Are these pictures real or fake?

I had to post this here because I thought it is somehow related to UFOs. I find these pictures too good to be true, especially at such a close range. They look fake, they look more like paintings, yet:

Photographer Rob Palmer captured these incredible pictures in Colorado, U.S. The 56-year-old, from Littleton, said: 'I noticed a group of eagles sitting in the trees and then I spotted they were catching the starlings and blackbirds. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Why is a paper like this posting these fakes? Even the comments suggest that the pictures are fake...
Maybe someone at ATS could create some great CGI which shows the Mothman in a Saucer while abducting bigfoot and send it to them, maybe they buy that story as well.
I thought the Daily Mail UK was a bit more serious.


(MODs, please feel free to move this topic to the right section)

Eh, it could be. If it is, then the photographer definitely used a posterized effect in photoshop, or whichever editing software. I'd assume that the pictures are genuine and the effect was added to give it a different look. But then again, it could just be a well painted picture.

I pretty sure that these are fake because Bald eagles do not and more importantly can not hunt on the wing. Their wings are designed for soaring and gliding not fast aerial assault. The raptors that do hunt on the wing named accipiters include Goss hawk, Sharp shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, American kestrel, Peregrin falcon, Gyr falcon, Prairie falcon. Eagles are opportunistic and scavenge wounded and vulnerable animals.

They could be fakes. If so, they're very good fakes... but then again it's just about impossible to tell a real photo / video from a good fake anymore.

What seems suspicious to me are the flaws in the eagle's feathers. If you look at the large feathers on its wings, you can see tears / imperfections in the feathers, which of course would be natural for a wild eagle. However, if you look at all the other photos, the imperfections are -exactly- the same. Even though the wings are in different positions, and the momentum of the wings and the air would be different, the feathers look completely unchanged from one picture to the next. This seems impossible to me, given the powerful flapping motions and air currents that you would have in a real situation like this. It suggests either a well-constructed computer model or rigged-up taxidermy.

But I guess I really can't say for certain.

In my non expert opinion, I think they're real. They look real to me. I wouldnt even stop to take a double look at it if I was scrolling through that webpage cause nothing about it stands out as 'odd' to me.

How ironic.

The mighty eagle snatches another bird. Let that be a warning evil-doers.

How to make a CGI Bird

When I had a good look at those pics, Zbrush came to mind. Specifically, the article I put up.

if real great pic but...

What is it in Alien/UFO forum already?

The photo is actually and blatanly an oil painting of the bird of prey and where I live I see the bird of prey nearly every single day as I'm surround by the countryside and now I have seen this I will get you all a close up picture of the bird of prey and then you'll see the difference

Even the media are trying to inform people by manipulating an oil painting of a great creature into their headlines because they know people are dumb enough to believe such lies. Fancy that' the media website making out a photographer took the shot's of this Bird of Prey. That's got me on a right mission. I'l be spending the rest of this week to get you lot here on ats authentic photo shots of the REAL Bird of Prey.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by DClairvoyant]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by DClairvoyant]

Originally posted by DClairvoyant
The photo is actually and blatanly an oil painting of the bird of prey and where I live I see the bird of prey nearly every single day as I'm surround by the countryside and now

I was gunna let this thread go until I read the above quote. CGI I can buy, but you are out of your mind if you think thats an oil painting. Ive been working w. computer graphics and mixed media for 12 years. Ive seen a lot of oil paintings too. That picture would have to be over 30 yards wide to get that kind of detail. Snip



Mod Note Please Review Courtesy Is Mandatory


[edit on 15/3/2010 by Sauron]

Well if they are fakes the person sure had an incredible eye for detail. All the flaws on the birds wing tips are identical (allowing for different wing positions) in all the shots.

Its hard to say, and I am not a photographer, but the only thing that makes it look unreal is the fantastic clarity of the pictures.

I would lean toward real, (taken with an amazing camera) but I could be wrong.

Originally posted by NightVision

Originally posted by DClairvoyant
The photo is actually and blatanly an oil painting of the bird of prey and where I live I see the bird of prey nearly every single day as I'm surround by the countryside and now

I was gunna let this thread go until I read the above quote. CGI I can buy, but you are out of your mind if you think thats an oil painting. Ive been working w. computer graphics and mixed media for 12 years. Ive seen a lot of oil paintings too. That picture would have to be over 30 yards wide to get that kind of detail. Snip

Yah.. Snip, you make me laugh.

Painting techniques and skill has been around for thousands of years. Technology and computer's only a few decades and you for one not even half a century and yet you have only covered a small ground of knowledge of 12 years in the industry. Please!


[Mod Edit - snip and snip quote]

[edit on 15/3/2010 by Sauron]

Haha, everyone is so cynical! Those are real, why would anyone go to the bother of painting 4 hyper realistic shots of a bald eagle chasing a starling, just to try trick the public?? C'mon!

What gives it the "oil painting" effect is most likely the photographer shooting in Raw format, allowing him in post production to take a few different exposures to bring out the detail in both shadows and highlight, then merge them together to create a HDR (High Dynamic Range) image. These tend to be quite noisy when done in this method as can be seen in the darker areas of these images. The extra detail in both the shadows and highlights tends to give this posterized look.

Also, Photoshop's Shadows and Highlights feature gives that HDR look also. A professional photographer will most likely have photoshop/lightroom in his armory.

Zbrush wouldn't be capable of creating something as realistic as that on its own as it does not have the shader capability. Something like 3dsmax or Maya would be needed also, and even then, the person who created it would need a #load of ability.

Bottom line, those are real, give the guy a break.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by fedupofitall]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Part of the dilemma is there are no background reference points/subject matter to show and kind of distance hazing or blur effect . All we have is a grey sky w. some light source coming from somewhere...

reply to post by korats


Well, what if the Daily Mail posted similar pictures of a UFO?
Would you buy their story?

reply to post by NightVision


The background may have been edited out as a stylistic choice, allowing the viewer to focus entirely on the subject matter.

Originally posted by DClairvoyant

Yah.. oh the ignorance, you make me laugh.

Painting techniques and skill has been around for thousands of years. Technology and computer's only a few decades and you for one not even half a century and yet you have only covered a small ground of knowledge of 12 years in the industry. Please!

Is that even a complete sentence? Bad spelling I can take, but you are struggling here...


Great. I'm sure you'll have no problem at all producing visual evidence of ONE oil painting w. equal the amount of clarity and resolution that the OP posted. I could show you many digitally created works w. a similar amount of clarity.

Originally posted by Regenstorm
reply to post by korats

 

Well, what if the Daily Mail posted similar pictures of a UFO?
Would you buy their story?

Exactly!

Originally posted by sparrowstail
I pretty sure that these are fake because Bald eagles do not and more importantly can not hunt on the wing. Their wings are designed for soaring and gliding not fast aerial assault. The raptors that do hunt on the wing named accipiters include Goss hawk, Sharp shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk, American kestrel, Peregrin falcon, Gyr falcon, Prairie falcon. Eagles are opportunistic and scavenge wounded and vulnerable animals.

I would say these pictures are most definitely real. You're comment above about bald eagles not hunting on the wing are baseless. They most certainly do kill on the wing and have been seen on many occasions in BC taking down seagulls, ravens, crows, or anything they get close to. Yes, they are scavengers but they are also birds of prey.

See ishare.rediff.com... for images of eagles taking down wolves and foxes on the wing.

Edit to add: I've witnessed, on many occasions, eagles taking fish from air. At the very last second they turn their heads away from fish and rely on their proximity to grab the fish.




[edit on 15-3-2010 by Neo__]

I'm entitled to an opinion that's what ats is all about and I believe for one that is an oil painting of The Bird of Prey. If it is really authentic then enough said.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by DClairvoyant]