So how about this? I study media computers sciences, which includes lectures on image manipulation - and can see no immediate evidence it is photoshopped. For one, the light source is
in the right place - that's first and best indication of merged images, if shadows don't fall correctly. Secondly, fine details like the shrubbery near the left pine overlap the background without artifacts, which indicates that's where it belongs in its original photo (assuming there'd be different ones). Thirdly, the perspective is right. Fourthly, the buildings left of the smoke - the direction the smoke is being blown into - are veiled by smaller smoke particles. Details, details, details. It's no hard evidence
against it being 'photoshopped' - a good photo manipulator will know enough about reality to be consistant in these things - but to say the image is 'clearly photoshopped'... is just wrong, unless someone else who knows more about image manipulation can correct me on something glaring I missed, or someone who knows about the physics of those smoke/dust particles and turbulence (etc).
It's a good photo, which might be throwing people off. In fact, it's throwing me off. We're all so used to everything being digital and 'corrected' after taking that it's hard to consider a photo that is, simply, good - with its white and blackpoints properly set in, well, the white and the black, rather than in greys (Topic:
Histograms) - but that's what makes a good
photographer... someone who knows what lens and filters to put onto their camera before taking a picture, who can judge the lighting, and have the picture appear in brilliance anyway.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying: "It clearly isn't manipulated." - but I'm irked by people saying "It's
clearly photoshopped". Since no one else has spoken up, I figured I had to.
Edit - added a word I'd missed.
