Check out this picture...
10-15-2008, 09:53 AM
#21
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,462
RE: Check out this picture...
Im about 99% sure this is legit. Take a look at the upperleft hand of the photo (right in front of the shot deers nose). You can see another deer's tail and hind leg running out of there. If it was photoshopped, I don't think the person would have thought to put just a small amount of another deer in there that is running out of there. I say, Deer was shot, while feeding with at least another deer and both took off running. Great shot, both with an arrow and a trail cam. Don't think he had much of a tracking job on that one!!
The tail is light because the shutter speed on these trail cams isn't super fast. You can bet when he was jumping, his tail was moving quite fast. Man, I hope I see a deer like this when Im in the stand this year!!
The tail is light because the shutter speed on these trail cams isn't super fast. You can bet when he was jumping, his tail was moving quite fast. Man, I hope I see a deer like this when Im in the stand this year!!
10-15-2008, 10:09 AM
#22
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Chatsworth IL USA
Posts: 5,012
RE: Check out this picture...
Here is a response that I believe best sums it up over on AT. I read through the whole thread, and those guys are harsh...so lets not turn this thread into what they have. And they even have a friend of the kids family over there.
I would also like to add this from my opinion. As somebody that tries to play with shutter speedand many other options on my camera, you can put a camera on a tripod and just by changing settings, you can get multiple different pictures with lighting, shadows and many things.
Also, if you were going to take the time to photoshop that picture, why wouldn't you photoshop out the transparent parts? I amno expert in photoshop, but I could even do that. Just food for thought.
OK, I took a quick peek at the actual file from the camera (dhacker sent it to me) and I can say this:
1) The metadata indicates that this pic came from a cuddeback camera, with an F/3 Aperature, .89 second shutter speed. ISO 100, and a 1/6 second exposure time. If this photo was doctored, this would information would have changed to the program used to edit it* (This data is easy to change and not conclusive)
2) The pixel concentration of the deer is the same as the background. That is, the pixels are the same size. Again, not conclusive, as this could have been matched prior to shopping.
3) There are no jagged edges. This is a big one. For someone to photoshop a deer "in flight" with such care that there are no jagged edges, and yet they blurred it so much the background shows through is just stupid.
4) There are no signs of artificial blurring around the deer. Its all motion blur.
5) When you zoom in on the deer, you can see its shadow cast on the trees. Most people when photoshopping don't bother with shadows, as they are hard to mask.
6) You can see the deer's whiskers/single hairs around its head, where it is moving the slowest.
With .89 seconds shutter, and 1/6 second exposure, the deer could move a LOT in that time, which would make it appear transparent.
1) The metadata indicates that this pic came from a cuddeback camera, with an F/3 Aperature, .89 second shutter speed. ISO 100, and a 1/6 second exposure time. If this photo was doctored, this would information would have changed to the program used to edit it* (This data is easy to change and not conclusive)
2) The pixel concentration of the deer is the same as the background. That is, the pixels are the same size. Again, not conclusive, as this could have been matched prior to shopping.
3) There are no jagged edges. This is a big one. For someone to photoshop a deer "in flight" with such care that there are no jagged edges, and yet they blurred it so much the background shows through is just stupid.
4) There are no signs of artificial blurring around the deer. Its all motion blur.
5) When you zoom in on the deer, you can see its shadow cast on the trees. Most people when photoshopping don't bother with shadows, as they are hard to mask.
6) You can see the deer's whiskers/single hairs around its head, where it is moving the slowest.
With .89 seconds shutter, and 1/6 second exposure, the deer could move a LOT in that time, which would make it appear transparent.
Also, if you were going to take the time to photoshop that picture, why wouldn't you photoshop out the transparent parts? I amno expert in photoshop, but I could even do that. Just food for thought.
10-15-2008, 10:34 AM
#24
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cogan Station, PA
Posts: 2,298
RE: Check out this picture...
Ah, yeah, the flash firing later. I've done this in a dark room using a bulb exposure and then flashing the lights on and off real quickly with students. Can't believe I forgot that. Yeah this photo is definitely real.
10-15-2008, 12:00 PM
#26
Fork Horn
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Live = Northern IL, Hunt = West Central IL
Posts: 297
RE: Check out this picture...
Looks fake to me...but I am not ready to call it a fake (since I am not an expert).
I believe it could have been faked.
I believe it could have been an "empty" picture to start with and the deer to the far left was one that was captured on the film a few shots earlier and had triggered the camera one last time before it left the field of view.
I do not see the main deer's shadow on the trees.
I am surprised that the flash does not show up on any of the surrounding imagery (since the flash by the deers head is very bright).
Why aren't the leaves below the head slightly washed out from the flash?
I just do not buy the amount of blood (on both sides of the deer) and the gaping wound (saturated with blood) happens at 1/6 of a second.
I could understand that amount of blood at 1 or 2 seconds.
There looks like there is blood on the side of the deer, unless this is mid-air blood (which it may be).
The other explanation that countradicts the above statements might be that this is the deer's second jump - not the first jump at impact as is assumed in the picture.
Since there are so many contests to win free stuff from the camera manufacturer's, I am not surprised if people do try to fake these.
If this is real, kudos to the kid.
If this is fake, kudos to the kid.
I believe it could have been faked.
I believe it could have been an "empty" picture to start with and the deer to the far left was one that was captured on the film a few shots earlier and had triggered the camera one last time before it left the field of view.
I do not see the main deer's shadow on the trees.
I am surprised that the flash does not show up on any of the surrounding imagery (since the flash by the deers head is very bright).
Why aren't the leaves below the head slightly washed out from the flash?
I just do not buy the amount of blood (on both sides of the deer) and the gaping wound (saturated with blood) happens at 1/6 of a second.
I could understand that amount of blood at 1 or 2 seconds.
There looks like there is blood on the side of the deer, unless this is mid-air blood (which it may be).
The other explanation that countradicts the above statements might be that this is the deer's second jump - not the first jump at impact as is assumed in the picture.
Since there are so many contests to win free stuff from the camera manufacturer's, I am not surprised if people do try to fake these.
If this is real, kudos to the kid.
If this is fake, kudos to the kid.
10-15-2008, 12:06 PM
#27
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Crosby,Texas
Posts: 192
RE: Check out this picture...
ORIGINAL: AF Hunter
That picture appears to be superimposed. If it had not been, you would either not see through the deer like you can or the bottom of the deer would have been blurry from the movement.
That picture appears to be superimposed. If it had not been, you would either not see through the deer like you can or the bottom of the deer would have been blurry from the movement.
Also, another thing is if this kid was checking his camera and seen this as a photo. It sounds like it was not shot by him lol.
Now if you look at this zoom in of the back of the deer you can see all these humps from the brush strokes. Take a good look at the body of this deer, you can follow the tree trunks through him and the patches of light through the leaves.
So negative the image to get a better look:
The green dots are areas of white light same as whats in the trees trough the leaves.
Red dots are areas of brush strokes.
I would say it is 100% fake.
10-15-2008, 12:21 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: West MI
Posts: 408
RE: Check out this picture...
The strange part is anyone that appears to be knowledgeable in photoshop and/or photography seems to believe this is real. Hmm...I wonder who is more likely to be right?
If this hits 14 pages, I might have to change my avatar![8D]
If this hits 14 pages, I might have to change my avatar![8D]
10-15-2008, 12:28 PM
#30
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Crosby,Texas
Posts: 192
RE: Check out this picture...
Im knowledgeable in photoshop and paintshop. And it is a fact this is a fake image.
You can actually follow the ghosted image of the background trees right through the deer.
No need to look at the blood or anything else really. Also the person that did this is not very good with what ever they are using to make this image lol. They didnt use and extraction method for rendering the image of the deer haha. It was done manually by hand
.
You can actually follow the ghosted image of the background trees right through the deer.
No need to look at the blood or anything else really. Also the person that did this is not very good with what ever they are using to make this image lol. They didnt use and extraction method for rendering the image of the deer haha. It was done manually by hand
.