2014after all, the camera was designed specifically to image Earthu2019s atmosphere.

,But when you point the instrument at the moon, it finds no hydrogen or oxygen, no aerosols, and in fact nothing but barren minerals that it wasnu2019t designed to see.

No matter how you map the ten sensor frequencies to human-visible colors, the results can never look anything but weird, and the result looks to the human eye like bad CGI from the u201880s, even through its absolutely authentic.

,The second reason the image looks odd is called forced perspective.

As any photographer knows, when you shoot through a telephoto lens, the visual cues used by the brain to estimate distances between objects in the scene become compressed.

The brain then must guess relative distances based only on its expectations of relative size, and this can be used to interesting effect:,The DSCOVR satellite is roughly a million miles away, looking at Earth through a fairly powerful telescope.

It was placed there, in the L1 Lagrangian point, because at that point, the gravitational interaction of the Earth and the sun allow it to sit essentially motionless relative to Earth, imaging the sunlit side of our planet 24x7 for years on end, something that would be essentially impossible otherwise:,[Simulation showing the spatial location of the DSCOVR spacecraft, Earth, and the moon, as it would appear to a human out in the L1 point.

Credit Scott Manley.

],That means if you (and your cellphone) were in a spaceship right beside DSCOVR youu2019d see something like this (arrow pointing to the Earth and moon):,[Earth and itu2019s moon as the unaided eye would see them from the vantage point of the DSCOVR satelliteu2014only not in eclipse.

],The EPIC camera images the Earth through an 11.

8-inch (30-centimetre) reflective telescopeu2014which basically flattens the perspective information down to zero (which is fine, itu2019s not needed for the science.

),Finally, the third reason the image looks weird is that it isnu2019t a single image.

EPIC-DSCOVR, like most space imaging cameras, only has a single, monochromatic CCD sensor array.

To capture images in one of those ten frequencies, it uses a pair of color wheels which are arranged in front of the sensor to block all but one color at a time.

,When imaging Earthu2014the task for which the camera was designedu2014this isnu2019t an issue at all.

The spacecraft is essentially stationary relative to Earth, and clouds move far too slowly to cause any blur at that distance from one exposure to the next.

,But when the moon transits in front of the Earth, itu2019s moving fast enough to create subtle differences from exposure to exposure creating a slightly squashed or smudged appearance.

,So, like so many scientific images rendered for human consumption by well-meaning scientists seeking to share their work with a world often indifferent to understanding, the EPIC-DSCOVR lunar transit photo is exactly what it claims to beu2014a completely authentic image of the moon crossing the Earth, shot through a telescope and a scientific imager from the L1 Point, but many people cannotu2014or will notu2014believe it.

,,An additional point raised in comments, and another excellent example of the difficulty of explaining even fairly mundane science to a lay audience: Some people question, why, if the satellite is between the Earth and the sun, the Earth and moon are not illuminated evenly.

,The DSCOVR satellite doesnt sit directly on a line drawn between Earth and the sun (that wouldnu2019t be stable), but orbits that line-drifting anywhere from 4 to 15 degrees off that line over time.

The image above was taken near the maximum, which is why both Earth and moon appear just shy of full.

They are both illuminated by the sun, about 12 degrees away from the line between the Earth and the camera.

,[Earth and moon as a human would see them from the vantage point of the DSCOVR spacecraft.

Image generated by JPLu2019s u201cEyes on the Solar Systemu201d application, using mathematical models of the objects involvedu2014but not on the date the transit was captured, so the sun is in a different position.

],,An additional point (raised by some in the comments) is that they donu2019t think the Earth should appear this large compared to the moon.

This is just further evidence of the difficulty in explaining science to a lay audience accustomed to judging things from their experience instead of data.

Some people apparently expect the Earth to be smaller as compared to the moon than it appears in this image.

,That is exactly wrong, but before I prove that, let me point something out.

Look at this photograph of the Earth, taken from lunar orbit during the Apollo 8 mission (using a fairly ordinary film camera).

Ask yourself, does the Earth look larger, smaller, or the same as the moon does from Earth?,Even if youu2019ve had this pointed out to you before, Iu2019ll bet you a doughnut that if you answer honestly, your answer is u201cthe same.

u201d,Why? Because this was taken through a camera lens of unknown (to you) focal length, from an uncertain vantage point, with nothing recognizable in the frame for scale.

Unless youu2019re buddies with a robot named Gort, the only big shiny sphere youu2019ve ever seen floating in a dark sky is the moon.

The above image offers no clues to scale, so when you look at it, your brain figures thatu2019s the moon and scales everything else to match.

Now let me paint in the moon to scale:,How bigu2019s the Earth look now?,Earthu2019s diameter: 12,742 km.

Moonu2019s diameter: 3,474.

2 km,Earth, its moon, and the distance between them drawn to scale:,Contrary to one comment below, Earth is actually larger, as compared to the moon, than it appears in the EPIC-DSCOVR transit image, in which the moon is 1/4 the distance closer to the camera than Earth and shot though a 12u2033 telescope.

Long lenses (i.


telescopes) compress the spacial cues the brain uses to assess size and distance, and make distant objects appear smaller as compared to nearer objects.

,[Beachgoers with toy car, shot through long lens]

How to make photos look vintage iPhone

What if you could buy a 50-year-old cell phone at a modest price on the used market that did everything an iPhone X could do, and that you knew would last for another 50 years?,Hereu2019s my living room system:,Those are JBL L100s.

Theyu2019re not flat (no speakers really are) though despite what Iu2019ve read online, my own admittedly crude measurements show them to be really quite flat.

Iu2019m sure theyu2019re u201ccolored,u201d and they do roll-off a little early, but then so do my 53-year-old ears.

Comb filtering, blah, blah, blah.

,But the thing isu2026 u2026hang on, Iu2019ll take a couple more photosu2026,u2026hereu2019s a close-up showing the corrugated cloth surrounds on the woofer and midrange:,Nothing to rot, stiffen, or dry-out, except in extremis.

,Hereu2019s the back of the LE5u20132 midrange driver:,Having just held it in my hand a minute ago, Iu2019d say it weighs 4 lbs.

Thatu2019s for a 4u2033 midrange.

The basket and magnet housing are cast and machined alloy.

Note the spring terminals, and die-stamped serial number on the foil decal.

,The 12u2033 wooferu2019s construction is equally impressive.

Alloy, crackle paint, vented, serialised, etc.

The cabinets are chambered, with nice walnut veneer (which, incidentally, is another reason why vintage gear is popular - your wife might actually let you put these in the living room, versus the lacquered safety-yellow-Dalek-looking things youu2019ll see mentioned elswhere.

),These date from the early 1970s.

I paid $300 for them about 20 years ago.

Iu2019m sure I could quite easily get $900 for them today.

They can get loud.

(Read: u201cLOUD.

u201d) And theyu2019re good - if you own any recordings from the 1970s and u201880s, chances are that they were mastered on these speakers or their functional equivalent(s) like the JBL 4310/11/12, etc.

,Can you walk into Best Buy or your local hifi store and buy anything as good or durable for $300? For $900? Iu2019ll answer for you; in the case of the former, the answer is u201cno,u201d and for the latter, itu2019s u201cstill no.

u201d,Back in the 1960s and u201870s, companies like JBL and Altec were making professional-quality gear for commercial installations.

For their consumer lines, they used the same suppliers, tooling, and even the same components.

They couldnu2019t engineer parts for the manufacturing methods in common use today - they were using period supplier networks, machinery, etc.

They had far less competition than they would today - their margins were fatter, and thus they were under relatively little pressure to shave pennies in the interest of economy.

As a result, these speakers are waaaaay overbuilt, and unlikely in the extreme to ever fail, as long as one is judicious with the power, and avoids mishaps.

,The way speakers like these monitors work hasnu2019t really changed (at all) in 50 years.

What has changed in the meantime are materials, manufacturing methods, and markets.

This speaker could not and would not be made in quite the same way today, for no end of reasons.

For but one: if a designer walked into the bossu2019 office today and told him he wanted to apply a fancy finish and bring in machinery to produce or otherwise source serialised, stamped, die-cut, screen-printed foil decals to be applied to internal speaker bits not intended to ever even be seen, heu2019d be laughed out of the room.

,But thatu2019s how they did it back then.

These speakers will soon be 50-years-old, and I see no reason why they shouldnu2019t be able to go on just as long again.

,Thatu2019d be 100 years.

Now; when JBL produced the L100, was it their intent to make a speaker that would last a century?,Probably not, and yet:

How to make a photo look old and scratched

A2A by Harsh Bhatt (u0939u0930u094du0937 u092du091fu094du091f)Before telling you how to make a new image look old, I will show you the before and after picture.

,This is my original photo.

I chose this photo because it has rich colors and sharp edges.

It was a photo clicked by me at Mumabi near Gateway of India.


Before fading it would be appropriate to blur the image a little, because faded images would be little blurred.

So I used Gaussian blur command Filer>Blur>Gaussian Blur.

I used a value of 2.

1 pixels.

This is the blurred image.


Now I reduced the saturation to lose some colors.

I reduced the saturation to 50%.

This is how image looks after reducing saturation.


Then I duplicated this desaturated layer, changed the blend mode toscreen and reduced the opacity to 54%(by trial and error).

Now I donu2019t want the image to fade uniformly.

Usually fading happens in patches.

So I have created a white layer mask by giving command Layer>Layer Mask>reveal all.

,Then in the layer mask I have rendered difference clouds.

This will give randomness to the selection.

So the command is Filter>Render>Difference clouds.

I have faded the difference clouds 50% by giving command Edit>Fade difference clouds.

,Now the faded image looks like this:,4.

Still after the fading; trees, taxi and some green thin on left are not faded properly.

So I selected roughly these areas with lasso tool, feathered by 10 pixels and copied them to new layer.

And changed the blend mode to screen.

This is how image looks after this:,5.

Then I created a new adjustment layer levels by using command LayerLevels.

,This is my levels layer.

Then in the layer mask I have created difference clouds ,changed the blend mode to screen and opacity to 54%,This is how my image looks after levels.

,If you find the fading to be too patchy, you can reduce the opacity still more.


Usually old faded photos have some colored stains on them.

So I created a new adjustment layer u2018Photo filteru2019 With a pink color.

Optionally you can choose any other color.

In layer mask I have again rendered difference clouds( to achieve randomness),This is my photo filter layer.

,This is how photo looked after photo filter:,7.

If you want just faded image you can stop at this point.

But if you want still old look, there are still some more things to do.

,So here is how you will get a crumpled look.

I have downloaded crumpled paper texture from white crumpled paper texture for background.

This is crumpled paper (We can actually make this crumpled paper from scratch in photoshop.

But the answer will become too lengthy and complicated),Now I copied this image and pasted it on topmost layer of our image and changed the blend mode to u2018Multiplyu2019.

This is the crumpled look.


Usually old photos will fade more at the edges and will be torn in random way.

To achieve this effect, I have created a new layer, filled it with white.

Created a layer mask and filled with black (hiding the white fill).

Now I used #33,#36 and #90 brushes and painted with white at the edges of the layer mask randomly.

I have painted even inside the image.

To give an u2018old looku2019.

This is how it looks after this.


How about having some scratches on the photo? I have downloaded scratches texture from Scratch texture png 2 PNG ImageI have copied this texture, pasted on topmost layer and changed the blend mode to u2018screenu2019 of our image.

I again copied it and rotated it slightly and moved to left to get more scratches.

This is how our image looks with some scratches.


Finally I gave a sepia tone, by creating a new photo filter adjustment layer with sepia color.

,This is my final image.

,This is the layer pallet:,This is a custom made template made by me.

You can modify any layer, either by changing the settings or by decreasing/ increasing the opacity of any layer.

,Though writing this answer took some time actual doing the job will take less than 15 mnts.

,Hope this will be helpful for you.

1950s Photoshop filter

Nowadays, people love to edit their photo is such a way so they look as they were captured in 1950s.

This effect is called vintage effect.

It can be created by Adobe Photoshop.

Here is the complete workflow.

,a) At first open the image,b) Then go to Adjustment layer icon and select Color Lookup,c) Abstract tab,d) Then select Gold-Crimson,e) Duplicate the Background Layer,f) select Convert to Smart Object,g) Go to Filter>Lens>Custom tab,h) Change Vignette Amount to -60 and Midpoint to +40.

Click OK,i) go to Filter>Filter Gallery,j) Textures menu,k) select Grain,l) Intensity to 20 and Contrast to 60,m)Then Grain Type on Regular,n) Then press OK and Save.

,Now your turn.