Hacker News Reader

Comment by kayamon | Hacker News Reader

lol they're all Photoshopped as hell.

In the first one with the sunset, you can see where the sky meets the dark landscape and there's a weird black glow that bleeds out from the ground. That's what happens when you blur an image and blend it back onto itself, perhaps if one was trying to get a 'bloom' effect in Photoshop.

A demonstration: https://imgur.com/a/vMA6dm3

View on HN

It's not a sunset, it's light pollution.

You can view a more detailled version here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/albertdros/19838085444/in/date...

Your argument assumes that the only reason you'd ever get a "black glow" is through entry-level Photoshop manipulation. To me it's pretty obviously a layer of grass. Remember that with a long exposure those grasses will rustle, blurring them.

It's a layer of grass under long exposure. It looks exactly how I would expect.

Did you read the article? The author says he used Photoshop on all of them..

I did read it thank you. The author, if he admits his photos are Photoshopped, should not get all upset when people claim his pictures are Photoshopped.

He's not getting upset that people are calling his photos Photoshopped - he's getting upset that they are calling them _fake_. They're maybe punched up a little in Photoshop (colour, contrast), but that's not fake - you do that with (more or less) everything that's shot RAW.

In casual conversation people use the term “photoshopped” to describe montages where different images are combined together, or using painting tools to remove or add to the image. This is very different from adjusting color balance and contrast.

he 'complained' about people calling the shots fake, not about the processing done after the shot was taken. The shots are real, but the result is photoshopped. That's a different thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com