Bear facing Wolf by Lasse Niskala

[Urban X]

The quality of those pictures is no where near good enough to tell. I know well what photoshop of capable of I've used it since it's first inception, anyone even half decent with it could produce changes in images that could not be seen at that resolution

Indeed Wayland, NO evidence either way as we don't have the original images to look at, no exif data, just some poor quality images from a gallery.


Si

 

[RonW]

Lovely pics!

There is quit some footage of bear and wolf being very close to one another, without signs of hostility when there is no food involved. The series of wild Scandinavia show that in the Finland-episode for instance. And even when food is involved the violence is a lot less than one would expect.

@ Urban X; first you say that to you it looks as if the pics are altered (post 5 and 13), but a little later you state that as a fact (post 17). Unless you are an expert on wildlifefotography and/or an expert on picturealteration and/or an expert in bear/wofbehaviour, I suggest you should be a little more carefull with accusations like that, unless offcourse you were present at the moment the pictures were taken....
In any other case you sig suits you very well.......

 

[Urban X]

Sig wasn't for me Ron.

I'm about as much of an expert on the above as the rest of you expressing opinions on validity I reckon, 'experts' often disagree wouldn't you say.

I'll stick with my opinion and you can stick with yours, I believe we have freedom of speech on this forum do we not?

Perhaps you'd be familiar with this Ron?

http://www.petapixel.com/2011/09/05...ographer-of-the-year-admits-to-faking-photos/


Si

 

[Wayland]

The quality of those pictures is no where near good enough to tell. I know well what photoshop of capable of I've used it since it's first inception, anyone even half decent with it could produce changes in images that could not be seen at that resolution

Indeed Wayland, NO evidence either way as we don't have the original images to look at, no exif data, just some poor quality images from a gallery.


Si

Precisely...

Yet the example that you point at, the eagle shot, shows a rim that if it were a composite would have been a certain give away.

If this photographer is a competent user of PS, as you suggest, he could easily have removed that rim and yet you suppose he has left it in place just so that you can spot it's a fake?

The exif is missing due to the gallery software so no real subterfuge there either.

I have been accused of faking pictures myself on several occasions, usually by people that are jealous that they have no such pictures in their own portfolios.

I do make small alterations in some shots, I am very open about that, but if I was capable of making the sort of alterations they suggest I do, I could earn myself a good living in the special effects industry.

To doubt a persons integrity upon a highly dubious supposition is tantamount to calling them a liar with no evidence and that is an accusation I would be very wary of setting down in writing on a public forum.

 

[Urban X]

Like I said you have your opinions and I have mine Wayland, we'll have to agree to disagree, or not. I didn't say he was hiding the exif data, I'm well aware why it isn't there :roll: I said there is no exif data so we can't use it to help verify anything can we.....

IMO the pics have been manipulated in yours they're pukka, nothing tantamount to anything.


Si