Can you tell me what is Photoshopped in this image?

[iDad]

Only the OP knows... But if you guys don't see smudges or some questionable areas perhaps you need new monitors? It is near impossible to decipher a 72 dpi image but some of it is questionable that I see

 

[iDad]

Inverse the image and look at the shadow behind his head how it stops on the shoulder, why is that

Where is the shadow for the kids head?

 

[hawkeye]

The shadow on the man's face is on the right side indicates the light is coming from the left, yet the left side of his face is in shadow. But on the bottom the shadow is on his left indicating that the light coming from the right side.

 

[iDad]

What you're saying is the light sources in question or the image being edited in question?

 

[hawkeye]

What you're saying is the light sources in question or the image being edited in question?

I'm saying the shadows appear wrong to me for the man and the boy. The left side of the man's head is not lighted, actually the right side of his face is brighter, yet there is a distinct shadow on the background on right side of his head, while the shadow from the boys leg is on the opposite side. Something just seems wrong there to me.

 

[chrisdesign]

Only the OP knows... But if you guys don't see smudges or some questionable areas perhaps you need new monitors? It is near impossible to decipher a 72 dpi image but some of it is questionable that I see

I have a new calibrated monitor (still working in printing industry), and of course I see the smudges, caused by movement of the arm, and all the other odd areas mentioned in the different posts.

i Dad, I recently had my eyes checked, and there is nothing wrong with my perception. Therefore I still think this image is not photoshopped.

 

[iDad]

Because my friend photoshopped it, and he was trying to ask me who was/what was photo shopped in the photo? So I was thinking people were actually photo shopped in, atleast from me looking at it but I could be wrong! What do you think?

The op him or herself said it was.... you better go back to the optometrist lol

 

[iDad]

I think a double chin was removed looking at on large monitor now

 

[Inkz]

Well I'm still confused on this whole thread...

OP asks for help to identify Photoshop editing, then all of a sudden we have a winner lol. So he was well aware of what had been done, or was he lol.......

 

[MikeMc]

The shadows know, and the boys hand is blurred.....I think the OP should post up the original.....If there is one. This whole image is shouting at me....I just don't understand the voices......

 

[MikeMc]

I know what was bugging me...the eyes..Look at all of them. I must assume 1 on camera flash, see Dad the catchlights in the glasses. Now look at Moms glasses..and her eyes. Looks like a red eye reduction that messed with the light ? or different source? Now the boy with Mom, glasses and eyes?? middle girl....great eyes, no red eye (or good fix) Now look at Dad and the boy..shirt looks like a clone job, and the hand movement...the Boy might have been moving and head was replaced? too many questions, we need
TOM MANN to the white courtesy phone PLEASE !!

 

[Tom Mann]

I realize that "the answer" has presumably been given, but I'm with Chris on this in that unless I knew it was Photoshopped, little would lead me to believe that it was Photoshopped (in the sense of people being added to the scene). However, my confidence is certainly not at the 100% level. I would need a much higher rez image to be more certain, but some of the points raised suggesting that folks had been added can be explained without this happening. Specifically:

1. I am 100% confident that the blur above the boy's hand has nothing to do with PS. It is a simple and well known artifact known as (unintentionally) "dragging the shutter". It is caused by there being two types of light in the room, the first is pulsed (from the photographer's strobe(s)), and the second type is continuous (from either the modeling lights on the strobes or ordinary room lights which were not turned off). The strobe(s) makes the sharp image, while the continuous light makes the blur because the boy moved his hand during the exposure.

2. From the "wrap-around" aspect of the light, my guess is that this photo was taken with 2 large softboxes, one slightly above, and to one side of the centerline and the second symmetrically opposite (ie, slightly above but a bit to the right of centerline). From the almost complete lack of eye shadows, I feel that it is likely that there was a large white reflector laid on the floor between the camera and the subjects.

3. I suspect (maybe only 70% confident) that the shadow to (our) right of the man is due to the backdrop being much closer to him than to the other people in the photo and it was cast by the left (our left) softbox.

4. The same is true for the shadow under the kid's bottom, except this one was cast by the right softbox.

5. If we had a much higher rez version of this image, we could look at the catchlights in their eyes. That's my preferred way to reverse engineer the lighting, check for inconsistencies from one person to the next, etc.

Just my $0.02,

T

 

[Paul]

Sore losers the lot of ya

 

[Tom Mann]

Mike, I saw your post just after I hit "send". You're definitely on the right track looking at catchlights and reflections to try to figure this out, and the presence of some and absence of others is certainly suspicious. The only problem is that given the low resolution in this image, I just can't distinguish between the reduction of red-eye and reflections from the glasses in some cases, versus the wholesale addition of another person or two.

With respect to the boy's shirt, I stared at that for a while and convinced myself that it probably was just a loose fitting shirt that had gotten bunched up. If it's someone's PS work, they need some more practice.

As I said, I'm leaning towards "no major 'shopping", but my confidence isn't high.

Cheers,

T

 

[Tom Mann]

PS - Hey, Paul, speaking of sore losers, (...as Tom casually tries to shift the subject of the conversation ...), who is that handsome looking guy you have as your avatar -- surely it can't be you on a good day, eh?



T

 

[Paul]

Mike, I saw your post just after I hit "send". You're definitely on the right track looking at catchlights and reflections to try to figure this out, and the presence of some and absence of others is certainly suspicious. The only problem is that given the low resolution in this image, I just can't distinguish between the reduction of red-eye and reflections from the glasses in some cases, versus the wholesale addition of another person or two.

With respect to the boy's shirt, I stared at that for a while and convinced myself that it probably was just a loose fitting shirt that had gotten bunched up. If it's someone's PS work, they need some more practice.

As I said, I'm leaning towards "no major 'shopping", but my confidence isn't high.

Cheers,

T

It's got a lot of 'pros' guessing/arguing, only iDAD and myself have really nailed what the OP requested, and surely that comment of yours is nothing more than a contradiction in terms after all the replies that is?

As for my avatar, leave my father out of it...

 

[Tom Mann]

Hey, Paul - How ya doin', bud?

WRT the contradiction, that's why I started my post with the statement, "I realize that "the answer" has presumably been given, but I'm with Chris on this in that unless I knew it was Photoshopped, little would lead me to believe that it was Photoshopped (in the sense of people being added to the scene)...". Basically, I'm saying that whoever 'shopped it was really quite good. That being said, I still would love to see the full rez before and after versions of the image.

Tom

 

[Paul]

That image six months ago was my grandfather mate.

 

[iDad]

Bill O'Reilly would be proud:mrgreen:

 

[Tom Mann]

Thanks, iDad. I can't say I've ever watched the guy.

Paul, thanks loads. ;-). I obviously tend to take people's statements at face value.

T