Settle a bet! Was this photo altered/Photoshoped?!?

[ak_mtnansith]

Hey! Any forensic scientists out there?! I'm needing to find out if this photo has been faked/Photoshoped!!! I don't have the skills to tell, but perhaps someone out there does. I need this mystery solved and any concrete help would be appreciaated! If you can point me in the direction of someone who can prove without a doubt whether this is Shopped or not would be great as well. Thanks in advance!
The runner in red looks cut and pasted on, some strange pixels at the bottom of her right shoe, and there are some "dis-embodied" people in there! Also, there looks to be a seam between the walkers and runners-see -in front of the lady with pink headband.Quite an interesting photo-like Where's Waldo or I Spy! What say ye?!?!

 

[ibclare]

It's a really over compressed jpeg so it's hard to tell. Really. I opened this in Photoshop. If you have a better shot, we might be able to tell a bit better. The seam in front of the lady with pink headband is just pixelation from the size and quality of the image. The woman in red is the only one who looks potentially added if you ask me. It's hard to see if she has a shadow under her right foot and there my be just a bit of white around her left lower leg and shoe from not cleaning up a selection. The pixels in the grass indicate a shadow and are done with enough detail to probably rule out painting a shadow. But it is too hard to tell given the compression distortion. There are forensic experts but I'm not one. I think it is a straight photo.

 

[alixman96]

i would say yes for the red lady here is the reasoning:
1.notice how she doesnt have a shadow under her feet
2.notice how other people who are runing have blurs over their feet
3.the bottom of her shoes look very sharp one huge mistake that the guy made cuz the back foot looks fine he blured it right but not the one in the front
4.her shirt looks very bright on that cloudy day usually the shirt should look more pail only way is that if there was a spot light on her but only coverd her shirt
ohh one the man on the right his shoes look to bright and that is because the guy wanted to give an illusion that every one shoes was bright not only the womens and he ether replaced the shoe or changed its prespective so i think its photoshoped but again im not an expert eather but im pretty sure of it:question:

 

[ibclare]

I don't think the colors are too bright. There are highlights in a number of places in the photo. I think it is due to a poor camera creating an immediate blur in the images not right in the foreground. In fact ll the figure are more or less blurred due to the motion. But that is my opinion.

Makes for a fun debate.

 

[Paul]

I don't think it is shopped at all, just like what Clare stated it's a poor pixaleted image, as for shadows i only see one real shadow under one foot, so no for me.
I also did a invert on the image and nothing looks 'funny' about it at all really - could be wrong but it is such a poor image.

 

[ak_mtnansith]

Check out red headband guy. We though he had a long ponytail, but it's not his. It belongs to someone to his left and just slighty behind. But WHERE is the rest of her?!?!

 

[ak_mtnansith]

It sure does!!!

 

[ak_mtnansith]

I don't think the colors are too bright. There are highlights in a number of places in the photo. I think it is due to a poor camera creating an immediate blur in the images not right in the foreground. In fact ll the figure are more or less blurred due to the motion. But that is my opinion.

Makes for a fun debate.

It sure does!

 

[alixman96]

I i changed my replie cuz of the lighting and some blurry ness but im stil thinking it photoshped at least the shoes on the two people i told you (notice on the inside circle there are bright colors coming out of the bottom) but again im not an expert or any thing just a regular old dude playing around on photoshop

 

[alixman96]

and again the woman in the forground shoes look out of prespective and i agree with you ibclare its a fun argument ehehhe

 

[Paul]

Well i see what looks like a face under the guys chin?
I thought i had done away with all the conspiracy styled images, good fun though.

 

[agentmoeller]

Hard to tell.
Her feet do look strange, tho.

 

[ibclare]

Hard to tell.
Her feet do look strange, tho.

that they do but without a good photo it's all guesswork

Well i see what looks like a face under the guys chin?
I thought i had done away with all the conspiracy styled images, good fun though.

you gotta stop eating that roo meat mate!

When I invert it, I can see the shadow under red shirt's heel better, but what are you really looking for? smudging and stuff? shows up better?

 

[Paul]

Pixels that have been played with are more noticeable when you invert the image, its an old trick from my days on the cons boards.

 

[Sierraccr]

I would say yes

She just doesn't look like she belongs there. The others look like they have some contact with the ground, whereas she doesn't. That could be her jumping or a trick of the angle.

Here's the forensic error analysis. Her shoes and jersey stand out strongly, which would indicate that that some sort of effect was used around the edges, probably to blend it in better.




What this does show is that even those of us who use photoshop every day can't always tell. So even though we'd love to settle your bet for you, all we can do is go with trained eyes and a few tricks.

 

[ibclare]

How do you get that analysis Sierra?

 

[Paul]

White stick maybe?

 

[fenix]

I´d say that the woman in red most certainly are. There are some pixel droppings under the right shoe and also some around her chin that doesn´t occure from compression. More a sign of remain from a sloppy job done. The rest seem (without digging any deeper in to it) authentic.

 

[SeniorS]

I have mix feelings about red one. Shoes and legs are to "sharp" and have crispy lines in those. But if it's photoshoped then head and body are blend in perfectly.
So question, who would left those mistakes but able to do perfect cutting?

Hope you get my point (my poor poor english).

 

[Hoogle]

the anaylis is from this site Image Forensics : Error Level Analysis


THere are arguments for both but If I was to go on anything her shadow is casting at about 6.30 where as all the other shadows are casting more at the 8 or 9 0clock angle also her number seems to be pinned onto her arm but yet that could be just the low resolution image