36 Pictures That Look Photoshopped – But Are Not

Might be worth actually explaining how they aren’t…

beautiful collection G 🙂 !

alot of these are definitely heavily edited

Nice collection… pretty sure the spoon one is shopped though, or at least I would like to know how it was made

The spoon photograph is not a photoshop trick. It is a light trick.

When he did is placing a spoon on a very thin piece of paper. Then he put a fork underneath the paper, so spoon and fork are one on top of each other with the paper in between. Finally he lighted the paper from underneath.
So the actual shadow comes from the fork underneath the paper, not the spoon.

Clever, isn’t it?

Stevie – The spoon appears to be sitting on a cloth that has an imprint (possibly coal drawing, more likely a picture) of a fork’s shadow.

That or it’s magic. ^o^

These photos are amazing. I understand the idea of perspective and I’m not questioning any of those, but the introduction to these photos gives the idea that none of these pictures are manipulated (“Today’s showcase is dedicated to such photos, the ones that make people skeptical about not being manipulated and still they are genuine and impressive.”). I’m a little skeptical about that. Whether they are or aren’t doesn’t take away from how great these photos are, I’m just not sure I believe that none of them were manipulated it some way.

good site

All of these can be made without photoshop, the only hard one is the water fairy, yet it is not impossible you only need a few fella to help you out in the studio, and a real good teamwork 😀

i can understand how some of these aren’t photo-shopped but there are a few that make me question it

Pretty cool and interesting…until I got to the fork / spoon one…Now how the heck was that done?

I really think there should have been some explanations for some of these. Most are rather obvious little photography tricks…but some, well…appear to defy an explanation like the fork / spoon one, Watusi Bull, and Paradox Place.

The term used here is “Photoshopped” the common term you see all over the net, but “editing” as is used here on some of the comments, is basically the same…I see no difference. Hence, one might say, “Oh, this photo is NOT Photoshopped,” simply because they truthfully did NOT use the Photoshop program to EDIT the photo…a play on words I think.

-The ORIGINAL Jeeem-

Timing, placement, depth of field. I can believe all of these were not Photoshopped and thank you person who explained the spoon/fork/spork one

i don’t get the last one? Why would anyone think that might be photoshopped. Am I missing something?

Some of these look super fake, I’m torn whether to be amazed or disappointed.

The only thing I’m in disbelief of is the number of people who, instead of maybe accepting that their photography skills aren’t quite as good as the people who took these photos, assert that many of these are “clearly edited.” Just because you don’t know how to reproduce it yourself doesn’t make it fake, no matter how much “evidence” you pull out of your ass.

don’t cross the seams!

There is such thing as continuous frame, you know…

For all those idiots saying their photoshopped their not all you do is place one person in front and another further back and do a weird pose- ITS NOT HARD! But looks amazing and for the others read comments from other people explaining how they are made and the one with the spray can and cloud- you just put the spray can near the camera and move it till it looks like the clouds coming out of it! SIMPLE ;D But these are really really good :L

The great majority! I loved trying to figure out how they did it. Lots of playing around with depth.

Holy crap! these things can’t be true! but in fairness, nice pics! ^-^

I don’t believe for a second that none of these are photoshopped.

Do any of you know the definition of perspective and depth? The images where the people are either very large, interacting with structures that, in real life, would be larger than us or in some way holding or interacting with even smaller people are not shopped. In fact, there used to be demos and explanations on how to do this on CHILDREN’S TV CHANNELS. If you can’t figure out how that works, then you might as well hand in your critic cards now.

Only a few of these look shopped, but just barely. It would have been nice if you had included an explanation as to HOW and WHY they were not edited.

i’m sure at least some of these are manipullated in some way and more importantly the “false perspective” ones would be better off left out so the actually impressife ones get their deserved respect (water fairy)

The rocket one doesnt look like a hot dog to me….. looks like he’s smoking pole.

first one IS photoshopped , not in composition as it’s a perspective trick but they removed the woman’s shadow.

most of these don’t LOOK like they’ve been photoshopped. The only one that would have taken a lot of work to get right was the water fairy but that just takes practice with the direction and amount of force needed with the water. Otherwise I’m not sure why you would think most of these were done with photoshop. the majority are simple perspective or angle

Can you guys stop saying “rocket” and call it the Space Shuttle? Also, the “orangey part” is the external fuel tank.
And unless he’s a NASA employee, that one is ‘shopped, because you wouldn’t be able to get that close to the Shuttle.

In Almost all of them he uses a long shutter speed, plays with angles, and uses a super long lenses. He’s a pro, the spoon is the one that also has me confused on how he did though, but all the others i could do under the same circumstances

I’m curious why everyone has trouble with the spoon and fork picture, when the only one I’m really having problems with is the car. I’m not understanding how that could be done, especially with the amount of…I guess I’d call it fraying. Yeah, you could take the article title to mean, literally, no use of the program Photoshop, and there’s other things you could utilize to get that image, but I’m believing these can all be done without use of any altering applications. Just simple perspective and natural tricks. Still, yeah. Great photographs anyway.

im a film major and would love to know how these pics were set up.

Der Mann im Spiegel 2 has no shadow.

Half of these are, and half of these aren’t. half of these arent even impressive (the cloud ones namely.) Waste of 10 minutes.

Some may not be impressive, but they are still fun pictures. I am not even a professional at photography or photoshop, but almost all of these could be done easily without photoshop, even though its possible it was used in some of them. The only one I don’t know about i der man im speigel 2, but i don’t know anything about film editing. And for Mr mustacho, maybe you should learn how to spell and people might take you seriously, this even has a spell check. For the image of the car, the fraying on the lines was probably from sparklers, which make this effect in long exposure shots.

The spoon fork one is too simple and only requires a light table with fork underneath a piece of opal glass. Nice soft shadow will be formed. Put spoon on top then illuminate with soft light from above.

I think that the one with the 2 girls and one in the mirror is photoshopped because you can see a little bit of her, almost like a ghost, if you look real close 😛 Otherwise they just put plastic wrap around it

“The spoon photograph is not a photoshop trick. It is a light trick.
When he did is placing a spoon on a very thin piece of paper. Then he put a fork underneath the paper, ……”

Jeeze. Would have been faster to just Photoshop it.

People are stupid to think they are photoshopped, LIGHT TRICKS and settings on a camera, perspective and angles. -_____- GO LEARN SOMETHING

via Stumbleupon

I believe they’re not Photoshopped – a lot of them are just forced perspective. Anyhow, some of them have been edited quite a bit – colors have definitely been changed, etc. So you know. It comes down to what is considered “Photoshopping”.

But anyway, these are all really cool. Makes me want to pick up a camera and go out.

Very clever! Great collection, thanks for sharing.

absolutely agree with pfft i am a professional retoucher as well, and its impossible that 1/3 f these pictures arent retouched starting with the water fairy

SOME OF THESE ARE IMPOSSIBLE. NOT FOOLED BITCHES

except for how the very first one IS photoshopped, no doubt about it. they played with perspective like many of the others, but they moved the woman’s shadow to where it would be if the situation was really how it looked. fact.

Fantastic collection and add to that un-edited. Nice work \m/

its very creative and very smart enough to open the human imagination .

There’s no way the car cannot be photoshoped..

The simple fact that in the VERY FIRST “unedited photograph” by Salar de Uyuni where it portrays a Woman (with no shadow) standing on the sole of a man’s shoe on the beach (the man blatantly casting a shadow) makes me totally unconvinced. May not have been photoshop, but it was something else. : )

There was a time before computers when man and woman had to use their brains a create wonderful images such as these.
Most of these photo’s are so easy to do, BUT you have to know your photography theory
and use this thing called a brain.
It is all too easy to use photoshop – or whatever to do something that can be done with skill and knowledge.

I am not saying Photoshop is no good. Goodness know there is some absolute fantastic stuff out there, I am saying you can do a lot without it and it is so sad that everyone thinks they have to Photoshop.
Learn the art of photography and spend less time behind a computer program.

maybe people should read other people’s comments before commenting.
i just read alllllll of these and everyone says the same things and asks questions about what has already been solved.

i personally don’t think that they are shopped/edited/manipulated.

and just because you are a “professional editor” or photographer, doesn’t mean that these things can’t be done. it’s a matter of time, hard work, dedication, and creativity.
so, stop being retards, and go away.

They may not be photo shopped, but definitely some sort of photo software was used. It is misleading to make people believe they are real photos, and that some are just coincidence how they turned out, i.e., the cloud looking like an ice cream on top of a cone. Trickery…it’s all trickery. Still clever though, but it’s not really a truthful statement to say not photo shopped. SOMETHING was used to create these shots!

To you doubters: Read LOL’s post (search this page for “LOL says:”).

It’s unfortunate, though, that pxleyes used the word “photoshopped” literally. Many people use it to refer to any photo manipulation software,* or even any photo manipulation (forgetting that there used to be, and still is, non-digital photography, with long exposures and negatives and such).

Specifically of the Water Fairy pic: see Dali Atomicus and its history, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Salvador_Dali_A_%28Dali_Atomicus%29_09633u.jpg :

In 1941, American photographer Philippe Halsman met the surrealist artist Salvador Dalí in New York City and they began to collaborate in the late 1940s. The 1948 work Dali Atomicus explores the idea of suspension, depicting three cats flying, water thrown from a bucket, an easel, a footstool and Salvador Dalí all seemingly suspended in mid-air. The title of the photograph is a reference to Dalí’s work Leda Atomica (at that which can be seen in the right of the photograph behind the two cats.) Halsman reported that it took 28 attempts to be satisfied with the result. This is the unretouched version of the photograph that was published in LIFE magazine. In this version the wires suspending the easel and the painting, the hand of the assistant holding the chair and the prop holding up the footstool can still be seen. The frame on the easel is still empty. The copyright for this photo was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office but according to the U.S. Library of Congress was not renewed, putting it in the public domain in the United States and countries which adopted the rule of the shorter term.

* As in:
“Ah-choo! Gimme a kleenex, please.”
“I’m sorry, I don’t have any.”
“Then what’s that?”
“Oh, these are drugstore house brand tissues. Do you want one?”
“I DON’T CARE WHAT BRAND IT IS, I JUST NEED A KLEENEX!”

Oh and btw the car is just a black car at night with rope lights on it and the back round

Umm yeah ok I was going along & believing until I saw the one titled “not photoshopped”
Come on you can see her hand fading on the left side
You might have had me if you didn’t post that one
Shame bc some of then probably aren’t photoshopped but now the artists won’t be recognized bc the author of this post lies

Most of them are easy to do without photoshop. It’s all about how you aim the camera and it’s perspective, distance etc. There are 5 pics that I definitely think are photoshopped. For ex, the paradox one where the girl is “floating”. How is that not photoshopped unless it’s a lighting trick or something. I guess I’ll never know.