PDA

View Full Version : how can u tell if it is a CG or a real pics.



arrow1234
01-17-2007, 04:48 PM
hello everyone,
i am a newbie to 3d modelling, and yet cant tell the difference between real picture(taken by some professional cameras) and 3d CG(computer graphics)
like these 2 following pictures i found on internet:

http://i3.tinypic.com/4gzckeb.jpg

http://i13.tinypic.com/33v2069.jpg

for the 2nd one, i am pretty sure it is a CG, but i could be wrong.
so can anyone tell me if they are both CG? please~

Bog
01-17-2007, 05:04 PM
These days, the only way to tell a car from a render is what it's doing in motion. Car photos are always heavily stylised and idealised - as are car renders.

There are few ways to tell.

The second photo? I'd say real. The girl's face looks plasticky, and it could be a render of Superlative Quality, but I have insufficient data for a meaningful answer. The candels could be Subsurface Scattering pseudovolumes, the candelabra could be an HRDI-mapped fake. The hand and cloth look real, though.

It's getting tougher and tougher to tell.

EagleWing
01-17-2007, 06:07 PM
I agree Bog, the second picture is definately real i'd love to see anyone be that good at modeling, texturing and rendering that picture in 3D and i've seen pictures that looked real but not THAT real.
for me the first picture is very hard to tell given the white background.
I usually look for reflections and light reflections in the paint to tell. The shadow on the floor is a bit wierd, too blurry for me to be real but this could be from any ammount of light properties causing that in the real world. And again it could indeed be a real car but then taken into photoshop and have the shadow on the floor added later.
The second image is real to me for serveral reasons because:
A: the girls skin looks real not CG.
B: her hair and eyelashes, i've never seen a 3D render have REALLY believable hair fibers like that.
C: her dress and indeed the table sheets, they fold and crumple realistically. This could be done in 3D quite easily I know but for me the position of her hand and the way the table cloth folds is too real looking for me.

You can't really say anything on the candle stand as you CAN model something to look exactly like that in 3d and you literally could't tell the difference unless you KNEW what you were looking for, but those flames do look real don't they, taking also into account the slight "hazey" glow around the flame you can see, again looks too real to be CG to me.

Bog
01-17-2007, 06:10 PM
Actually, the dead-centre flares on the candles says "CG" to me - the light distro off a flame isn't quite like that in RL - and the bloom wouldn't be either.

Fun stuff, though. The second shot could be CG that's been massaged in a postprocessing tool.

These days, it's hard to tell.

EagleWing
01-17-2007, 06:15 PM
exactly, and it will continue to get harder and harder as new technologies arise.

Bog
01-17-2007, 06:27 PM
exactly, and it will continue to get harder and harder as new technologies arise.

See, to me that's the point. Reality, we've got nailed pretty good.

So - to my mind - that means it's time to concentrate on what we cannot physically do. Acheiving reality is just a function of budget, where time = money. Doing what simply is not possible to film is the exciting realm - doing it with visual plausibility is the goal.

Selah.

EagleWing
01-17-2007, 06:40 PM
amen to that.
I don't think we'll ever be able to reproduce REAL looks into 3D until we find out how to create more advanced Render Engines.

Indeed the only way i've seen REAL looking skin for example is if it's been an actual photo of skin UV mapped to a model.

GregMalick
01-17-2007, 06:49 PM
I've yet to see any CG hair look that good.
Beautiful skin tones too.
If it's CG - it's truly amazing.

:hey:

EagleWing
01-17-2007, 06:55 PM
The only way to get skin to look anywhere near real or anyhting like that in the second picture would be to use SSS.

EagleWing
01-17-2007, 07:01 PM
Have a look at this link if you're bored hehe.

http://www.autodesk.com/eng/etc/fakeorfoto/quiz.html

I got them all correct appart from the bottle opener which i thought was CG because i've seen some pretty nice metal looks in CG and i thought that this was one of them. one some it is plainly easy like the cup of coffee for example but for the Car which is some very nice modeling and texturing I looked as i mentioned before at the reflections and even the license plate.

voriax
01-18-2007, 04:08 AM
10/10..

It's generally easy to tell because no matter how good a photo of something is, there is always very minute details that can't be or aren't reproduced in CG shots just yet - tiny bits of errant dust, certain imperfections, etc.. CG shots look too perfect, even when they have "dirt added"..

I'd say the first pic in this thread is real but been altered to look "unreal", and the second pic is definately real.

EagleWing
01-18-2007, 07:07 AM
10/10..

It's generally easy to tell because no matter how good a photo of something is, there is always very minute details that can't be or aren't reproduced in CG shots just yet - tiny bits of errant dust, certain imperfections, etc.. CG shots look too perfect, even when they have "dirt added"..

I'd say the first pic in this thread is real but been altered to look "unreal", and the second pic is definately real.

with you all the way there. thats what i think about the images too.

Dave Jerrard
01-18-2007, 07:41 AM
First pic - CG or at least digitally manipulated.
Second pic - photo. Note the multiple reflections in of the candles in the glass in the background and the presense of the girl's reflection in the candle holder. The cnalde flames are also reflected in her eyes, and a shadow of the holder, cast from the fromt most candle, falls on her hand. DOF is consistent throughout.

For decades now, car ads have rarely used actual photographs of cars. They were usually high quality renderings done with various mediums, pencil, paint, airbrush, and now mostly CG. Any that did use a real photo were almost always touched up in some manner. What tips me off with the car is there's no reflection of a camera in the surface. In fact, there's no reflections of anything but white and the car itself. There's not even any interference patterns on the windows, which is a common thing you see in real cars, caused by the leyering of the safety glass. The image is just a bit too clean. The biggest giveaway though is that the tires do not squash where they touch the ground.

He Who Can Spot A CG Render A Mile Away, With A Telescope.

starbase1
01-18-2007, 07:53 AM
Yes, I don't think you can come close to separately the categories - To me the second one looks real, (the disporganised hair strands would be diofficult and pointless), but with the lighting faked in the real world.

By which I mean that I suspect the main light on the girls face is not from the candles, and also I share Bogs suspicion that the candle flares have been photoshoped on.

When a 'real' photo is fed into photoshop, almost anything can come out. There was a huge fuss some years ago when someone let sslip that the heavily made up womends faces on the front
a) Used cheap cosmetics, not the extortionately priced ones credited.
b) The the photos were heavily edited anyway.

Any decent film photographer can manipulate a film image every bit as convincingly as a digital artist!

The mistake, in the first thread in the post, is to assume that film photograhy, (let alone digital) is 'real'.

Nick

oDDity
01-18-2007, 07:56 AM
The only way to get skin to look anywhere near real or anyhting like that in the second picture would be to use SSS.

What, really? SSS for more realistic skin renders...hmmm. I knew those industry professionals were keeping something back from us.

Well I think it's CG with some post processing. The face has a dead look which I associate with CG, and the silver candle holder looks fake, and the hand doesn't seem to have any weight on it, even though she's leaning on it. Zoom in on her irises and pupils, they've been tampered with, they are too sharp and saturated compared to the face.
Hair like that is possible now, Max has some really good plugins.
Either this is CG, or it's a photo that someone has tampered with to make it look like good CG, which seems odd.

starbase1
01-18-2007, 08:09 AM
Either this is CG, or it's a photo that someone has tampered with to make it look like good CG, which seems odd.

I really think it's the latter.

A freind who is a CG pro, and very good, has had work returned on more than one occasion for looking too real - plenty of clients think that CGI gives an impression of modern, expensive, advanced, etc.

Nick

T-Light
01-18-2007, 08:11 AM
I can't see the first image, just getting the dreaded red 'x'.

Not sure if I agree with everyone on the second (mind you, I thought all test images in the quiz were cgi + photoshopping so that tells you where my minds at :) ).

The problem with the second image being a photo is that's a lot of light for 5 candles. You'd really have to open up a camera for that kind of photo.

ie,
a) very low f stop on the lens (think that might lead to a smaller depth of field than is visible here)
b) V fast film speed (or digital camera, higher ISO), both of which would create grain in the image which isn't present.
Either way, the picture would have to be taken at a reasonble shutter speed or the candles would be way more blurred than they are, + a smaller shutter speed would result in at least some blurring around the girl (Everyone moves at least a little bit unless you're looking at fast shutter speeds, and this shot couldn't be made with a fast shutter speed as it would cut out too much light)

I'm guessing she's CG + photoshop.
It's bl**dy good though.

CMT
01-18-2007, 08:28 AM
First one is CG just by the shadows. Looks too smooth, just like a GI dome. But if the car is real, the shadow is fake.

The second one looks real to me. It's been tampered with though. Oddity has a point about the eyes. But I think that's just trying to make the photo look better, not trying to make it look CG. The girl looks like she's kneeling so most of her weight is supported there, not the hands. So I have no problem with the weight of her hand on whatever it is she's on (a bed?). The graininess of the image looks more like a photo than CG. It's either the best job of it I've seen or it's real. Cuz I've always hated when people use graininess just to make a CG pic look more "real". So I get nitpicky with that. :)

But the one thing that throws me is the second reflection of the candles in the picture in the background. Is it from another candelabra or the same one? If it's the same one, then the angle of reflection seems all wrong. If it's a different one off to the right side, then whats with the secondary reflection under the first?

oDDity
01-18-2007, 08:53 AM
Double glazed windows could do that.

CMT
01-18-2007, 09:02 AM
Ahhh! Which makes it look more likely it's a photo, unless someone was clever enough to fake it.

oDDity
01-18-2007, 09:16 AM
My best guess is a photo which someone tried to reproduce in CG, and then ended up compositing the two together.
Anyway, it people are going to start messing around and tampering with photos to try and make them look like CG, then we have no chance of working out which is which any more.
One thing can be said for a certainty - whether this started life as a photo or a render, it's been tampered with since.

Dave Jerrard
01-18-2007, 09:19 AM
The window in the hutch actually has beveled edges. That's where the multiple reflections are coming from. The second rightmost candle is visible in the main reflection and is repeated in the bevel on the right, while all the candles are doubled in the bevel along the bottom.


He Who Has Done Candlelight Photography Before.

art
01-18-2007, 09:31 AM
I'm not an expert here but I'd say #2 is a photo that was perhaps somewhat postprocessed. There is quite a bit of small detail in the shadows (I used curves in photoshop to look at it) that might hint that it is a real photo. There are many single hair strands visible and the overall hairstyle looks quite real. There is something else reflecting in the glass. Her dress looks real, the netted part and the shiny part. On the CG side, the candle halo looks as if it was added. Grain is low, her eyes seem to be colored.

If this is a CG, someone spent lot's of time on it.

EagleWing
01-18-2007, 09:46 AM
i think everyone is saying the same things pretty much now, jsut goes to show we all think the same ways when looking for these things, though maybe for different reasons we all came up with the same answer.

ericsmith
01-18-2007, 10:09 AM
I'm pretty convinced both are real photos.

The car has a couple of giveaways. First, there's a reflection on the right fender that looks like the top rigging of a tent, and a line going down the side that could be a stand pole. Shots like this are done with the car surrounded with white sheets, and the photographer can be behind this shooting through a small opening. That's why there's no obvious reflection of the camera. Also, the paint finish is very realistic for a metallic paint. The reflection blurring is stronger head on than from a glancing view. Additionally, the tires actually are compressed at the bottom. I measured in photoshop, and the top of the tire is taller than the bottom. you don't see an obvious bulge, but I think that's consistant with a new, fully inflated radial tire.

The girl has a variety of clues that have been discussed already. I doubt anyone here is conviced that's a purely 3d image.

As far as them being post processed, I think that's a given for any professionally shot and published photo nowadays.

Eric

Stooch
01-19-2007, 07:46 AM
both are real. the car on top is clearly photoshopped and the shadows are faked. not even GI. I know because in my old job we would do that alot with product shoots (pepsi stuff)

the second one is real, im not going to go into tweaks with photoshop etc, but its obviously tweaked, what gives it away for me is her hair. I havent see photorealistic hair in 3D to date even in the very best examples, her hair is a dead giveaway that its real. I dont think anyone tried to make it look cg at all.

pixeltek
01-19-2007, 11:15 PM
I'm with Dave Jerrard on this one, for all of the reasons he mentioned on both images. There are even faint highlights caused by the candles on her hair, to add to the certainty in my mind, that this is a photo. And, indeed, there is some masterfully crafted CG character stuff out there, much done with Poser figures, as you may see on renderosity.com, but this would be above and beyond because of so many fine details clues.

Cageman
01-19-2007, 11:40 PM
Hmm...

First pic... really hard to tell... could be a photo, could be CG. Either way, it has been manipulated in 2D.

Second pic is a photo. Pro photographers usually have bouncers and lighting equippment to lit the scene. That's why the few candles seem to lit a larger area than what they normaly would do. I don't see her eyes as dead, but they are in a "day-dreaming" state. This happens to me alot of times, esp in the morning and it is funny how people look when they are in this "day-dreaming" state. You simply doesn't focus on anything and are pretty occupied with your thoughts....

phillydee
01-19-2007, 11:45 PM
...He Who Has Done Candlelight Photography Before.

Dude... I was LMAO with your two posts' final words... good stuff... (are you the same Dave Jerrard with those old LW 4.0/5.0/5.6 tutes?... :rock: )

AFA the 2nd pic--the sheets looked absolutely real at first glance... thinking about it, I thot it could be a picture and/or composite--seemed like the girl's eyes didn't really look like she's looking AT the candles--then again, maybe she's a little hypnotized etc etc.

Bevels in the mirror led me to the impression that it was a real room--but the glows on the candle flames had me thinking....

AFA the grain issue with high ISO images--you think someone could have ran this thru something like Neat Image's grain/noise remover...?

Great post for wasting a few minutes for coffee tho...:thumbsup:

cholo
01-20-2007, 02:46 AM
Ok, all you car experts, is this one real or CGI? I know because I did it, but I won't tell. :)

cholo
01-20-2007, 02:55 AM
Btw... The Edmunds.com shot must be real because nobody models cars with cheap hubcaps, models usually depict fully equipped cars and that means real wheels.

kopperdrake
01-20-2007, 03:32 AM
I have to say that I believe the second one to be CG - or at the very least the candles are, but then as Oddity pointed out the girl is either very dead-pan or CGI.

The main thing that gives it away for me is that the flames are perfectly leaning to the left, suggesting a very, very, accurately continuous air flow in that direction, whereas I have never known a child to hold their breath to take a photo like that. Even the slightest amount of breath would've caused some eddying.

The person who made has done a lovely job - but there's also a slight angle to the unit in the background that suggests, if the girl and background were a photograph, that she didn't reflect in the glass, whereas the candles do. She is so close to the candles I would suggest she should also be slightly visible in there.

One theory is she and the room are real and *very* posed, with the candles being placed in afterwards, hence the eye tampering. This could also explain the difference in 'blooming' on the candlestick compared to her eyes. Her eye highlights are pin-sharp whereas there's a lot of blooming on the candlesticks which just doesn't match up.

The other theory is that the whole thing is CGI, and I prefer this as there is such a huge amount of reflectivity going on in the candlestick that it would have been as difficult to create as convincing a reflection map for that scene as to go the whol hog.

So my take (and I'm probably totally wrong), is that the background is a real image (hance the lack of girl's reflection but seemingly post worked in candle reflections, and the girl, table and candles are CGI :)

kopperdrake
01-20-2007, 08:11 AM
Ok, all you car experts, is this one real or CGI? I know because I did it, but I won't tell. :)

Cholo - CGI :D And very nice it is too :) Give away for me are the tyre shadows - they're great, but most photoshop shadows on cars is never this good around the tyre area.

Oh - should've said the first picture on the first page is a photograph - the shadows have been added after the photograph - you can see some white edging between the shadows and the car body - would've been a pain to add that in post ;)

T-Light
01-20-2007, 10:00 AM
OK, I'll change my mind, mainly because I've been to the site and now realise it's a site for people to post their pics and video (Doh :foreheads)

It's just so heavilly processed that images like this are becoming so difficult to distinguish. + There's so many things that are 'right' about the image and yet so many other things that are wrong, It's like an amateur taking pictures set up by professionals. The girls pose is absolutely perfect, if this is an image for her parents I'm sure they're chuffed. But what is it with the slight angle offsets and that bl**dy candilabra??? What kind of a talentless chimp would compose the shot with the base falling out the bottom of the photo???, I mean Chr*st on a bike!

I have come to hate this image more than anything I've ever laid eyes on :devil:

kopperdrake
01-20-2007, 10:50 AM
I have come to hate this image more than anything I've ever laid eyes on :devil:

LOL :D At least we were spared the gel filter effect ;)

Dave Jerrard
01-20-2007, 04:13 PM
Dude... I was LMAO with your two posts' final words... good stuff... (are you the same Dave Jerrard with those old LW 4.0/5.0/5.6 tutes?... :rock: )I hope so. I cashed his checks! If I'm not him, I sure wouldn't want him after me. The guy's scary! ;D


AFA the 2nd pic--the sheets looked absolutely real at first glance... thinking about it, I thot it could be a picture and/or composite--seemed like the girl's eyes didn't really look like she's looking AT the candles--then again, maybe she's a little hypnotized etc etc. She's definitely looking past them. If she was looking at them, she'd look cross-eyed (well, she would be), and that would ruin the photo.


Bevels in the mirror led me to the impression that it was a real room--but the glows on the candle flames had me thinking....That's exactly what happens when you photograph candle flames.


AFA the grain issue with high ISO images--you think someone could have ran this thru something like Neat Image's grain/noise remover...?
Or they shot it with a low ISO. Her hair flopped over her arm during the exposure. Take a close look at the hair near her elbow. It's motion blurred. Low ISO is good for this type of photography. Actually in film, it's good for most types because it create such smooth tones and captures color better than higher speed film. The higher the ISO, the more grain you start to get in the image. This occurs digitally as well, but instead of grain, you get more digital noise. The fact that the lace in her dress is really sharp indicates that a low ISO was used and not a post process noise remover. Those tend to blur the image when they do their work.

I would say that the most digital manipulations would be color adjustments, if any, and maybe a very slight sharpening as the image was scaled down to the current size.


He Who Is Now Convinced That First Image Is Also A Photo.

Dave Jerrard
01-20-2007, 04:21 PM
OK, so this one goes out to the pros...
The image below - Fake or Photo?It's real, but it's not a photo.



I'd say CG, If you gave that option above, I'd say that too. It's CG. It's a real image, opposed to a fake image, which you can't really see (kinda like imaginary friends, which keep arguing with me about whether they're real or not. Until they pay for the food they eat, I say they're not real.)

He Who Is Probably More Real Than Some People Would Like.

Dave Jerrard
01-20-2007, 04:28 PM
Ok, all you car experts, is this one real or CGI? I know because I did it, but I won't tell. :)I'm inclined to say photo, but it's hard to tell due to the JPG artifacts. Could you post a PNG or something else that's not lossy?

He Who Really Likes The PNG Format.

Dave Jerrard
01-20-2007, 04:36 PM
It's just so heavilly processed that images like this are becoming so difficult to distinguish. + There's so many things that are 'right' about the image and yet so many other things that are wrong, It's like an amateur taking pictures set up by professionals. The girls pose is absolutely perfect, if this is an image for her parents I'm sure they're chuffed. But what is it with the slight angle offsets and that bl**dy candilabra??? What kind of a talentless chimp would compose the shot with the base falling out the bottom of the photo???, I mean Chr*st on a bike!Who says this was cropped like this by the photographer? I've seen images all over the net that are cropped differently depending on where you find them (even my own). Usually it's cropped to remove the credits of the person that created the image, other times it's cropped just to fit a web page better. I'd like to know where this image was downloaded from. I haven't been able to find it anywhere in searches.

He Who Needs To Find His Old Negatives Sometime.

SplineGod
01-20-2007, 08:41 PM
Both images are CG because were viewing them on a computer
Also Daves Eye really is that big compared to the other one. :)

phillydee
01-20-2007, 09:24 PM
Both images are CG because were viewing them on a computer
Also Daves Eye really is that big compared to the other one. :)

nice...:ohmy:

Matt
01-21-2007, 02:17 AM
first CG second photo, dead easy!

T-Light
01-21-2007, 06:58 PM
Dave Gerrard -

He Who Has Done Candlelight Photography Before.
I've b*gger*d up all sorts of lighting in photography, daylight, tungsten, neon, you name it, give me a light, I will find a way of scr*wing it up :D

BUT, (and I don't DO studio), I can categoricaly say, I've never ever taken a decent photo in candlelight (not without high film speed - and then you get the grain).

Let's say this photo is out of my league 'kit' speaking, how on earth, without extreme manipulation can you produce a picture of this definition with candlelight?

It's been said before that this is a pro light setup, AND as you say Dave, it's possibly a larger 'negative' image originally, BUT...

We have a perfectly decent image here, someone has cropped this more or less correctly (ie focus is on the the girl), but the focus is off, She's not looking at the candles, in fact the entire lighting of the image is incorrect suggests a studio setup (Her face is perfectly lit which can't be by these candles alone), which also suggests the foreground candlebara is either an afterthought or a badly misconceived foreground object.

The fact is the whole bl**dy image is rich, it's studio, and it's expensive, expensive to the point of Disney, but the highlights in the eyes and the angle of the image is nothing less than ultra cheap!!!

Yes we need to see the original photo to give comment on this but until then I'm thinking a small studio that has the tools to impress the parents but not US!

I'm not saying the people involved aren't talented, I'm just saying that image is throwing us a curveball.

ps Dave, please show me a photo of yours in candleight of that resolution and shutter speed that captures that level of detail in candelight (No Noise + net dress at that detail + movement).

I don't doubt you for a second, I really just want to know how?. :thumbsup: :)

I'm hitting on you because you know what you're talking about and with this image I AM COMPLETELY NON-PLUSSED :(

Dave Jerrard
01-22-2007, 10:06 AM
Dave Gerrard -It's with a J. :)


We have a perfectly decent image here, someone has cropped this more or less correctly (ie focus is on the the girl), but the focus is off, She's not looking at the candles, No she's not. As I said earlier, that would make her look cross-eyed. Focus looks fine to me.


in fact the entire lighting of the image is incorrect suggests a studio setup (Her face is perfectly lit which can't be by these candles alone), which also suggests the foreground candlebara is either an afterthought or a badly misconceived foreground object.It's definitely there. It's casting a shadow across her arm, and she IS reflected in it. Yes, there is another lightsource involved (though not a very bright one), off the the right. You can see its reflection in the candelabra as well. My guess is this is a case where a low-powered bounce flash was used, and then the shutter was left open a bit longer to let the candle's burn in a bit more. During that time the girl's hair fell, leaving a blurred second image near her elbow. I figure an exposure time of about one second was used, with the aperture about half open since there's a fair amount of depth of field for such low cast lighting.


The fact is the whole bl**dy image is rich, it's studio, and it's expensive, expensive to the point of Disney, but the highlights in the eyes and the angle of the image is nothing less than ultra cheap!!!Low speed film gives a richer image, especially in low light. Based on the stuff in the cabinet in the background, I'd say this was shot in a home, not a studio. Since we have no info on the source of the image - who took it, why, location, setup, anything - we can only guess based on what we see in it.


I'm not saying the people involved aren't talented, I'm just saying that image is throwing us a curveball.Or, we're looking for things that aren't there in the first place. Look up other candle-lit photos for a comparison.


ps Dave, please show me a photo of yours in candleight of that resolution and shutter speed that captures that level of detail in candelight (No Noise + net dress at that detail + movement).All my slides are currently about 3200 miles away, so that will have to wait. I have done other long exposure, low speed (well, if you consider my camera's lowest speed of 100 to be low) digital photography in the past couple years, but nothing like this (I've done quite a bit of astrophotography lately). Makes me think I should give it a go here. I have some candles, and a reflective background. I'd just need to scare up a kid from somewhere. 8/

He Who Spent All Night Thinking Of A He Who For This But Only Came Up With This Lame One.

KHC_inc
01-22-2007, 02:45 PM
Ok, all you car experts, is this one real or CGI? I know because I did it, but I won't tell. :)

According to the image properties, it was taken with a Canon EOS 20D.

starbase1
01-22-2007, 02:54 PM
According to the image properties, it was taken with a Canon EOS 20D.

Now that's just CHEATING!

peteb
01-22-2007, 03:48 PM
So does the guy who posted these actually know?

I'd say the first is definitley fake

The girl has got to be real but not sure about the candles. Maybe they shot her first and then added cg candles?


Pete B

kopperdrake
01-22-2007, 05:07 PM
According to the image properties, it was taken with a Canon EOS 20D.

Yep like I said, definitely a photo...err...did I say 'cgi'...I meant photo...of course I did, yep...photo all the way <mumble>

colkai
01-23-2007, 02:29 AM
Now that's just CHEATING!
No it isn't, it's just showing off! :p ;)

Lucky ole ...mutter......mutter......mutter... :D

cholo
01-23-2007, 02:35 AM
Hehehe, I left the EXIF data intact on purpose to see if someone was clever enough. (KHC_inc wins) Yes it is a photo, and just barely retouched too. (there was a cable running behind the car and some dirt on the floor removed) :) In a studio environment you can make cars look very CGI-like ;)

cholo
01-23-2007, 02:46 AM
Btw... I think the girl is a photo as well, because the out of focus reflection of the candlelight looks right. CGI DOF doesn't usually turn light sources into circles the way lenses do. It was a good lens too, because you can't see any lens flaring and the bokeh looks really rich (must be a 9 bladed iris or something that makes circular unfocused lights).

Then again, I might be wrong :)

T-Light
01-23-2007, 07:54 PM
Cheers Dave :) and sorry about the J 8/

Using a low intensity flash unit makes everything a lot clearer (explains the lack of grain and the clarity (lack of motion blur) in the girls hair. (That's Her hair on her right, not the blurry hair to her left) :) :thumbsup:


---------------------------------
He who just doesn't dooo studio photography :D

ps,I think I can beat you on ISO (80) :devil: :D

jin choung
01-23-2007, 09:00 PM
for me, i look at the girl's fingers and i think it's a photo... there are conventions that artists fall into... things that they are likely to do and not do and pay attention to or not... and the fingers would be the thing to suggest this is really real.

but the EYES!!! dang... those eyes look cg! not properly aimed.... weirdly focused....

but still, if i had to wager, real 2nd photo with some photoshop work perhaps.

btw, in general, sometimes it is impossible to tell... there are lots of effects that are "invisible effects" that swap out backgrounds or props or even wardrobe that is done for various reasons... sometimes, these are done badly and you can tell immediately.

other times, they really are invisible and you don't even know an effect just passed by.

jin