# Real or photoshopped?



## copeland7 (Jun 21, 2010)

Is this a real deer or is is some more photoshop magic?

If he is real, where is he from and is he still on the hoof?

Answers later!


----------



## Browtine (Jun 21, 2010)

I'm gonna say the photo is real after examining it very closely in Photoshop. If someone "created" any parts of that deer they are super good at photo editing. No tell-tale signs at all that I could find.

As far as where it's from and if it's still on the hoof or not... that's anybody's guess.


----------



## copeland7 (Jun 21, 2010)

any more takers?


----------



## DRB1313 (Jun 21, 2010)

I'm not saying the deer is not real, but I also examined the photo in Photoshop and can see what
could be signs of an altered photograph.
What I am seeing is, his right G2 has a slight halo effect along it's length, which is a little lighter than the background green.
There is enough digital noise in this photo to hide editing work, especially at this image size.
I added a few inches here and there, you will have to look close to see the changes.
I'll say this though, He would be on my hit list come September.


----------



## Browtine (Jun 21, 2010)

DRB1313 said:


> I'm not saying the deer is not real, but I also examined the photo in Photoshop and can see what
> could be signs of an altered photograph.
> What I am seeing is, his right G2 has a slight halo effect along it's length, which is a little lighter than the background green.
> There is enough digital noise in this photo to hide editing work, especially at this image size.
> ...



I could spot signs of your edits. I couldn't find any in the original. I saw the halo as a result of the light on that side of the antler combined with the noise and compression. I could be wrong though. Could be a fake. I just couldn't spot it.


----------



## xs5875 (Jun 22, 2010)

I wanna say I saw this posted elsewhere on this forum, someone saw it in their field in Kentucky or something..


----------



## DRB1313 (Jun 22, 2010)

Browtine said:


> I could spot signs of your edits. I couldn't find any in the original. I saw the halo as a result of the light on that side of the antler combined with the noise and compression. I could be wrong though. Could be a fake. I just couldn't spot it.



Other than noticing the changes, just exactly what signs are you speaking of? I'm not talking about comparing the two images, I am asking what it is in the edit that you see.


----------



## Browtine (Jun 22, 2010)

DRB1313 said:


> Other than noticing the changes, just exactly what signs are you speaking of? I'm not talking about comparing the two images, I am asking what it is in the edit that you see.



The only signs I could find of your edit were a few apparently cloned pixels that repeated themselves in your extensions in a couple places... and a handful of pixels that just didn't quite match the others where the extension was made. This was seen only when viewed zoomed in to 800% or so percent at "pixel level". 

The apparently cloned pixels were well cloned, but still appeared to be cloned.  And I didn't compare the two until I had checked your edit at high magnification.


----------



## wvdawg (Jun 22, 2010)

Wow!  I'm looking as close as I can and I can't see anything but the extra antler length - that cloning stuff is just plain dangerous!


----------



## Browtine (Jun 22, 2010)

Here's a blown up version with circles around the two areas where I saw what appeared to be cloned pixels... and a circle around an "odd" pixel in the browtine that was extended. It looks out of place due to it's tonal value. It just looks dark compared to the unedited antler tips in the photo. 

For what it's worth I was confident that the "cloned" pixels were edits, but honestly was just "suspect" of the odd pixel until I compared and confirmed it.


----------



## Smokey (Jun 22, 2010)

wvdawg said:


> Wow!  I'm looking as close as I can and I can't see anything but the extra antler length - that cloning stuff is just plain dangerous!



Well dang Dennis, ya beat me to it


----------



## DRB1313 (Jun 22, 2010)

Browtine,

I hope you don't feel like I am calling you out, because
I'm not, I just like discussing photos and photoshop with someone like yourself.
I am having a hard time with your theory of the repeated pixels. When
magnified to 800%, I can show you over 500 places in the antlers alone that are duplicated or patterned.
By knowing ahead of time there were changes made, I feel it was a little "gimmie" to pinpoint signs, if any were really noticeable.
If you are up for it, I would like to challenge your skills with a similar image.
I will show you the edited version and you pick them out, after you have analyzed it, I will show you the original.
You can do the same for me, I think it would be fun.


----------



## copeland7 (Jun 22, 2010)

Well just to bust yall bubble its a real deer, my buddy videoed it, this is a screen shot, I will post video really soon to prove, oh and he is still on the hoof in Oklahoma


----------



## DRB1313 (Jun 22, 2010)

No bubble busted here, there was no real way to know for sure without the truth on this one.
Can't wait to see the footage and
good luck to your buddy.
That's a fine buck right there.

I mean two fine bucks


----------



## Browtine (Jun 22, 2010)

DRB1313 said:


> Browtine,
> 
> I hope you don't feel like I am calling you out, because
> I'm not, I just like discussing photos and photoshop with someone like yourself.
> ...



Oh no, I'm not taking it that way. Also, I almost included a statement in my last post about how I was being super critical and with foreknowledge that you had edited the antlers. Knowing an edit has been done, and particularly what part of an image was edited certainly puts one on high alert to anything in that area that might be "evidence". I certainly understand your skepticism.

And as for the patterns and repeats in the image where no edit was performed, in an image of this quality (poor) that's going to happen. However, I still saw the ones I circled as less random than any of the other. Again though, I understand your skepticism. 

I must say that I know your skill set from your photos here, and without some sort of heads up as far as where/what you edited I think it would be tough to bust you. I'm up for the challenge though, as time permits of course. Leaving for soon. I'd give it a go before we leave if you want to send me a photo soon though. I love this stuff! I'm definitely a PS junkie!


----------



## DRB1313 (Jun 22, 2010)

Okay, Here's one, Original or not? You're a good man Browtine!
I'm just glad to be back a little and having some fun.
Good Luck.


----------



## copeland7 (Jun 22, 2010)

ummmm,  I am gonna say not the original without examining just because mine was real!


----------



## Browtine (Jun 23, 2010)

DRB1313 said:


> Okay, Here's one, Original or not? You're a good man Browtine!
> I'm just glad to be back a little and having some fun.
> Good Luck.



I believe that one is edited. I'm basing it on a few places where the shadow of the deer just ain't right.


----------



## Browtine (Jun 24, 2010)

Well?


----------



## DRB1313 (Jun 24, 2010)

It has been edited, but I assure you it's not the shadows on the deer.
I will be truly amazed if you can correctly identify the edit.


----------



## Seth carter (Jun 24, 2010)

Browtine said:


> I believe that one is edited. I'm basing it on a few places where the shadow of the deer just ain't right.



x2


----------



## Jeff Raines (Jun 24, 2010)

DRB1313 said:


> It has been edited, but I assure you it's not the shadows on the deer.
> I will be truly amazed if you can correctly identify the edit.



Looks like the tail is gone to me


----------



## Seth carter (Jun 24, 2010)

thee tail is gone


----------



## Browtine (Jun 24, 2010)

DRB1313 said:


> It has been edited, but I assure you it's not the shadows on the deer.
> I will be truly amazed if you can correctly identify the edit.



At first I suspected that the entire 'coon had been comped in, but at this resolution and quality it's all but impossible to tell. I don't see any tell-tale signs of editing around it, but it don't look quite right... Bu then again, neither did the shadow around the deer, which you said was real. And I thought the tail was missing, but I figured it was a result of the deer being comp'd into the photo and it got "lost" in the mask. I was highly suspect that the deer had been added in PS. 

Also, I'd NEVER doubt your word one bit, but it's hard to believe that the shadow of/around that deer is real. I believe you, but there's some crazy stuff goin' on there. Maybe due to res/quality/compression/jpg, I don't know...

If the coon and/or corn pile next to it wasn't comped in, I have no idea. I've scanned the entire photo and closely analyzed any areas that were suspect to me and can't come up with anything else. You definitely stumped me, if this has been edited. I'd like to see the original.


----------



## copeland7 (Jun 24, 2010)

well i got the video done, I am uploading it now, I will post the link in a few


----------



## copeland7 (Jun 28, 2010)

I posted the video but they took it down becuase it had a link to my site, PM me if you want the link. I will get it to you!!!!!!


----------



## basstracker1980 (Aug 12, 2010)

*Original or not?*



DRB1313 said:


> Okay, Here's one, Original or not? You're a good man Browtine!
> I'm just glad to be back a little and having some fun.
> Good Luck.



I would say not original. I have very little experience with photoshop so I can't analyze it like some can. I do want to know what's with the tree segment above the deer's head. It goes up from the head probably 3 feet or so and nothing below the head.


----------



## Slingblade (Aug 12, 2010)

I believe what you are seeing as a suspect tree is actually a tube feeder (PVC pipe with camo).


----------



## Sylvan (Aug 12, 2010)

Just a guess, but I'd say a raccoon has been removed from the picture.


----------



## Jranger (Aug 12, 2010)

DRB1313 said:


> Okay, Here's one, Original or not? You're a good man Browtine!
> I'm just glad to be back a little and having some fun.
> Good Luck.



That's a DOE! No doubt about it!


----------



## Jeff1969 (Aug 12, 2010)

Whats going on up top to the right of the tree?


----------

