Photoshopped? need pro opinions

Lol at all the armchair 'image analysts':rolleyes: :)

I swear I could post a RAW straight off my camera and the wannabe CSI's would invent 100 different reasons why it's 'shopped. The simple answer to the OP is sorry but you absolutely cannot tell for sure!:p Looks perfectly fine to me, so if it's a shop it's very well done. All I would add is that to me the subjects (including fish:)) look very much to be lit by a flash which may explain the harsh uniform looking lighting of the fish and the bright highlight on its head, plus maybe some of the darkness of the shadows and maybe the faint shadow to the left of the bloke at the back's leg.
 
Liampope said:
Lol at all the armchair 'image analysts':rolleyes: :)

I swear I could post a RAW straight off my camera and the wannabe CSI's would invent 100 different reasons why it's 'shopped. The simple answer to the OP is sorry but you absolutely cannot tell for sure!:p Looks perfectly fine to me, so if it's a shop it's very well done. All I would add is that to me the subjects (including fish:)) look very much to be lit by a flash which may explain the harsh uniform looking lighting of the fish and the bright highlight on its head, plus maybe some of the darkness of the shadows and maybe the faint shadow to the left of the bloke at the back's leg.
Click to expand...

It can be fun deconstructing an image, you don't have to be an arse about it. You are correct in saying you can't be sure though. It's the only thing you can be sure of! And that's from someone who uses Photoshop for a living (and has seen some truly mental stuff done with it, way, way beyond dropping a fish into someone's arms).
 
Jokester said:
pikex.jpg

This is what I'm taking about, the shadows cast by the guys hand on his shoulder and the fish's fin are consistent in terms of light source, but totally different to the one cast by the building in the background, which if it was consistent with the first two shouldn't be visible as it would be hidden behind the building.
Click to expand...
If the direction of the top-left arrow is meant to indicate the direction of light then I'm afraid it's incorrect as the shadow of the Beafeater building is setting slightly to the rear of the Premier Inn building, indicating the light source is to the right and rear of the photographer. The same is true for the shadows of the arm and fin.
 
Kristoph said:
The shadows are being cast downwards. Google image search people holding pike, you can't see their arm/hand in a lot of them because of the way you hold it.

Efour2, just give us some more info please? You can't post a thread and just leave it.
Click to expand...

lol sorry i really don't want to witch hunt these guys i don't even know them.

Its from a Facebook Anglers site, its usually full of photos of carp and stuff then this one turned up with 20+ comments of how awesome a fish it was.
There is no more of other fish they have caught it is very much a post and run place.

Caught in that location that has already been identified higher up in the post. Urban, not a mark on it, a fish this size would usually (in my opinion) have had a few run ins with "something" and damaged a fin or lose a few scales.

Everyone seems to think its fine (all posts are compliments and congratulations on the catch) but i had one look at it and thought....looks odd. That really is all the back story to it nothing malicious. I simply thought that someone who does a lot of graphical manipulation either as work or pleasure would be able to spot something giving it as a fake.
 
Jokester said:
pikex.jpg

This is what I'm taking about, the shadows cast by the guys hand on his shoulder and the fish's fin are consistent in terms of light source, but totally different to the one cast by the building in the background, which if it was consistent with the first two shouldn't be visible as it would be hidden behind the building.
Click to expand...

No they aren't, if the buildings are in line (which I'm assuming they are) the sun would have to be on the right to cast a shadow to the left. If the sun were to the left the shadow being cast would overlap onto the face of the other building.

Somewhat like this:

lXS2H.jpg
 
gee3000 said:
If the direction of the top-left arrow is meant to indicate the direction of light then I'm afraid it's incorrect as the shadow of the Beafeater building is setting slightly to the rear of the Premier Inn building, indicating the light source is to the right and rear of the photographer. The same is true for the shadows of the arm and fin.
Click to expand...
You are of course correct, just a spazzy moment on my part.
 
Is it salford quays? In which case it's the manchester ship canal, which is one of the biggest canals going?

EDIT: That fail for not reading the 2nd page before posting :D
 
Has anyone local angling knowledge of this dock/basin ?


Could such a fish be caught from it , what's the stock of other course fish in it and would it sustain such a large Pike ? 31lb is a massive Pike from anywhere .
 
Of course it's a shop, aside from the fact the pike looks super imposed and studio lit, anyone who has ever been fishing could tell you that those two didn't catch that fish!
 
SourChipmunk said:
Are these all shopped also?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...Bw&ved=0CCcQsw4&biw=1217&bih=872&q=large pike

What is so hard to believe about catching a large fish?
Click to expand...

They are clearly all shopped - every one of them. Nobody is soaking wet and struggling to hold the thrashing fish, shadows look wrong, lighting looks wrong, I'm sure I've seen those exact same fish before in different situations, pike dont get that big, I can tell from teh pixels they are cut and paste, etc, etc, etc :rolleyes: :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom