istanbul evden eve nakliyat

Being a Female, What is your Clothing Style?

Certainly, you get to see bundles of stunning pictures on net showing incredible results with photoshop techniques.  However, today I have made an effort to bring something different to your notice.

Well, I have compiled some images from net which the owners promise to be the wonders of photography. They describe it as using creativity with a different angle and approach to get the result that makes a difference.

Although I have placed them under the title of “Not Photoshopped” but if you ask honestly, I do not completely agree L I leave it up to you all to take a closer look of these pics and tell if you agree that these photographs “Are Not Photoshopped”. Let’s see if you could help me figure out the photoshoped images.

# 1 : Cherry Tomatoes Topping

# 2 : Splashes

# 3 : My Ice-Cream

# 4 : Eiffel Tower Lightens

# 5 : Light House

# 6 : Water Droplets

# 7 : The Beach

# 8 : Underwater

# 9 : Lines in Glass of Water

# 10 : A Bee in Peacock Colrs

# 11 : Water Droplets

# 12 : Heart Shadows

# 13 : Sky in my Hands

# 14 : Behind the bottle

# 15 : Upside down

# 16 : Penguin Lips

# 17 : Follow your Shadows

# 18 : Up in the Air!

# 19 : Fish eyes

# 20 : Rainbow loop

So my artist friends, how many of these photos do you think are directly from camera and do not show any photoshop manipulation? Your comments and views will help me sought out the photoshoped and simply photographed images.

You are also welcome to share any such photos which claim to be “straight from camera.

  1. Str@nger On March 16th, 2009 at 8:19 am

    Absolutely love this post! The photos are sensational. Really love the ice-cream one and the last photo… but all of them are amazing. Although a couple of the pics do seem photoshoped but a really good photographer can take great photos like these. I would have to agree with what most of these photos claim… not photoshoped :)

  1. mike Schran On March 16th, 2009 at 8:28 am

    these are all great pictures, however, i am not a photographer , or graphic designer but in my opinion, “the light house”, the”behind the bottle”, and possible “droplets”, but it also could be a realy realy good/high def camera/ photographer..i think my favorite one is the “fish-eyes” its a really different and creative picture!

  1. -F. On March 16th, 2009 at 8:32 am

    I guess Lighthouse has been shopped, but only because I’m not that adept at photography and can’t think of a way that picture could have been taken.

    Heart Shadows looks like it’s got some Photoshop blurring, but apart from that these all look very plausible.

  1. -F. On March 16th, 2009 at 8:34 am

    On second thought, Lighthouse could easily be a time-lapse picture. I guess I’ll call “real” on that one too.

  1. Sean Smyth On March 16th, 2009 at 9:34 am

    Awesome shots. Even if some of them were to be photoshopped, they are really cool and clever anyway.

    Great list!

  1. autumn On March 16th, 2009 at 9:50 am

    this is why photography will always have a love/hate relationship with photoshop. it’s a wonderful tool to fix images, but sometimes, people just capture great shots. no photoshop required. just an amazing shot. and these are. i love them.

  1. Kyle Gallant On March 16th, 2009 at 11:37 am

    Just finished watching something about the water drop picture, it’s actually pretty neat how they create that shot. They drop one droplet, and as the splash is coming up they drop another one at the right time to hit the splash from the first.

    Excellent post!

  1. merlinvicki On March 16th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    “The beach”, the “Sky in my Hands” and the “Underwater” seem to me like photoshopped. If they aren’t, hats off to the photographers.. they have done a brilliant job.

  1. V On March 16th, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    “Penguin Lips” looks like it might be photoshopped… the skin.

  1. Ravi Sagar On March 16th, 2009 at 11:00 pm

    Really amazing pictures. I loved the “follow your shadow”. Good work!

  1. Stock Photography On March 17th, 2009 at 1:27 am

    if you agree that these photographs “Are Not Photoshopped”. Let’s see if you could help me figure out the photoshoped images.

  1. Design Training On March 17th, 2009 at 1:27 am

    Very nice photo

  1. Ovi Dogar On March 17th, 2009 at 5:07 am

    Wow… Great pictures!

  1. binocle On March 17th, 2009 at 11:32 am

    Very nice pictures, thanks ^__^

    For me, btw, the “photoshopped or not” kind of arguing is completely irrelevant.
    If a picture is better with a little color boost or manipulations, so what?
    It’s the same as the “pure oldschool photographers” claiming they never resize or crop their pictures, that it as to be shot perfect… Nonsense

  1. Manz On March 17th, 2009 at 5:04 pm

    They look real to me.

    I love “lines in glass of water” - I’ve experimented with that kind of thing and never gotten a result like this image!!

  1. eva On March 18th, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    Penguin Lips are photoshoped because depth of field is to big, someone used gaussian blur to get such effect

  1. Logo Design guru On March 18th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

    I find it hard to believe that most of these are not photoshopped… they are just too perfect. They do look great though. beautiful work.

  1. Amelia Vargo On March 19th, 2009 at 3:52 am

    I think these are awesome photos. I love “fish eyes” best - its such a clever idea. As for photoshopping - I think if they say they haven’t then they are probebly telling the truth - Henri Cartier Bresson didn’t have photoshop and he took some amazingly clever photos. How can you tell anyway?

  1. Nikki at Plasticprinters On March 20th, 2009 at 7:24 am

    These photos are Absolutely Amazing!! Very Creative and beautiful :D

  1. krissy knox On March 20th, 2009 at 10:14 pm

    I don’t know if they are, but regardless, they are excellent shots which took a lot of talent on the photographers’ part. And if they are photoshopped, they don’t appear overly so. Most photographers do a little photoshopping. I am a purist, mostly, but even I will sometimes lighten up a photo, brighten the color a little, or crop. I hate when a photo is majorly changed, but these photos seem within the rules!

    krissy knox :)

  1. Alexandru Leu On March 22nd, 2009 at 8:24 am

    Really great photos and the ideas. They are amazing, very creative

  1. Anna Green On March 23rd, 2009 at 11:09 am

    This is a really nice collection of images, and it serves as a reminder of the true skill and art of photography, yes most of these could have been photoshoped, but for me these pictures have an integrity that could never have been inserted with the clone tool. Its very easy to take short cuts when you have photoshop at your finger tips but i think more designers photographers and artist should try going back to there roots and apply some design process which involves either getting out in to the world or getting there hands dirty, you never know where it could take you.

  1. manoj On March 27th, 2009 at 2:38 am

    i know this is a very good photo of my life so best of luck

  1. Nate At Plasticprinters On March 27th, 2009 at 9:52 am


    That’s way awesome. I am going to have to bookmark this. I can’t really decide on a favorite, they are all really good!


  1. eddie On March 28th, 2009 at 10:33 am

    The lighthouse one is SOOO fake rofl. The rays look so unbelievably unreal, so its been photoshopped and apparently by someone with very little photoshop skills…Lighthouses don’t even shine that way, they produce a single ray… :D lol

    I hate this photoshop craze these days…too many nerdy photoshoppers out there obsessed with photoshopping anything they get their hands on. Go to a wallpaer site and if you try to spot the clues you will notice most of what seems to be beautiful nature scenesat first glance, have been photoshopped by some talentless nobody who doesn’t even realise how cheesy and fake their image looks on closer inspection. MAybe I’m being a bt harsh lol, but its true! ;)

  1. Chris Collins On March 29th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

    Amazing. Just amazing. How did they catch these?

  1. Anthony Proulx of PlasticPrinters On April 7th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    Amazing! And inspiring, I could see that most of these could be made w/o photoshop.

    The light house is the only one that really looks photoshopped work. I know they used an open shutter delay, and messed with the exposure of the cam, but if you look closely in the picture the beams of light, have a fuzz or shall I say, photoshop effect to it, not sure exactly which one.

  1. Gloria On April 20th, 2009 at 9:29 am

    As a photographer who doesn’t (yet!) know much about photoshop, I would say that most of these photos could be created without any photoshop assistance. I’m not 100% convinced by the lighthouse because, as someone else commented, the beams are right for a lighthouse, but I’m willing to be proved wrong! And the other one I’m not convinced by is Behind the Bottle. How lucky would you need to be to get the timing so perfect?! Just seems too good to be true. But generally, these are amazing pictures and I am quite in awe!

  1. Sana'aHabib On April 27th, 2009 at 1:30 pm

    amazing picsss

  1. Brian On April 27th, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    The lighthouse one could easily be a well timed multiple-exposure image. I’d guess it was taken with a film camera.

  1. Adam On April 29th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    The lighthouse is fog. Same deal as when you see light rays a concert :)

  1. abeer On May 1st, 2009 at 5:07 am

    The photos are amazaing and dunno if they r photoshopd are nt but whoever took them did a grt job:)

  1. Christine Clay Bauman On May 1st, 2009 at 12:40 pm

    Wow, these are really wonderful photos. In-the moment-photos such as the ‘Rainbow Loop’ sky diver and ‘The Bee’ and preplanned creative scenarios like the ‘Behind the Bottle” and ‘Fish Eyes’. ‘Pengiun Eyes’ looks photoshopped to me.
    As a photographer I have to admit I love it all: untouched photos with, ideally, new perspective, perfect exposure as the light and subject come together to capture ‘the moment’ and creative imagination unleashed. I also love Photoshopping, HDR, Curves, special lighting,and camera/lens capable of going to another level. Its all good to me.

  1. Tim Turner On May 15th, 2009 at 8:18 am

    I have seen #8 before on deviant art. The photographer said that he was below the school of fish and when he released bubbles the fish scattered as they rose through the fish. Not sure if thats true, but thats what I read.

  1. art On May 15th, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    It doesn’t matter to me if they’re Photoshopped or not. What I find sad is that there are people who think that it’s not possible to create pictures like these without using Photoshop (or any other image manipulating software.)

  1. JanB On May 15th, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    “not photoshoped” is a bit sad use of words since most of these pictures have been post-processed in photoshop. There are even tutorials, like the one from PORG:
    what you ment, was photo-retouched which is often used synonym to shopped.

  1. joyologo design shop 2.0 On May 16th, 2009 at 6:37 am

    Very nice photos, thanks for collection..

  1. david tiley On May 19th, 2009 at 4:59 am

    No photoshop. However, many of these would once have been called trick photography, or in camera effects. The lighthouse is probably a filter with some kind of grid or polarising thing. The underwater fish are real. There are a few very fast motion shots. The beach is just about juxtaposition and a drop that looks like water. The clouds could be multiple exposures.. There is now an aesthetic choice in using this kind of craft as opposed to photoshop, akin to doing real or CGI stunts. Both work, but there is something speciallly cool about managing optics, physics and cameras.

  1. Brian On May 19th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

    “penguin lips” is definitely photochopped. ordinary depth of field would not leave the lips so clearly defined yet blur the immediately adjacent skin (which would be about the same distance to the camera lens).

  1. Stephen On May 21st, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    @Brian May - Macro lenses tend to have incredibly shallow depths of field. At a wide open aperture with a macro lens, something that’s “about the same distance” would actually be more out of focus than you may realize.

  1. jeprie On May 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 am

    @Brian May: Yeah, you’re right. At least a gaussian blur filter is used there.

  1. Ashely Adams : Sticker Printing On May 22nd, 2009 at 3:18 am

    Aw come on, I’m sure that each one of those photos has gone through a bit of Photoshopping, even if it was just to adjust the levels, or to balance the colors, a common requisite for digital photos. Some have even been turned around a bit perhaps (like a Rotate Canvas CCW 90 degrees for the “Follow your shadow” pic?).

    But all said and done, nothing very extensive or life-changing has been attempted with these photos. So you might say, in a way, that they have not been photoshopped in any extensive way so as to produce something that was not there in the first place.

  1. mauco On May 23rd, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    Awesome! Simply amazing.

  1. Thompson Touch On June 1st, 2009 at 9:24 am

    I love the fish eyes, that just seems like a “hey put those back in that same spot again” type of shot. Very spur of the moment!

  1. Carlos Garcia On June 8th, 2009 at 8:00 am

    I am a photographer! Nowadays, nobody can’t claim for photograph not to be passed by certain amount of process with photoshop. It is normal. Photoshop is to digital photograph like a dark room to film. That’s it! In a dark room every photographer is a creator. Now, for additions there are lots of things that can be done and knowing the way lighthouses’ beams operate, is very unlikely that picture has not tricks. Lighthouse beams consist for more cases, in two solid, directional beams, one being of less intensity than the other. The rays are to well sparse. Could also be a filter. Not trying to diminish image creation, it is an outstanding one anyway.
    No matter what, BEAUTIFUL pictures. My favorites: Fish eyes, and Lines in a Glass of Water.

  1. Carlos Garcia On June 8th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    I love all the pictures, but the light house cant be claimed as not photoshopped. Fortunately, I do come from mariners family. Lighthouses’ beams have (majority of cases) two distinctive beams, solid and very directional. That’s the individual signature of each one of them, the frequency of the alternation between the beams. Beams can’t be as diffused because the intention is precisely two reach farther ahead to avoid collisions. Otherwise, a filter could have been used, but still the rays are way too consistent. All these said, very nice picture anyway! Remember, photographers are artists thus, creators. The practice with Photoshop is no more than the ones in dark rooms. Difference, is easier and less costly Photoshop way.

  1. Clippingimages On October 11th, 2009 at 4:53 am

    If these photos are not photoshoped, then These are certainly some of the greatest Photos ever taken by a Photographer :)

  1. Rodrigo Photo » Blog Archive » Photoshop para o bem da fotografia. On October 19th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    [...] é fotógrafo, e não concordo 100% com essa afirmação. Pois bem, segue alguns exemplos (20 Sensational pictures claiming NOT to be Photoshopped!) de fotos criativas que foram SIM tratadas no Photoshop, porém, de uma forma sutil. Ninguém aqui [...]

  1. Cheryl On October 22nd, 2009 at 12:10 am

    Amazing REAL photography. LOVE IT

  1. Mr Awesome On October 26th, 2009 at 6:09 am

    Why do people immediately guess that photography is photoshopped? I’d guess these are all real photos, I can think of ways they could all be done. Only ones I’m not too certain about is #6 Water droplets because I can’t see exactly what the subject is, and #4 may be HDR to achieve the nice gradient in the sky as well as the rest of the photo.

    I don’t know why you’d even think some of these are photoshopped, they clearly aren’t (eg. fish eyes). It’d also be nice to credit the authors, for starters fish eyes is by gnato ( ).

    Also, if you want to see some better examples of photos that aren’t photoshopped, search google for it, there’s this asian (sorry for the generalisation, I think he was korean but it may have been chinese, I cannot remember) photography that does amazing trick photography that seems to be totally unexplainable.

  1. Rafael On November 5th, 2009 at 12:41 pm

    Awesome! Simply amazing.

  1. uberVU - social comments On November 16th, 2009 at 5:18 am

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by graphicidentity: 20 Sensational pictures claiming NOT to be Photoshopped!!…

  1. uberVU - social comments On November 16th, 2009 at 7:48 am

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Digg by brad4560: i Dugg it. yeah hard to believe they’re not photoshopped….

  1. uberVU - social comments On November 17th, 2009 at 6:12 am

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by pixum: 20 Sensational pictures claiming NOT to be Photoshopped!!….

  1. Megan On November 20th, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    Love them whether they’ve been photoshopped or not. however lighthouse dosent look like a photo, it looks like a painting or something created on photoshop or Corel panter maybe.

  1. lazeez On November 30th, 2009 at 11:59 am

    Is this serious? Of course the bulk of these images are photoshopped (or at least, if they didn’t use photoshop they used some other image editing tool). The tomato one probably osn’t, but it is just a photo of a tomato taken close up - so what!

  1. Dave On December 21st, 2009 at 8:59 am

    I can’t see that any of these has obviously been photoshopped. Some could have been but there is no reason why any of these couldn’t have been done without PS. All of them just use techniques employed by photographers to get different results. The Lighthouse image is on timeplapse and theres nothing to suggest its been doctored.

  1. Dave On December 21st, 2009 at 9:00 am

    oh and great post! wonderful images.

  1. itsashirt t shirts On January 13th, 2010 at 8:07 am

    I know the eiffeltower is not shopped, I made a similar picture…

  1. web design cheltenham On January 15th, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    no photoshop…. hmmmmm!

  1. Ron Arts Web Design On January 27th, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Amazing shots!!! You have done a brilliant work.

  1. Kimber Beach On February 3rd, 2010 at 1:13 am

    I thought I could see 7 that have been “photoshopped” … but def no expert here! However..brilliant photo’s each and every one of them! Thanks for sharing!

  1. Media Street On February 7th, 2010 at 8:45 am

    They must have been photo shopped!

  1. Weekly Web Favorites | Creative Opera Design Blog: Creative Advice and Inspiration for Graphic Designers and Web Designers On March 3rd, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    [...] featured 20 photographs that claim not to be Photoshopped. Maybe some of our readers who are photographers can help Charlie determine which have not been [...]

  1. LM555 On March 22nd, 2010 at 9:49 pm

    Each and every single one of these is real, no Photoshop work done.

  1. M.Goodman On May 11th, 2010 at 11:52 pm

    Those are awesome shots indeed! =)

  1. me On May 12th, 2010 at 3:50 am


  1. Mart On May 15th, 2010 at 7:30 am

    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.

  1. Kelly On August 18th, 2010 at 11:29 pm

    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.

  1. Daniel Cohen On March 31st, 2011 at 10:29 am

    I believe!

  1. Fred Beckhusen On July 21st, 2011 at 5:40 pm

    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 - 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

  1. Ali On September 4th, 2011 at 11:08 am

    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

  1. Kay On April 14th, 2012 at 3:27 am

    Having studied and worked in photography for a number of years, without photoshop, I can both recognize that these images could have been created without- [even the lighthouse one!] and many take an incredible amount of talent, skill, and/or pure luck!

  1. Kay On April 14th, 2012 at 3:28 am

    Oh, also, number 10 is a fly- not a bee. :)

  1. Photoshopped or Not? - Imagination Required On March 22nd, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    [...] graphic images on the internet and am impressed by the quality of photos that people take.  The has compiled 20 photos that all claim to be actually unretouched photographs but after looking at [...]

Write for us
  • Top 10 Designers Projects Won






Recent Post



  • Popular Posts