What's new
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Photshopped or not


hawkeye

Guru
Messages
2,378
Likes
1,113
I've seen people post images and want opinions as to whether or not it was Photoshopped. But in most cases we don't actually get an absolute answer because the poster is no the creator.

Why not post our own images and let people try to determine if it's real or fake. Then we can know the answer for sure.

So post any photo you like, real or Photoshopped and everyone can test their detective skills. I'll start with this one. Is it all real or is it Photoshopped?
 

Attachments

  • Hank Brown2.jpg
    Hank Brown2.jpg
    191.9 KB · Views: 29

IamSam

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
22,721
Likes
13,258
This is a great idea Hawkeye!

Form the metadata, I can certainly say this image has been run through Photoshop.
On examination, I'm fairly certain that the out of focus BG has been altered or added, but I'm not quite ready to say this for sure.
I also think that one of the two dogs could have been added.

I need some more time to look at it!
 

iDad

Guru
Messages
11,578
Likes
4,467
no
medadata look
 

Tom Mann

Guru
Messages
7,223
Likes
4,343
Practically every image posted on here goes through an editing program, if only to make conceptually minor changes such as crop, re-size, tweak the brightness and color, etc. So I assume that by your question, "is it photoshopped", you mean more major operations such as placing or removing an object, adding significant amounts of blur that didn't exist, major selective lighting changes, etc.

Under that definition, I could be wrong, but I don't see anything that looks very suspicious. It looks like the ordinary limited depth of field one would get from a long, wide aperture lens on a full frame camera. (Yes, I peeked at the metadata).

T
 

hawkeye

Guru
Messages
2,378
Likes
1,113
When I say Photoshopped I mean in the context of manipulation. Adding an element for instance would be Photoshopping. Altering an element like a face or body, for instance, would be Photoshopping. Cropping, sharpening, color correction etc. wouldn't fall into my characterization of being Photoshopped.
 

hawkeye

Guru
Messages
2,378
Likes
1,113
To elaborate: my idea is that people will define what they see or don't see that indicates Photoshopping. Not just people taking a guess as to yes it was or no it wasn't. Actually being able to define what wasn't done correctly would help everyone avoid making the same mistake.
 

MikeMc

McGuru
Messages
1,871
Likes
1,202
The Image without windmills I think is out of the Camera.. The slight colors on the rear dogs tail are correct with the background. As Tom? pointed out, long lens..400mm or greater, shallow DOF , the bush that is crisp is directly between the dogs. If the image has been manipulated, it is quite well done
 

ibclare

Queen Bee
Messages
11,034
Likes
4,638
I think if any manipulation was made, it is the background dog, since the twigs wouldn't have been difficult to simulate. It would take a good deal of masking though. If you hadn't made the challenge Hawkeye, I would never have given it a second thought as to being out of the camera. So I am less than sure there is any manipulation. I won't even add a percentage sure, lol.
 

hawkeye

Guru
Messages
2,378
Likes
1,113
Let's give it until tomorrow so everyone can have a chance to voice their opinion, then I'll say whether it was Photoshopped or not. After that perhaps someone else will post the next image.
 

IamSam

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
22,721
Likes
13,258
Sorry Hawk for looking at the metadata..........habit.

If I'm only observing the image, I would guess that it has been shopped.

The dog in the midground is on strong point. It's focus is completely different than the foreground dogs. Having said this, I have seen multiple dogs pointing at separate birds in a covey that's holding tight. In this image, there's not enough distance between the two and the closer dog has advanced far enough that any bird, that close to two dogs, would have probably flushed. But I could be wrong.

The blurred BG is possible in camera, but this BG does not look right. I'm guessing it was added.
The blurred foreground grass seems to have been added as well. It's too even and there's a dark area in the lower left corner that doesn't look natural.

This composite, if it is one, is exceptionally well done! I'm still only about 98% sure!
 

Paul

Former Member
Messages
12,879
Likes
7,023
I think it's three separate images of the same image combined, with the dogs collar colour altered?
threec.jpg
 

iDad

Guru
Messages
11,578
Likes
4,467
I'll state my reason when on bigger monitor but the low res is a very tough sample to really give a definitive answer
 

Top