In doing a little research on cameras a few years back and one "artifact" of lower quality optics is a tendency to get a stretching distortion that increases from the center out to the periphery. Maybe someone was playing with this "artifact"...? Because it certainly appears to be stretching/distorting from the center and increasing towards the bottom of the frame.

OK, no more wild kelt cakes................... Parker



c/22

if the fish was dead why such a hokey pic?

I agree.... Alot of distortion to the picture... But does seem to be a "Huge" steelhead..... I'd bet it's in the low to mid 30's range....

Keith

I don't know if anyone else see's what I see but that snout does appear to have "line marks" around it....Hmm.

I see em danny & its weird, snout-wrapped ? But look close at the water rings. They are just too concentric for me, think its gotta be shopped in.


The fishes head distortion looks like what you get w/ a 21-24 mm wide angle lens up close. But still its not right, the perspective is off


c/22

Looks fake to me...

Why would he leave it in the water for a pic when it's dead? seem to me he would want to really show what it looked like unless it's a hoax.

That Canuck formula is the same thing as using a 750 divisor

1.333333 / 1000 = 1 / 750

Makes sense to me because those big-headed broad backed steelies are built like chinook!

The KeenEye King formula uses a 740 divisor.

To me that's the giveaway. If it was dead when they found it, why not take a ton of pix, including one of the fish on the scales. They said they knew the exact weight, sooo must have been on a scale at sometime.

According to JPEGSnoop, Photochop

Signature: 01C1158E443D1C90F302FF6BE49DDD87
Signature (Rotated): 01C1158E443D1C90F302FF6BE49DDD87
File Offset: 0 bytes
Chroma subsampling: 1x1
EXIF Make/Model: NONE
EXIF Makernotes: NONE
EXIF Software: OK [Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows]

Searching Compression Signatures: (3327 built-in, 0 user(*) )

EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- --------------
SW :[Adobe Photoshop ] [Save As 12 ]

NOTE: Photoshop IRB detected
NOTE: EXIF Software field recognized as from editor
Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:

ASSESSMENT: Class 1 - Image is processed/edited

Or, this picture taken from another website

Signature: 0182408A81A4ABF04D4A34A8A5E98C58
Signature (Rotated): 012D821C6AB210E2A753BE053B8F55D0
File Offset: 0 bytes
Chroma subsampling: 2x2
EXIF Make/Model: NONE
EXIF Makernotes: NONE
EXIF Software: NONE

Searching Compression Signatures: (3327 built-in, 0 user(*) )

EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- --------------
CAM:[SONY ] [CYBERSHOT U ] [ ] Yes
SW :[Adobe Photoshop 7.0 ] [Save As 07 ]
SW :[Apple Quicktime ] [0466-0467 ]
SW :[Digital Photo Professiona] [05 ]
SW :[IJG Library ] [075 ]
SW :[MS Paint ] [ ]
SW :[MS Visio ] [ ]
SW :[ZoomBrowser EX ] [low ]

The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
SW :[GIMP ] [075 ]
SW :[IrfanView ] [075 ]
SW :[idImager ] [075 ]
SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [075 ]
SW :[NeatImage ] [075 ]
SW :[Paint.NET ] [075 ]
SW :[Photomatix ] [075 ]
SW :[XnView ] [075 ]

Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata:

ASSESSMENT: Class 1 - Image is processed/edited

madcapmag

What does that mean exactly?

Agree Dave, a little translation on all of the technical info above would be appreciated...

Every picture tool, whether it be a camera, photoshop, or otherwise, have distinct signatures in how they save the picture. This is because they will save pictures in small patterns (fractals). This makes the size of the file smaller. So, this tool looks at the picture and compares it to the signatures it has in its database to see if any match. If you look in the second set of data, you'll see a list of likely picture tool its been through.

Class 1 means photoshopped, Class 2 means most likely, Class 3 means most likely not shopped, Class 4 means not enough data to determine.

There have been false positives, but it is the cumulative parts that determine the sum. First, its been through photoshop. It could have been touched up for ambient brightness and other non-malicious editing. But, let's also look at the time the EXIF data shows:

OFFSET: 0x00000014
length = 7808
Identifier = [Exif]
Identifier TIFF = 0x[4D4D002A 00000008]
Endian = Motorola (big)
TAG Mark x002A = 0x002A

EXIF IFD0 @ Absolute 0x00000026
Dir Length = 0x0007
[Orientation ] = Row 0: top, Col 0: left
[XResolution ] = 720000/10000
[YResolution ] = 720000/10000
[ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
[Software ] = "Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows"
[DateTime ] = "2010:02:17 10:02:45"
[ExifOffset ] = @ 0x00A4
Offset to Next IFD = 0x000000D0

2/17/2010 was when it was last saved on Photoshop. How many 40+lbs steelhead have been caught recently? Recently enough for a picture of that quality? How many 30+ lbs? Not to mention, as you have mentioned, Dave, why not more pictures?

Asking the right questions and seeing where all the chips fall gives us the very high possibility of a photochop. Of course, there are no absolutes, but it is very likely.

I would agree that it was at least brought into photoshop but the signature alone that you've pulled doesn't necessarilly mean that it's been tampered with. The signature means that it was saved from photoshop. In fact every picture I save would carry the same signature because I retouch photos to bring color and depth out in the picture. But generally I don't "play" with the photo.

That said, I would consider that this may have been tampered with because of the head shape.

Then again it's also quite possible that it came from the Lyre River on the OP.

Somethng looks odd with the guys left hand too. There is no definition of the water line, it's kind of muddled there. This may be the most knit-picked fish pic ever posted here

Eye ball is way to big to be real. Looks like a kelt head shopped onto a salmon. dark well defined line on gill plate looks off and head just doesn't look tall enough for that size fish.

I call BS too. . .Achewter's right. Proportionately speaking that's not the eye of a 40 lb steelhead compared to the dimensions of the head (or 30 or even a usual 20 for that matter). The evidence is too stacked against that image for it to be legit. Some sharp hombres up there sounding in on the first 2.5 pages. This thread is proof that this joint's a b!tch to put one over in these parts. Gotta love the intrigue though,

fb

I concur.





Funniest thing i've seen on the interwebz all day.

What reputation are we swearing by?