| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/09/2012 01:20:39 PM · #1 |
| Is it possible that this image is photoshopped??? |
|
|
|
08/09/2012 01:24:18 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
08/09/2012 01:26:06 PM · #3 |
Thats Steamer Lane, in Santa Cruz, and to my understanding (although not the most common way of getting in) this is done on a fairly regular basis. There are spots where I grew up in Australia where its easier to get to the good stuff this way. Not for the faint hearted, but then that break isnt on big days anyway. I hear there have been quite a few deaths there over the years.
EDIT: you can see it here: //www.yosurfer.com/photos/photo/99 referred to as the "jump off spot". if it was me though i would never time a jump in like that. i dont know the conditions there as far as depth/rocks at the bottom etc, but i would expect to get pounded by the incoming rush on that one. it could be multiple layers then with the wave and the surfer put into the same frame? but the jump itself is pretty surely legit.
Message edited by author 2012-08-09 13:30:18. |
|
|
|
08/09/2012 01:29:34 PM · #4 |
looks real but then again it looks photo shopped
|
|
|
|
08/09/2012 01:49:54 PM · #5 |
Based on that link provided by  disassociation. I guess it has some merit. But I'm still in doubt. |
|
|
|
08/09/2012 01:53:35 PM · #6 |
| Man, I gotta assume you drop your board before you hit the water! |
|
|
|
08/09/2012 02:03:28 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, I gotta assume you drop your board before you hit the water! |
you hold it out to your side with one hand - modern surfboards are a lot lighter than they used to be. Also, landing on it the wrong way, whilst also being incredibly painful, would probably snap your board in half. |
|
|
|
08/09/2012 02:09:51 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by disassociation:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Man, I gotta assume you drop your board before you hit the water! |
you hold it out to your side with one hand - modern surfboards are a lot lighter than they used to be. Also, landing on it the wrong way, whilst also being incredibly painful, would probably snap your board in half. |
I guess I was thinking of the buoyance of the board making it enter the water much more slowly than you and that would cause your arm to be wrenched upward as you went under and the board stayed on the surface. I've jumped off some fairly high cliffs and know how the water can mess with your limbs if you don't put them in just right. Just eyeballing that cliff looks to be about 30 feet. |
|
|
|
08/09/2012 02:10:05 PM · #9 |
You know, I want to start objecting to the term "photoshopped" when what you mean is "composited" or otherwise significantly modified to defraud the viewer ... unless you're working under DPC Minimal editing rules almost every picture on the 'net has been through PS (or equivalent) ...
I'd think that, after a year and a half on a national magazine's site, if it was a fraud it would have been exposed by now. That said, it reminds me a bit of my night-time skier ... ;-)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just eyeballing that cliff looks to be about 30 feet. |
But the water looks about 20 feet high ... either way, I think I'll pass on the opportunity to try it myself, even though it's relatively close (I even used to live there).
Message edited by author 2012-08-09 14:13:20. |
|
|
|
08/09/2012 02:30:05 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You know, I want to start objecting to the term "photoshopped" when what you mean is "composited" or otherwise significantly modified to defraud the viewer ... unless you're working under DPC Minimal editing rules almost every picture on the 'net has been through PS (or equivalent) ...
I'd think that, after a year and a half on a national magazine's site, if it was a fraud it would have been exposed by now. That said, it reminds me a bit of my night-time skier ... ;-)
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just eyeballing that cliff looks to be about 30 feet. |
But the water looks about 20 feet high ... either way, I think I'll pass on the opportunity to try it myself, even though it's relatively close (I even used to live there). |
Your objection is duly noted. But good luck in your campaign to save the term "photoshopped" LOL. As for the "year and a half". Many a fraud have gone on way longer. I agree with  DrAchoo's comment on that awkward jump in. But it also could be the surfer didn't survive o_0 |
|
|
|
08/09/2012 06:59:19 PM · #11 |
The image's EXIF data:
Filename - brian-hughes.jpg
ImageWidth - 6598
ImageLength - 4329
BitsPerSample - 8 8 8
Compression - 5 (LZW)
PhotometricInterpretation - 5
Make - NIKON CORPORATION
Model - NIKON D300S
Orientation - Top left
SamplesPerPixel - 4
XResolution - 72.00
YResolution - 72.00
PlanarConfiguration - 1
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
DateTime - 2010:12:14 12:13:15
ExifOffset - 312
ExposureTime - 1/800 seconds
FNumber - 13
ExposureProgram - Aperture priority
ISOSpeedRatings - 320
ExifVersion - 0221
DateTimeOriginal - 2010:01:23 12:07:28
DateTimeDigitized - 2010:01:23 12:07:28
ExposureBiasValue - 0
MaxApertureValue - F 4.29
MeteringMode - Center weighted average
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Not fired
FocalLength - 38 mm
UserComment -
SubsecTime - 24
SubsecTimeOriginal - 24
SubsecTimeDigitized - 24
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 1000
ExifImageHeight - 656
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
White Balance - Auto
DigitalZoomRatio - 1 x
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 57 mm
SceneCaptureType - Standard
GainControl - None
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Normal
SubjectDistanceRange - Unknown
Thumbnail: -
Compression - 6 (JPG)
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 942
JpegIFByteCount - 5758
|
|
|
|
08/09/2012 07:20:47 PM · #12 |
AHA!!
Originally posted by Pug-H:
The image's EXIF data:
Filename - brian-hughes.jpg
ImageWidth - 6598
ImageLength - 4329
Surfer: Imported
BitsPerSample - 8 8 8
Compression - 5 (LZW)
PhotometricInterpretation - 5
Make - NIKON CORPORATION
Model - NIKON D300S
Orientation - Top left
...
...
|
|
|
|
|
08/09/2012 07:58:50 PM · #13 |
The Error Level Analysis for this image shows no reason to suspect a composite.
No anomalous edges that I can see, and very little PS work too... Not only is that probably a non-composite image, it doesn't look like there was much post work done to it either... |
|
|
|
08/09/2012 09:05:30 PM · #14 |
| My former assistant-of-20-years was a serious surfer. I've been to that place and seen people makl that jump, albeit not in quite so dramatic a surf as that. |
|
|
|
08/09/2012 09:08:34 PM · #15 |
| It almost looks like the surfer is jumping in to avoid getting hit by the wave that is crashing where he would have been standing. |
|
|
|
08/09/2012 09:31:04 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by jadin:
It almost looks like the surfer is jumping in to avoid getting hit by the wave that is crashing where he would have been standing. |
I think it's a trick of perspective. Look at this photo. It looks like the wave is going to engulf Jenn, but in fact it all shoots to the right of her and she doesn't get wet at all.
 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/27/2025 06:36:10 PM EDT.
