Photoshop or not ??

[robodad]

Has this picture been altered ??

[saylean]

something around the edge of the child makes me think so...but that is purely my opinion...

[Gobble]

I say yes. The top of the pic around his head just doesn't look right. Maybe the light reflection? 

[DeKuma]

I say yes. The top of the pic around his head just doesn't look right. Maybe the light reflection? 

Yep, I agree, something odd there.

[bucklucky]

Looks like a picture backdrop he is standing in front of.

[DeKuma]

Looks like a picture backdrop he is standing in front of.

That could be it.  The lighting is too perfect and does not match up with the background either.  At least to my blind eyes.

[billythekidrock]

Not sure if it is real or not, but I am pretty sure it is not photoshoped. I blew it up 500% and the pixels match all the way around. Probably a pro background.

[huntnphool]

Looks real to me. The shadow in the trees and the one on his sweatshirt are in the same position, sun hitting from the same angle.

[robodad]

OK here are a couple more to inspect, These are photos of my son that my wife took on a bridge over the Dungeness River in Sequim with her PAS and they just ended up that way, I even thought they were a fake but the only modification I made to them was to make them smaller to fit in here. Just goes to show that the fakes may be harder to pick out just by looking at them then we think !!

Good call Huntnphool !!

Probably a pro background

Correct Bone, Mother nature !! nice call

I think this one looks the most fake..............But it sin't !!





P.S. I don't even own photoshop !! 

[popeshawnpaul]

It's not fake.  You just happen to have a good camera that metered the child and not the background as they should.  In this way the background is blown out.  The picture has been sharpened, whether the user knows it or not.  Most cameras that shoot jpg's sharpen them in camera.

[NoBark]

I think  what makes it look fake is that the kid is in sharp focus but the background is
also in fairly good focus. Most camera's would loose the focus of the trees in the background more.  Don't know much about camera's but an object at 2 ft and an object at 150 feet both in focus is tough to get.

[popeshawnpaul]

Actually the opposite is true NoBark.  A cheaper camera with a slow lens can get them both in focus but a good camera with a fast lens will blur the background out so it isn't distracting...

[DeKuma]

Wow.  I gotta get a camera like that.  Had me fooled.  I was not positive, but  it just looked off for some reason.  Guess that goes to show you that some of us are used to looking at crappy photos!

[robodad]

Hey fooled me too, I thought they were enhanced as well 

The camera is a Canon PowerShot SX100IS 8.0MP and they were off hand photos set on automatic or the portrait setting I am not sure but the camera is just a little small hand held point and shoot type thing, I am very suprised how good the photos are that she takes with it !!

Thanks for your input guys, actually learned something !!! 

[bucklucky]

WOW, nice fake looking photos