Comments on: 20 Sensational pictures claiming NOT to be Photoshopped!!

By: Ali

Ali — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 16:08:18 +0000

Fantastic photos but most if not all have been treated in photoshop on some level whether color corrected , effected using masks , skin retouched , or even color graded with something like magic bullet …but i will say thins the core of the photo may have been created without photoshop…great post btw

By: Fred Beckhusen

Fred Beckhusen — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:40:36 +0000

All of them were processed in Adobe Photoshop in some version from 2.0 to 7.0. By definition, none of them are originals, and all are altered. Did you crop these to fit in Photoshop? In a lot of them the EXIF compression signature comes from PS 2.

From what I see, I would say maybe 5 of these are not fakes.

In a few cases the Meta data shows an actual camera was used as a starting point, and they “could be unaltered” except by PS retouching or cropping. There is no way to know, since the evidence has been destroyed.

The kid and smoke is from a camera, and edited
Eiffel tower is from a camera, and edited
The beach is from a camera, and editef
The lady with the fish eyes came from a Nikon or Olympus, then was re-worked in PS3, and then reworked in PS7.

The airplane was probably taken with a Nikon or Canon and reworked in ( guess what?) Photoshop 7.0

To try your own analysis use JPEGSnoop from http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-snoop.html – I didn’t make it, but its a useful tool for spotting non-original photos.

I think everyone would be interested in a deeper analysis, if someone has the time

By: Daniel Cohen

Daniel Cohen — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:29:06 +0000

I believe!

By: Kelly

Kelly — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 04:29:58 +0000

Photoshopped is an ambiguous term. All photos when they are developed, wheter film or digital, underrgo manipulation either in the darkroom or in the computer. The degree of manipulation is what is being judged. Adding contrast, or saturation, or burning, or dodging, or blurring…those are just normal activities involved in developing.

Not photoshopped, to me, means that extraordinary effects were created in lens. The lighthouse, for example…use a very small aperture, say f/22 at a very low ISO and set the camera on a tripod and open up the shutter for as long as it takes to expose the photograph and the beams of light will be the result. Would saturation, or toning happen after that? Perhaps, to some degree, but the actual visual effect was good use of a camera and lens.

By: Mart

Mart — Sat, 15 May 2010 12:30:09 +0000

Well, some of these have been enhanced in some way…remember people were taking fantastic images far better than these before Photoshop arrived! Photography is about capturing and using light…not about Photoshop. The images that do look a little processed could be down to filters on lenses, such as starburst or grads.
It takes a lot to get a good shot…using a computer is part of the process, but it doesn’t always mean you need to use it to manipulate. I would suggest that if these were digital then they would have needed sharpening…so in some respects Photoshop does need to be used.
It is interesting when you say “Every single image is REAL”…now there is a matter of debate, you could say that no photograph is real, as the camera manipulates, or ‘influences’ it’s own outcome in some sense…even reportage.
Personally I would say 12, 13, 19 [looks very digital], and 20 have enhanced colour, tone, contrast and/or saturation etc, 20 looks like somekind of vignette has been applied for depth, and 16 has a very dodgy soft-focus blur on it. But who knows.
Great questions and answers though…I like this page.

By: me

me — Wed, 12 May 2010 08:50:40 +0000

THEY ARE ALL PHOTOSHOPPED, JEEEEEEEEEEZ MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN