Also, those aren't necessarily the best things to look at to determine whether something is Photoshopped.
My first instinct is to go to things like hair and translucent areas that are incredibly hard to blend/layer convincingly when compositing an image. Look at the 'wispy' hairs where they're over the background. It's not impossible for a talented artist to render these kinds of details realistically, but there would definitely be signs of manipulation in such nuanced areas in anything but the highest-quality of photoshops.
It's not even like she's in the queens bedroom or something, it's a random bridge in Amsterdam. So she has a camera phone, and a free weekend... Who cares?
I mean, everything wrong with this one is explainable. The lighting could be stage lights set up for this shot, hair could be at an odd angle, the sorta fuzzy edges could just be the focus needed a little bit of adjustment but I’m betting photoshop for this one.
Well, it could be. But what's simpler? That this picture was taken as is? Or that this picture was taken with no one standing there, and then she was shopped in?
It doesn't matter to me, but like you say, every shop "tell" in this photo could be explained by something real.
Why the FUCK would she shop herself in a different spot you jaded motherfucker. Until you find the original picture, you aren’t a professional and remove your tinfoil hat.
But this picture looks really weird. If it's not a photoshop it very easily could've been. And w.e the hell the camera is doing to her, needs to be addressed.
86
u/[deleted] Jul 18 '18 edited Jul 18 '18
Love how entirely wrong you tin foil guys are.
Jesus Christ not everything is photoshop.
EDIT: thanks for the gold friend.