3 ms·
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
by 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 agoSome 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 agoI'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 agoHow 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 agoErrantX 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 agoI'd say darkgray wolfhound before wolf, the legs are pretty long for a wolf.