But you've now washed out the background as well *wags finger*
Photoshopped? need pro opinions
- Thread starter Efour
- Start date
Thinking its real , look at the situation , what would a guy be holding that is pulling his t-shirt down next to a fishing pond with a tackle bag on the floor, he would have to be holding somthing of equal size as I think its clear to say the tshirt is definetly not edited, you have to ask yourself what could have been there before this fish, im pretty sure this photo is genuine.
As pointed out by peterattheboro the halo effect around the lower jaw:
is very unusual for image compression - normally you'd get the inverse happen and an average between the 2 sides of the transition - it is however a common artifact of poor masking... coupled with a higher level of compression noise around the fish compared to other edges in the image I'd say its a good bet its shopped.
is very unusual for image compression - normally you'd get the inverse happen and an average between the 2 sides of the transition - it is however a common artifact of poor masking... coupled with a higher level of compression noise around the fish compared to other edges in the image I'd say its a good bet its shopped.
As pointed out by peterattheboro the halo effect around the lower jaw:
is very unusual for image compression - normally you'd get the inverse happen and an average between the 2 sides of the transition - it is however a common artifact of poor masking... coupled with a higher level of compression noise around the fish compared to other edges in the image I'd say its a good bet its shopped.
But you get that around his watch/bracelet too.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 18,254
- Location
- RG8 9
I believe it is fake. I caught a lot of Pike in my youth and the simple fact is that he is just too clean.
Where was it taken? It looks like it is an enclosed area of water, which is clearly mad-made.
Pike just don't grow that big in places like that.
Where was it taken? It looks like it is an enclosed area of water, which is clearly mad-made.
Pike just don't grow that big in places like that.
I could reproduce the shadows that accurately - a bit of work but possible - so I wouldn't say they were too accurate.
I've put more effort into photoshopping less before so I wouldn't go by that either - tho granted theres more effort put into it than average.
Around the watch/bracelet and other areas showing halos like that have bright parts near enough that can influence the compression algorithm tho, the jaw does not.
TBH there's a simple solution.... Fishing forums shou dhvae a rule stating any photos have to come with their accompanying raw file... That way it's a lot harder to 'shop anything. 
I think the problem with the photo in the OP is that it was shot around midday so it will always look stark and fake, they always do, which is why most photographers don't shoot then. That combined with a small image (which may well have been a bit overshrapened at some point) is a recipie for disaster...
I think the shadow under the fish is fine, the guy is leaning back with the fish and the angle of the light would mean (alongside his slightly curved body) you'd end up with a line a bit like that. The bright spot on the fishs' head is a bit odd, but I can only assume that's either due to the specific angle of the sun to the shooter or the use of flash that may have filled some of the shadows a little (there does seem to be some evidence of this) reflecting preferentially off the shiny fish.
I think the problem with the photo in the OP is that it was shot around midday so it will always look stark and fake, they always do, which is why most photographers don't shoot then. That combined with a small image (which may well have been a bit overshrapened at some point) is a recipie for disaster...
I think the shadow under the fish is fine, the guy is leaning back with the fish and the angle of the light would mean (alongside his slightly curved body) you'd end up with a line a bit like that. The bright spot on the fishs' head is a bit odd, but I can only assume that's either due to the specific angle of the sun to the shooter or the use of flash that may have filled some of the shadows a little (there does seem to be some evidence of this) reflecting preferentially off the shiny fish.
Also, as someone mentioned above, it could well be chromatic aberration. Especially with a compact. I've seen fringing just like that many times.
I've spent thousands of hours in PS and my money's on genuine. I might well be wrong though!. All of the catchlights seem to fit, shadows seem reasonable etc.
Possible, theres some symptoms of it on the neck line of his t-shirt but all other instances of in in the image are fairly consistant with each other whereas that one doesn't really match - granted there is no rule that they have to be uniform.
The artefacts people have pointed could easily be caused by compression and size reduction. When you reduce a photo in Photoshop using 'bicubic sharper' it adds a slight light coloured outline, sort of a glow, to objects. Therefore doesn't look Photoshop'ed to me at all, I'd be very surprised if it was.
As a photographer, the lighting and shadows look consistent on all the subjects.
Also, the guy holding the fish, where is his right hand
Holding the fish by the gills which is how you hold a fish with nasty teeth.
Actually if you look you can see that his fingers are denting the fish, however, a pike it pure muscle and a mean fish.
Wrong it doesn't prove anything as you've failed to take in to account the fact that the shadow is curving around his body. it's not just the shape of the object casting the shadow its also the subject the shadow falls on.
Again, the shadows are fine. They are all hard shadows indicating that it was taken on a bright day with no cloud and that is consistent through our the image.
The rear end of the pike does appear to look a little fake, but that could simply be because we are looking for something. I would believe its a genuine photo.
dont know why but to me it seems a little off. The background seems to be a lower quality/detail in the picture then the two guys and the fish. The pier seems alittle off to me as well. This could be as AHarvey said we are looking for something to be off.
is it me or is the angle of the left side of the pier off (when compared to the right side)? Also th edge of the left side seems painted on or blurred.
tbh I think this is shopped in three parts the background, the pier and the guys with the fish were seperate pictures.
is it me or is the angle of the left side of the pier off (when compared to the right side)? Also th edge of the left side seems painted on or blurred.
tbh I think this is shopped in three parts the background, the pier and the guys with the fish were seperate pictures.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Without knowing where the light source is i couldn't say for sure, but it does look to me like there should be some sort of shadow on the guy behinds arm...
And pro opinions? OCUK? Don't kid yourself
And pro opinions? OCUK? Don't kid yourself
You could possibly be right, I did notice without really thinking about it that something appears to have been shopped out in the area of water above the right hand side of the fish to the right of the guys hand, but it could just be compression.