is this pic real?

Using a Mk 1 eyeball and that's all, I'd say that it's definitley been altered. Methinks the original photo of the guy was taken somewhere else then pasted onto the delightful river background. Reasons being

I:- the chap appears everso out of focus, like his image had been zoomed in to make it seem as if he was closer to the camera; compare this to the background which is nice and sharp.

II:- The lighting seems 'off' - the chap seems to be overly more illuminated than the background, although there's a glut of possible explanations for this.

III:- His shadow. No. Just..no.

IV:- The fish's spine contrasts slightly with the chaps vest - I would speculate that he was originally holding a larger fish, which would link with the appearance of his left hand/fingers which seem just 'wrong'.

V:- The cut of the guys vest also seem off - I think that you would see the neckline of it between his left hand and the fish's head. Seems to me that it's been coloured in, probably to cover where the larger fish's body would have been.

I would say then that the gentleman was originally pictured holding a larger fish on a boat or something, this was chopped and pasted onto the background picture, covering someone/thing else, basis for this being the angle of the shot taken of the background, which seems more interested in the trees rather than a standard landscape shot which would (usually) include more of the river and the trees.

Interesting thread btw

[edit on 19-8-2006 by Dough Boy]

[edit on 19-8-2006 by Dough Boy]

Not bad, but there are a few items:

The shadow on the ground doesn't "fold" to follow the contours on the ground; it's too flat, and, to my eye, seems to put the sun at a wrong angle. To me, it has the look of a shadow area lifted from a studio background and pasted onto the forest trail.

Edges on the outside of the figure show a definite border, which the edges on the inside do not:

It's also quite prominent on the figure's cheek.


Hair: it's a bitch, cowlicks most of all. It's nearly impossible to paste hair into another image while retaining it's natural look. Where I work, our retouchers routinely draw in individual hairs to create the illusion. Compare the delicate filaments you see on the kid's forehead with the clumps against the foliage:

It's too bad the kid's eyes aren't visible: we could get a better idea of the lighting.

Several other things the outdoorsman in me noticed right away:

That fish looks like it has been dead for a while. The eyes are lifeless and it appears too dry.

I can't tell if that fish has fangs, or the retoucher just messed up the mouth.

I, and I think most fishermen, usually hold a small freshwater fish like that by putting my thumb in the mouth and finger under the lower lip, but with incisors like that, I can see why the kid might be just tickling the fishie's dewlap.

I won't post a pic, but here's oodles of pictures of people with their thumb in a fish's mouth.

Oh, yeah, one other thing: the kid's elbow seems to have magically fused with some of the grass growing on the bank:

The more I look at it the more the guy looks out of place. The lighting contrast between him and the background makes the whole photo look kind of View-Master-ish.

I think the poster's point was that people will not say an obviously photoshopped picture is fake if it shows something sompletely natural, such as a guy holding a fish, but will instantly say it is fake if it includes any topic out of the norm.


As for the picture, the black line around the hand and the odd lighting on the fish says to me it is blatantly photoshopped, or at least tweaked to look as if it was.

So, Openfire, I think everybody made their points, can we know the results? Who was right or wrong? and can we see the original/s if they're is one or some. Thank you.

-Jimmy-

It has to be photoshopped because nobody would embarass themselves by having a picture taken of themselves holding such a small bass. Is that a freakin' guppy?

Peace

What’s all over the side of that Bass? it looks polluted or something. The pic is most definitely PS'ed. The EXIF alone gives it away and the points brought up by many of you here are for the most part right on the money.

So yea... ATS has some decent photo analysts.

So, Openfire, I think everybody made their points, can we know the results? Who was right or wrong? and can we see the original/s if they're is one or some. Thank you.

I'd have to agree... You've heard the analysis...so what's the verdict? PS or not?

the shawdow of tue trees are facing the opisite direction of the guys shawdow

I'm going to hazard a guess that the photo is in fact completelygenuine and you're testing the way people's imaginations can see all sorts of things when they are either searching for imperfections, or trying to convince themselves that they're seeing something that isn't in fact there, as often happens with UFO photos.

Not to say the photo looks 100% convincing... but I suspect this is purely a test?