I do a lot of fake photoshopping for web stuff, but I’m not good enough to claim it is fake for that reason. I think it is fake because it looks like he is running towards the group of people. I imagine that would be very unusual behavior for a lone wolf. And they would certainly have known he was there 2 seconds later!

‘It’s kind of freaky, and it’s odd how they were so involved in their activities, that they didn’t notice the animal, but that does not mean it wasn’t there.’ No it doesn’t. But the fact that its a species of wolf that doesn’t exist in that area does.

‘This looks to be a cheap point-and-shoot camera, judging by the image quality, and the evidence present in the optics of the photo’. Optics of the photo? Don’t make up jargon.

Conclusion; don’t assume you’re an expert because you fiddle with phototshop at home. Take it from someone who does this for a living, this is photoshopped.

Also, something else I noticed…

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/1140/nigrawolf5rs3.png

Not sure what it is, but it looks like the metal ring on a purse or something someone is holding (the girl with her back to the camera?) The glint on it would certainly point to evidence that a flash was indeed used.

This looks to be a cheap point-and-shoot camera, judging by the image quality, and the evidence present in the optics of the photo. Flash is probably on by default, and there may not even be an option for turning it off.

It wasn’t really as dark out as it appears to have been from this photo. It’s adjusted the white balance and brightness to account for a flash, and it’s pretty obvious that the day the picture was taken, the sky was rather overcast, judging by the uniform coloration, and the softness of the shadows. This widely diffused light would easily mute out a cheap camera’s automatic flash, given enough distance to do so. Judging by the shot, and the amount of stuff in it, I think it’s fairly safe to assume, the photographer was probably far enough away from the subjects for this to occur.

Like I said, I don’t think it’s all that unbelievable. It’s kind of freaky, and it’s odd how they were so involved in their activities, that they didn’t notice the animal, but that does not mean it wasn’t there. That said, it also doesn’t mean it was a wolf. It could still very well have been a dog that was frightened by the flash.

People, please stop being coerced by herd mentality. “HE SAYS IT’S FAKE, SO DUH, IT OBVIOUSLY IS JEEZ I MEAN COME ON!” Why not analyzing things on a bit more of an involved level, eh?

To the mercurialohearn guy’s comment way up there about no jpeg artifacts around the date. HELLO, IT IS A JPEG FILE. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT PUT THE NUMBERS THERE, IF IT IS SAVED AS A JPEG, JPEG USES COMPRESSION; THERE WILL BE ARTIFACTS. Now, obviously, you could save with less compression, and the artifacts will be less noticeable, but maybe you should look a little closer, because it’s quite obvious there ARE artifacts…

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/1115/nigrawolf2ou9.png

Hmm, I seem to see lots of jpeg artifacts around those figures, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Color dodge on the eyes? Yeah okay. No. Why not just take a picture of a dog with the flash on?

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1414/nigrawolf3ge1.png

Look at those eyes. That’s not color dodge, dummy. That’s a camera flash. Notice the hue convergence error that most cheap digital cameras suffer from. That doesn’t happen with your “color dodge” theory. It would be far different if that were the case. Also notice the jpeg artifacts that are the same throughout the photo.

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/4247/nigrawolf4rd3.png

I don’t see this “halo” effect to which you refer. You’re obviously trying too hard to see a fake, and thus, are seeing things that aren’t really there to help substantiate some evidence to your stubborn belief. Notice the angle of the light on the leaves around the animal. Quite consistent with the lighting on the animal itself. Honestly, how you see a halo effect from a bad background removal is beyond me.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1862/nigrawolf4aqx5.png

The feet don’t look backwards to me. It looks like a dog or wolf running toward the camera at a slight angle. The front paws are far too short from the first joint up to the toes for that to be a hind foot. Pay attention. Notice on 4a how the curve of the leg is consistent with that of a front leg, not a hind leg. I have placed a contour line next to the area in question. The bulge on the opposite side of the animal looks pretty obvious to me that it’s the bushy tail of a wolf as it trails behind the animal. WHY WOULD ANYONE PASTE THE HEAD ON A DOG’S BUTT? That’s f’kin absurd. Why not just take a picture of a dog walking toward the camera? O.O

http://www.bigrunwolfranch.org/images/jack/jack%20front%20walk.JPG

Notice the similarities? I’m not saying this photo is fake or isn’t fake. But I think some of you need to re-examine the “evidence” your “expert” opinions are coming up with in an attempt to disprove the photo’s validity. While it might not be a wolf, it could quite easily be a wandering dog that has gotten lose, or has lost its way back home. Nothing in the photo suggests it was painted in, but it’s possible the quality was intentionally degraded to help hide the possibility. None of the “evidence” you people have provided pans out though. Try harder.

See for yourself :

http://rapidshare.com/files/100021863/bright.jpeg.html

http://rapidshare.com/files/100021995/pixel-difference.jpeg.html

There you can see that the structure of the pixel encoding from the jpeg is not the same all over the image, which it should be, if its taken with the same camera ;-)