7 ms·

I would love to see an analysis like that of this photo I first posted to my blog (http://socialtech.ca/ade/index.php/2008/03/beware-the-big-bad-black-wolf/ htt

by adriand 17y ago

I would love to see an analysis like that of this photo I first posted to my blog (http://socialtech.ca/ade/index.php/2008/03/beware-the-big-bad-black-wolf/ http://socialtech.ca/ade/index.php/2008/03/beware-the-big-ba...) which generated the usual claims of "Photoshop" on Reddit, until I posted the original version, which kicked off many more claims that it was 'shopped (http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/6byul/to_all_the_photo_experts_on_reddit_who_claimed/ http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/6byul/to_all_the...) Even though, to the best of my knowledge, the photo is 100% real.

NathanKP 17y ago
That is a pretty scary picture, if it is real. ;) I second the motion that this would be great for analysis by an expert. Why don't you try submitting it to him? He might have a contact somewhere on the site.
ErrantX 17y ago
Im willing to bet there is some tampering going on. The body looks nothing much like a wolf - more like a large dog. If you fiddle with the levels in Photoshop that section does look really suspicious (though Im no expert).
- wensing 17y ago
  Some of the 'experts' in the comment thread claimed that there was no detectable aberrations when messing with levels or what-have-you in PS.
- heyitsnick 17y ago
  I'm a gambling man (as my profession). I will offer you (3:2) - my $3 to your $2 says this photo is real. Let me know how much you want to bet, I'd accept someone reputable on HN will escrow. Would you trust the author of this article as the arbiter of the wager, using similar techniques as the Victoria's secret photo? [I have no expert knowledge on photos, wolves, or the photographer in question. But I like a good bet, especially in the pursuit of science!)
  - logicalmind 17y ago
    How will you define "real"? Clearly the representative set of bits that make up the image are not "real". If you're attempting to determine whether the underlying scene was real then this photo alone may not be the best evidence. If you're trying to determine whether the image is original and unmodified, then you have already lost. The image is modified when the picture is saved on the camera itself and then any time the image is saved in any other program. If you clarify your definition of "real" then your bet may become more enticing.
    - heyitsnick 17y ago
      ErrantX said "I bet there's been some tampering going on". That's what I was referring too. As is the theme of this thread. I'm not getting in to the nitty definitions of the what "real" or "tampered" means because I think we all know what is being discussed here.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I'd say darkgray wolfhound before wolf, the legs are pretty long for a wolf.
mgcross 17y ago
If it weren't for the eyes, I'd be more likely to believe it. The flash from a p&s just wouldn't be bright enough at that distance to generate the luminance in the eyes.
- GoboGobo 17y ago
  Nocturnal hunting animals have much more reflections in their eyes than humans. Try photographing cats, they can produce the same kind of luminance in the eyes.
blhack 17y ago
The wolf does not appear to be casting a shadow even though the people do...
drats 17y ago
I can't stop seeing a small black bear tip-toeing along. The resolution is too chunky to say yay or nay to a photoshop on the basis of the body of the beast but I would agree with the other comment that the eyes do seem to be quite luminous considering the distance and the rest of the flash. Such a flash surely should have made the colours of the people a lot brighter and the woman's face, much much closer to the flash, is basically in shadow.
- jcl 17y ago
  If the picture is indeed not faked, a bear would make more sense; to my understanding, wolves generally avoid humans and are not curious in the way a bear cub might be. It's a better fit for the color and fluffiness, too.
- WinterAyars 17y ago
  It's definitely too big to be a wolf. The size would be appropriate for a bear, and bears are probably more likely than wolves anyway. It's not quite the right shape for a bear, but that's just my opinion.
wensing 17y ago
Full-size image for convenience: http://socialtech.ca/ade/misc/wolf_full_size.jpg http://socialtech.ca/ade/misc/wolf_full_size.jpg I can't stop wondering about this one. I am probably biased towards wanting to believe, but would really like to see a forensic analysis.
potatolicious 17y ago
Just consulted my biologist brother, who was worked extensively in the field in BC, and he doubts the photo is real: - The wolf is huge, much larger than anything known to stalk the woods of BC (both of us are from BC). - The amount of fur suggests that it's wildly out of its natural habitat - not one of the common wolf species, and probably something more Arctic than temperate. - From his personal experience, wolf eyes reflect green, not yellow. Furthermore, you will only ever get the shine if you shine a light at it - like a flash - but the flash on the camera in question could not reach that far. In fact, the flash on that camera was not fired, which as a photographer I can corroborate. There is no way a flash was used in the making of this picture. - There's some weird clipping in the wolf, and a fairly distinct lack of shadow, but neither of us are Photoshop experts, so that's neither here nor there. IMHO the lack of flash is, to me at least, pretty damning. The claim is that the flash was what scared the wolf off - but as someone who takes a lot of photographs, there is no way that a flash was used in that shot, especially one from a point and shoot camera.
- ugh 17y ago
  EXIF data says that the flash fired, but that’s easily faked.
  - potatolicious 17y ago
    I'm going to call fake on it. I've shot a lot of cameras, point and shoots included, and if anything point and shoot flashes are the easiest to spot: - Extreme brightness and blown highlights. - Very flat image due to the fact that the flash is in-line with axis of lens, very few shadows, and what shadows you see is very hard. That picture is very, very much an ambient light picture - there would be the tell-tale "zombie" skin tone from a point and shoot at that range, and the people would be lit up like lanterns, washing the relatively dark background into unrecognizability. It would take a skilled photographer with an off-camera flash to pull off that shot without destroying the background, no way that was done with an ordinary point and shoot.
    - ugh 17y ago
yosho 17y ago
i would bet that it is real, if someone was trying to fake it in photoshop, they would make it look overly "realistic" by dimming the eye glow and adding a shadow and stuff... the fact that we're arguing that the wolf lacks a shadow and has overly bright eyes might be a hint that it is real simply due to the fact that an original photoshop artist probably wouldn't include all those "abnormalities"
greendestiny 17y ago
Ask and you shall receive. I found an implementation of an ELA here http://www.tinyappz.com/wiki/Error_Level_Analyser http://www.tinyappz.com/wiki/Error_Level_Analyser and the result is http://imgur.com/0eYma http://imgur.com/0eYma Doesn't appear to show any manipulation, though I really haven't looked at the implementation or paper to closely to know what I should be looking for.

by adriand 17y ago

NathanKP 17y ago

That is a pretty scary picture, if it is real. ;) I second the motion that this would be great for analysis by an expert. Why don't you try submitting it to him? He might have a contact somewhere on the site.

ErrantX 17y ago

Im willing to bet there is some tampering going on. The body looks nothing much like a wolf - more like a large dog. If you fiddle with the levels in Photoshop that section does look really suspicious (though Im no expert).

wensing 17y ago
Some of the 'experts' in the comment thread claimed that there was no detectable aberrations when messing with levels or what-have-you in PS.
heyitsnick 17y ago
I'm a gambling man (as my profession). I will offer you (3:2) - my $3 to your $2 says this photo is real. Let me know how much you want to bet, I'd accept someone reputable on HN will escrow. Would you trust the author of this article as the arbiter of the wager, using similar techniques as the Victoria's secret photo? [I have no expert knowledge on photos, wolves, or the photographer in question. But I like a good bet, especially in the pursuit of science!)
- logicalmind 17y ago
  How will you define "real"? Clearly the representative set of bits that make up the image are not "real". If you're attempting to determine whether the underlying scene was real then this photo alone may not be the best evidence. If you're trying to determine whether the image is original and unmodified, then you have already lost. The image is modified when the picture is saved on the camera itself and then any time the image is saved in any other program. If you clarify your definition of "real" then your bet may become more enticing.
  - heyitsnick 17y ago
    ErrantX said "I bet there's been some tampering going on". That's what I was referring too. As is the theme of this thread. I'm not getting in to the nitty definitions of the what "real" or "tampered" means because I think we all know what is being discussed here.
jacquesm 17y ago
I'd say darkgray wolfhound before wolf, the legs are pretty long for a wolf.

mgcross 17y ago

If it weren't for the eyes, I'd be more likely to believe it. The flash from a p&s just wouldn't be bright enough at that distance to generate the luminance in the eyes.

GoboGobo 17y ago
Nocturnal hunting animals have much more reflections in their eyes than humans. Try photographing cats, they can produce the same kind of luminance in the eyes.

blhack 17y ago

The wolf does not appear to be casting a shadow even though the people do...

drats 17y ago

I can't stop seeing a small black bear tip-toeing along. The resolution is too chunky to say yay or nay to a photoshop on the basis of the body of the beast but I would agree with the other comment that the eyes do seem to be quite luminous considering the distance and the rest of the flash. Such a flash surely should have made the colours of the people a lot brighter and the woman's face, much much closer to the flash, is basically in shadow.

jcl 17y ago
If the picture is indeed not faked, a bear would make more sense; to my understanding, wolves generally avoid humans and are not curious in the way a bear cub might be. It's a better fit for the color and fluffiness, too.
WinterAyars 17y ago
It's definitely too big to be a wolf. The size would be appropriate for a bear, and bears are probably more likely than wolves anyway. It's not quite the right shape for a bear, but that's just my opinion.

wensing 17y ago

Full-size image for convenience: http://socialtech.ca/ade/misc/wolf_full_size.jpg http://socialtech.ca/ade/misc/wolf_full_size.jpg I can't stop wondering about this one. I am probably biased towards wanting to believe, but would really like to see a forensic analysis.

potatolicious 17y ago

Just consulted my biologist brother, who was worked extensively in the field in BC, and he doubts the photo is real: - The wolf is huge, much larger than anything known to stalk the woods of BC (both of us are from BC). - The amount of fur suggests that it's wildly out of its natural habitat - not one of the common wolf species, and probably something more Arctic than temperate. - From his personal experience, wolf eyes reflect green, not yellow. Furthermore, you will only ever get the shine if you shine a light at it - like a flash - but the flash on the camera in question could not reach that far. In fact, the flash on that camera was not fired, which as a photographer I can corroborate. There is no way a flash was used in the making of this picture. - There's some weird clipping in the wolf, and a fairly distinct lack of shadow, but neither of us are Photoshop experts, so that's neither here nor there. IMHO the lack of flash is, to me at least, pretty damning. The claim is that the flash was what scared the wolf off - but as someone who takes a lot of photographs, there is no way that a flash was used in that shot, especially one from a point and shoot camera.

ugh 17y ago
EXIF data says that the flash fired, but that’s easily faked.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  I'm going to call fake on it. I've shot a lot of cameras, point and shoots included, and if anything point and shoot flashes are the easiest to spot: - Extreme brightness and blown highlights. - Very flat image due to the fact that the flash is in-line with axis of lens, very few shadows, and what shadows you see is very hard. That picture is very, very much an ambient light picture - there would be the tell-tale "zombie" skin tone from a point and shoot at that range, and the people would be lit up like lanterns, washing the relatively dark background into unrecognizability. It would take a skilled photographer with an off-camera flash to pull off that shot without destroying the background, no way that was done with an ordinary point and shoot.
  - ugh 17y ago

yosho 17y ago

i would bet that it is real, if someone was trying to fake it in photoshop, they would make it look overly "realistic" by dimming the eye glow and adding a shadow and stuff... the fact that we're arguing that the wolf lacks a shadow and has overly bright eyes might be a hint that it is real simply due to the fact that an original photoshop artist probably wouldn't include all those "abnormalities"

greendestiny 17y ago

Ask and you shall receive. I found an implementation of an ELA here http://www.tinyappz.com/wiki/Error_Level_Analyser http://www.tinyappz.com/wiki/Error_Level_Analyser and the result is http://imgur.com/0eYma http://imgur.com/0eYma Doesn't appear to show any manipulation, though I really haven't looked at the implementation or paper to closely to know what I should be looking for.