The conspiracy theorists are at it again! Skeetergate!

[Jason]

True. It's a thing of family legend, but it is said my grandfather actually used an 8 gauge.

[pErvinalia]

The background appears to have undergone a uniform blur using photoediting software, notice the absence of bokeh, and there appears to have been some green shrubbery cloning with the exhaust vapors possibly to hide further image manipulation. There needs to be a examination of this by a expert at the pixel level but it does appear manipulated and manipulated rather crudely.

I hope you are taking the piss. Bokeh will only be present in point sources of light. On an overcast day like that with no reflection from the sky light, there won't be bokeh. And I don't see any cloning.

[pErvinalia]

Modern cameras are multi-focus and produce a nuanced depth of field.

You don't appear to know what you are talking about. What you call "multi-focus" doesn't mean that it will render multiple points in focus. It just means there are more focusing sensor points with which the camera can obtain focus with. The depth of field is limited by the focal length and aperture setting of the lens.

[pErvinalia]

Now this one is definitely fake. You can tell that by the size of the cat. If it was real the laser shooting cat would be much shorter.

[pErvinalia]

Modern cameras are multi-focus and produce a nuanced depth of field. Just saying that doesn't appear to be the case here and is reminiscent of a known journalistic technique for artificially rendering a depth of field effect in sporting events.

Dood. No camera technology is going to change the physics of light. Multi-focus means within the existing depth of field, not beyond it. On the same focal plane. The only one that's possible to manipulate due to the laws of physics. I have a pretty cutting-edge camera and it has no function whatsoever that can simultaneously focus fore- and background images with a fast shutter speed. It just don't work that way.

Not that you are wrong, but there's a technique called "focus stacking" that can allow you render a greater depth of field. If I'm not mistaken, most advanced cameras now will allow you to bracket focussing.

[Jason]

Clever bastards. He posed against a green screen!

[JimC]

I want to see our PM, red-headed super-bitch Julia Gillard firing a tank gun against a target which is a photo of Tony Abbott!

Topless!

(Julia, not Tony...)

[pErvinalia]

I'm glad you clarified, coz Tony is probably topless more than Vladimir Putin! And equally repulsive looking.. :yuk:

[cronus]

Obama's trying to distract you all from the birth certificate issue using this as a foil against serious questions concerning his legitimacy and right to being President.

[FBM]

Modern cameras are multi-focus and produce a nuanced depth of field. Just saying that doesn't appear to be the case here and is reminiscent of a known journalistic technique for artificially rendering a depth of field effect in sporting events.

Dood. No camera technology is going to change the physics of light. Multi-focus means within the existing depth of field, not beyond it. On the same focal plane. The only one that's possible to manipulate due to the laws of physics. I have a pretty cutting-edge camera and it has no function whatsoever that can simultaneously focus fore- and background images with a fast shutter speed. It just don't work that way.

Not that you are wrong, but there's a technique called "focus stacking" that can allow you render a greater depth of field. If I'm not mistaken, most advanced cameras now will allow you to bracket focussing.

Yeah, exposure bracketing is possible, but multiple shots within one shotgun blast? You need a motionless subject for that, I think. Anyway, I'm not saying that it's impossible to shop something like that. With today's technology, hell no, it's not impossible. I'm just saying that there's nothing in that image that requires shopping. Everything I see can be explained by perfectly ordinary photographic principles.

[Jason]

Multiple cameras would work just fine. A little photoshop work and you could have it. Completely undetectable.

[JimC]

Trigger alert on this whole thread!

[FBM]

Multiple cameras would work just fine. A little photoshop work and you could have it. Completely undetectable.

How are you going to get the same angle from multiple cameras?

[Jason]

I don't think anything beyond 5 degrees will be noticeable. The mechanics of it are all well within the equipment available.

[cronus]

I've been trying to figure the shape of the back of his head because it looks different here compared with other examples. It appears flatter in this picture and his neck appears at least a inch shorter whereas in reality he appears to have a longer neck which would lead to a different posture when holding the rifle. I'm not saying he had a stand in here, quite possible that photo editing was used to give him a more manly look whilst the original was maybe a bit gay?