Does this look Photoshopped?
- Thread starter Efour
- Start date
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
despite the video of it just a few posts down from the OP.
It's a lot "smaller" in the video.
So basically he was too big for cat owners to look after because he'd more in the small dog size window.
Just another argument against cat owners...
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of: "discover out how cameras work before talking testicles." I'll gloss over the fact that you could find it out with about a hundred quid's worth of second-hand gear.
If you look at the photo you can clearly tell the discrepancies in the image are not dof related because objects on the same plane have different levels of sharpness, which he pointed out. Besides which you can tell that the aperture is not that large by the amount of defocus on the guy ~2ft behind the cat. So clearly the image has been modified on some level.
Now I'm not saying that the size of the cat hasn't also been exaggerated by using a telephoto lens as well, but it would have to be a pretty big house to take a photo like that with a significantly telephoto lens, and it would also be quite a coincidence if the owners of the cat just happened to have a 300mm f/2 lying around wouldn't it?
Anyway I don't see what the big deal about a 3ft cat is, has no one ever seen a bobcat before?
Last edited:
You can tell he's a big cat based on the size of his head and paws, however his size has been exaggerated.
Maine coons aren't much different in size on average. I have a female one that's not much smaller than that cat, she's about 18-20 pounds and is just a large cat with a large head and paws. The larger Maine Coons are even bigger than this one, at about 25 pounds/11.5KG
Last edited:
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 18,477
- Location
- Sunny Sussex
Actually, yes I do.
If you yourself had any idea about telephoto lenses you would know that it's far from telephoto, in fact quite the opposite, all from a very quick observation of the FOV.
Secondly, you're just talking rubbish now. Defocused and focussed light on the same focal plane? LMAO
. I'm fully aware of how shallow a depth of field can be achieved with fast lenses, but that's just absolute BS sorry, and the fact that you think your defocused and focused light is coming from the same plane just proves how much of an amateur you are. (Now don't say this guy is using some kind of telephoto-tilt-shift lens) 
Furthermore, bokeh strengthens as it moves away from the depth of focus, the strength of this fake "blur effect" remains consistent all the way down the hall. If it were such a fast lens as you claim, the bokeh would become exponentially stronger, not just the same level of blur all the way down.
But anyway the photo is legit, they've used a wide angle to make the cat look big against the background, it just looks like blur has been added in photoshop.
Last edited:
Actually, yes I do.
If you yourself had any idea about telephoto lenses you would know that it's far from telephoto, in fact quite the opposite, all from a very quick observation of the FOV.
Secondly, you're just talking rubbish now. Defocused and focussed light on the same focal plane? LMAO
I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the blurs are due to movement with a relatively slow shutter speed.
However, I do think the photo has been staged to exaggerate the size of the cat, with the way they're holding him with their arms outstretched as much as possible.
Unless he has parkinsons I really don't see his hand being a blob like that when everything else is pretty consistent, it also looks to be a different size.
Unless he has parkinsons I really don't see his hand being a blob like that when everything else is pretty consistent, it also looks to be a different size.
It depends on the shutter speed really.
