# Is it just me or does this look PHOTO-SHOPPED?



## ewick (Oct 23, 2012)

I was wondering if anybody else thinks this sky is photo shopped?








[/URL] jump by pop-a-dot, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## spang1mw (Oct 23, 2012)

From what I can tell it doesn't look Photoshopped.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 23, 2012)

It's just you


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 23, 2012)

if you were going to photoshop a sky, you'd probably make it look more interesting than that.


----------



## swiftparkour94 (Oct 23, 2012)

Not at all lol


----------



## swiftparkour94 (Oct 23, 2012)

fjrabon said:
			
		

> if you were going to photoshop a sky, you'd probably make it look more interesting than that.



I agree


----------



## pgriz (Oct 24, 2012)

I'd be wondering more why the people have no shadows below them...


----------



## Rick58 (Oct 24, 2012)

pgriz said:


> I'd be wondering more why the people have no shadows below them...


Below, behind, beside. The light must be coming directly BELOW them


----------



## snowbear (Oct 24, 2012)

I don't see shadows, anywhere - the sun could have behind some of those clouds.


----------



## cannpope (Oct 24, 2012)

Doesn't look PS'd to me.


----------



## Rick58 (Oct 24, 2012)

snowbear said:


> I don't see shadows, anywhere - the sun could have behind some of those clouds.



Cloudy enough to not even leave a hint of shadow...anywhere?


----------



## snowbear (Oct 24, 2012)

I'm just guessing 
A bunch of clouds to the left and who knows what's behind the camera.  If it is an added sky, it looks good.  Maybe the sky is the original shot and the peeps were 'shopped in?


----------



## BluePhotoFrog (Oct 24, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> snowbear said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see shadows, anywhere - the sun could have behind some of those clouds.
> ...



Not only no shadows below the peeps, but none below the posts/railings to either side of them...I'm voting for sun behind clouds acting as the biggest softbox in the world.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 24, 2012)

pgriz said:


> I'd be wondering more why the people have no shadows below them...





Rick58 said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be wondering more why the people have no shadows below them...
> ...





snowbear said:


> I don't see shadows, anywhere - the sun could have behind some of those clouds.




You guys are trying to tell me you don't see those highly diffused shadows under them???


Step back from your monitor and try again.


----------



## runnah (Oct 24, 2012)

The rough edges appear to be from bad optics.


----------



## Ysarex (Oct 24, 2012)

Yep, I'd say a "shopped" in sky.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Oct 24, 2012)

Wow - Pic is an excellent illustration of "the purpose of polarizor filters for beautiful skies"


----------



## amolitor (Oct 24, 2012)

I vote "'shopped".

There's allegedly a strobe in play here which would account for some of the different light on the girls, but if there IS a strobe in play it appears to be above the girls and quite softened. If their chins cast shadows on their chests, their bodies should cast some shadows on the ground.

I am pretty confident that this is a composite of two photographs, neither of which used a flash. And good god, what an ugly mess it is.

ETA: The background appears to have more sharpening? compression? general uglification? artifacts than the girls do.


----------



## sm4him (Oct 24, 2012)

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe the people are photoshopped in, instead. Maybe it's been polarized, and shopped and composited and sharpened and who knows what else.

I don't know--maybe it's just a fun exercise to pick it apart and analyze it to death, but for me, it's just not worth it.
This is a fun snapshot; someone wanted a fun little picture of these girls and (presumably) their mother, leaping into the air, at this location. They got that; how they got it is of no consequence to me.

</stops. Realizes how grouchy she sounds, and wanders off in search of more coffee/>


----------



## spacefuzz (Oct 24, 2012)

doesnt look photoshopped to me


----------



## lizbethR (Oct 24, 2012)

I think its just you an about the shadows i have taken pics like this and no shadows come up


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 24, 2012)

Guys, go look at it full size. It's not photoshopped. there is a slight darkness  under the people, but most of all there is motion blur in there and it shows. There's no way someone could have photoshopped that


----------



## Buckster (Oct 24, 2012)

ewick said:


> I was wondering if anybody else thinks this sky is photo shopped?


Only when examined very closely, which I wouldn't have done if you hadn't asked.  It's absolutely passable as is.


----------



## ewick (Oct 24, 2012)

Ok here is the back story. I shot a family portrait and after wards we decided to have fun. I have seen them before but never tried to do a " jumping" one my self. The day was over cast and I did use OCF with a shoot thru umbrella and I have no idea why my ISO was @ 800. I did CS5 the sky in and I would have used a more interesting sky but I did not have a better one to use.(not a fan of using stock images) the flash was high camera right. The file is straight out the camera just converted to jpg but other wise untouched. I did have to bring down the noise in post. I tried to make it as interesting as I possibly could and was debating turn this image over to them. If it could pass as not obviously shopped thenI am going to give it to her. I tried to cover all the points but if I missed something please feel free to share.Thank all of you for giving your point of view. 




]

 original by pop-a-dot, on Flickr[/IMG]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





[/URL] long expo4 by pop-a-dot, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## ewick (Oct 24, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Wow - Pic is an excellent illustration of "the purpose of polarizor filters for beautiful skies"



wish that was true but its just a 2 shot composite to try and make it aesthetically pleasing.


----------



## ewick (Oct 24, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Guys, go look at it full size. It's not photoshopped. there is a slight darkness  under the people, but most of all there is motion blur in there and it shows. There's no way someone could have photoshopped that




I always enjoy reading your comments but on this one you were wrong sky was shopped in.


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 24, 2012)

this is just weird on multiple levels.


----------



## ewick (Oct 24, 2012)

fjrabon said:


> this is just weird on multiple levels.




Aww c'mon... why is that? I'm sure you have stumbled upon even weirder stuff, right? so share why its weird on multiple levels?


----------



## fjrabon (Oct 24, 2012)

ewick said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > this is just weird on multiple levels.
> ...



Such a strange candidate of a shot for photoshopping in a sky to begin with.  The sky you chose was an odd choice to make the effort to photshop in.

You used a shoot through umbrella and were at ISO 800 and still got motion blur and a blown out sky?  

Then this whole 'contest' thing.


----------



## KmH (Oct 24, 2012)

Shoot your own stock sky shots.


----------



## ewick (Oct 24, 2012)

Its the only one that was close to being useable. I wish there were better but like I said... I had never done a "jumping" one before and all of them had motion blur and I don't know why since I was at shutter speed 200 and ISO 800. I am going to go out and figure out why I got motion blur and noise. Oh there was no "contest" all I wanted to know was if anybody else thought it was obvious that the sky was shopped in. I didn't want to be like: hey the sky is shopped in,is it obvious? know what I mean? Either way thank you for your input.


----------



## ewick (Oct 24, 2012)

KmH said:


> FWIW, people always looked at me kind of odd when I would shoot my own stock sky images.
> 
> My sky shots are organized/keyworded by time of year, time of day, and approximate compass heading of the camera.



that is def. something to keep in mind. now that I needed a sky and didn't have one I think it will be in my best interest to start being more organized.


----------



## ewick (Oct 24, 2012)

KmH said:


> Shoot your own stock sky shots.




whats FWIW?


----------



## sm4him (Oct 24, 2012)

ewick said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Shoot your own stock sky shots.
> ...



For What It's Worth


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 24, 2012)

ewick said:


> Its the only one that was close to being useable. I wish there were better but like I said... I had never done a "jumping" one before and all of them had motion blur and I don't know why since I was at shutter speed 200 and ISO 800. I am going to go out and figure out why I got motion blur and noise. Oh there was no "contest" all I wanted to know was if anybody else thought it was obvious that the sky was shopped in. I didn't want to be like: hey the sky is shopped in,is it obvious? know what I mean? Either way thank you for your input.


1/200 is enough to stop a toddler in motion, but probably not running. Sure as heck isn't enough to stop fast moving hands and feet. Football my minimum is 1/500 and it would have been more appropriate here. 1/200 is really fairly slow. There are even people who have shake blur problems at times there.


----------



## ewick (Oct 24, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> ewick said:
> 
> 
> > Its the only one that was close to being useable. I wish there were better but like I said... I had never done a "jumping" one before and all of them had motion blur and I don't know why since I was at shutter speed 200 and ISO 800. I am going to go out and figure out why I got motion blur and noise. Oh there was no "contest" all I wanted to know was if anybody else thought it was obvious that the sky was shopped in. I didn't want to be like: hey the sky is shopped in,is it obvious? know what I mean? Either way thank you for your input.
> ...




I will have to lok into that because I was using OCF and it would only snyc at 200. anything above that it would cut my image at the bottom.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 5, 2012)

ewick said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > ewick said:
> ...


And there's the key element that MLeek isn't taking into account.  With flash to stop the motion, shutter speed can be VERY low.  I frequently stop fast motion with long shutters by using a flash.


----------



## Tareq935 (Nov 12, 2012)

Don't think it is photoshopped.


----------

