# Arrow caught on film by cuddeback camera - REAL



## dhacker (Dec 6, 2005)

I shoot a Mathews and was looking at the Mathews website after hunting this weekend and was surprised to find a link to a South Carolina website (http://carolinasoutdoor.com/forums/.../Arrow_caught_on_film_by_cuddeb.html#Post6797) with this picture on it of my cousins buck. My cousin is from and hunts in Wisconsin so that is quite a quick little Internet trip. In case anyone wants to complain about the corn, there was less than the WI two legal gallons.

My 15 year old cousin (Logan) shot this buck. The next day he went back and pulled the pics from his camera and this one was on there. He was as stunned as many are. I sent the above website link to Logan's Dad (Brian)and sure enough that was his picture. 

The family had not showed it to anyone (outside of a printed picture to local friends) until Brian contacted Cuddeback. Cuddeback thought the picture was incredible however it was to graphic for them to use as in the past - they said anything such as this has had the PETA people in an uproar. 

This weekend Brian also sent the picture to Rage to see if they thought they could use it. 

Shoot me a PM with any questions.

Don


----------



## Whaack (Apr 2, 2006)

that is freaking awesome!


----------



## SupraTT (Dec 18, 2007)

good shootin amazin photo


----------



## readysoldier (Oct 11, 2007)

Wow :mg:


----------



## Hoytman_Sax (Oct 8, 2007)

wow, that is truely amazing, the timing is perfect!


----------



## DocB (Jun 27, 2006)

SupraTT said:


> good shootin amazin photo


+100

And you say he's just 15, tell him congrats. He's hooked now for sure.


----------



## Dthbyhoyt (Dec 4, 2004)

Awsome photo


----------



## clw74 (Aug 28, 2006)

that is a great picture.


----------



## bigrigg1 (Mar 25, 2008)

cudde back should pay him top dollar for that pic. their advertising guys couldnt come up w/ something like that


----------



## dhacker (Dec 6, 2005)

I also forgot to mention that this was Logan's first buck with the bow. Very cool that he shot his first buck and had this photo.

I use 3 Moultrie game cams and have been looking at the HCO ScoutGuards but this is quite a pic from a Cuddeback.


----------



## NerdHick (Aug 20, 2006)

Wow


----------



## Red Fletch (Apr 25, 2008)

Nice!...:wink:


----------



## WaterboyUT (Mar 11, 2006)

That is *THE COOLEST *trail cam pic I have ever seen!!!!


----------



## Paul S. (Sep 14, 2003)

Hunting "Photo of the Year" right there.:wink:


----------



## MUZZYxSHOOTER (Jan 1, 2007)

That is the most ridiculous picture i have ever seen in my life, that is so awesome, that is a one in a lifetime picture for sure.


----------



## Arrow_slinger43 (May 16, 2007)

paul s. said:


> hunting "photo of the year" right there.:wink:


+1


----------



## full moon (Feb 10, 2004)

awsome....congrats nice shot >Logan ...


----------



## nerdalert (Aug 11, 2008)

great shot and picture


----------



## ftshooter (Jul 26, 2003)

That is way cool ...I noticed you can see threw the buck ..I mean I can see trees and sky ..That is strange ...Big double ,,congrads to him..


----------



## waterfordarcher (Sep 14, 2008)

I hope you put a watermark on that thing and then try and sell it to Cuddeback, otherwise, they can take it with no permission I think...


----------



## waterfordarcher (Sep 14, 2008)

nvm, didnt read the post...


----------



## pns (Oct 11, 2007)

great shot awsome pic


----------



## Whitefeather (Jul 27, 2003)

Yep, that looks like the "heart shot mule kick" if I ever did see it. 

Awesome picture!


----------



## mdmountainman (Sep 8, 2008)

Why can I see the sky through the deer? Looks photoshopped to me.:embara:


----------



## slowen (Jun 27, 2006)

*Unreal!*

That photo is AWESOME!. What a well placed arrow, what a well timed photo. The blood is pumping oxygenated blood onto the inside of my computer screen.

Great job!

Slowen


----------



## zara_puppy (Sep 10, 2006)

great pic - Great Shot!


----------



## NewPragueArcher (Aug 6, 2008)

dhacker said:


> I also forgot to mention that this was Logan's first buck with the bow. Very cool that he shot his first buck and had this photo.
> 
> I use 3 Moultrie game cams and have been looking at the HCO ScoutGuards but this is quite a pic from a Cuddeback.



Scoutgard sg550 is a great cam, just got one a love it. Check out www.wildviewweb.com great site a good guy to deal with


----------



## Southpaw38 (Nov 30, 2007)

I have always wondered if anyone would get a picture like that. That's nothing short of awesome!!! Thanks for sharing!!!


----------



## PAstringking (Dec 8, 2006)

thats an awesome pic!


----------



## marzo91 (Aug 17, 2004)

*Shopped??*



mdmountainman said:


> Why can I see the sky through the deer? Looks photoshopped to me.:embara:


I saw that too. I just didn't want to be the first one to bring it up. Something is strange. If it's real, congrats on an ureal event.


----------



## waterfordarcher (Sep 14, 2008)

mdmountainman said:


> Why can I see the sky through the deer? Looks photoshopped to me.:embara:


probably nothing to do with the fact that the deer is moving so fast huh? MUST BE PHOTOSHOPPED IF THERES ANY FLAW RIGHT?

have you ever even used the photoshop program?


----------



## WayLayer (Feb 23, 2007)

Thats a money maker.


----------



## Hammer0419 (Nov 21, 2005)

mdmountainman said:


> Why can I see the sky through the deer? Looks photoshopped to me.:embara:


Curious myself?? Never saw a "see thru" dee?


----------



## dhacker (Dec 6, 2005)

Brian just sent me the recovery pic - (none in the woods as it got to dark).


----------



## 30-30 (Mar 23, 2006)

Hammer0419 said:


> Curious myself?? Never saw a "see thru" dee?


That's what pics of moving deer look like. 

Awesome pic!!


----------



## Washi (Jan 23, 2005)

You can "see through" the deer because is moving fast and the shutter speed wasn't fast enough to keep it from happening. No big deal.

Cuddeback should tell PETA to stuff it and use the picture.


----------



## Cariss (Oct 16, 2006)

waterfordarcher said:


> probably nothing to do with the fact that the deer is moving so fast huh? MUST BE PHOTOSHOPPED IF THERES ANY FLAW RIGHT?
> 
> have you ever even used the photoshop program?


I have used photoshop quite a bit to do collages of pictures. I'm not saying that this photo is not real but if I had two pictures and had to make one out of them I could do it. If it is a real photo it is pretty awesome. I just hope that in a couple of weeks we find out that its not.


----------



## bow111 (Jun 28, 2008)

i call b.s on this .... never seen a deer move so fast that you could see through them..


----------



## Nuge60 (Jan 23, 2008)

mdmountainman said:


> Why can I see the sky through the deer? Looks photoshopped to me.:embara:


Exactly. Deer looks like it could be laying on the ground and pasted into the background.


----------



## T-Bone80 (Dec 27, 2006)

*Awesome picture*

I have gotten several photos on my moultrie cams that the deer looks transparent. most of the time when it happens it is because of a quick sudden movement of the deer just as the camera starts to capture the image. I would say that there isn't anyway that picture was photoshoped. It looks very real and believable to me from my experiences with trail cams. 

Congrats on the awesome picture and an awesome buck!


----------



## dhacker (Dec 6, 2005)

Welp, I can send anyone the original file off the Cuddeback if you want it - PM me. Also, if you also doubt it - contact Cuddeback to see if its possible - and like I said they were the first ones given the pic (I would give you the email address of the guy at Cuddeback [email protected] but I don't think he would be very happy with me).


----------



## jrmsoccer32 (Feb 22, 2007)

bow111 said:


> i call b.s on this .... never seen a deer move so fast that you could see through them..


You just don't understand how cameras work as the deer was jumping the shudder was opening on the camera so it got the trees and sky in the background and the deer in front of them all in the same picture trust me it happens I have a ton of pics that come out like this when they are an action shot


----------



## IowaSwitchback (Feb 5, 2006)

Cool picture...Tell Logan Congrats.
Looks like he almost got a semi pass thou,blood on the other leg.


----------



## huntrjm (Nov 18, 2007)

Looks real to me. Look at the blood on the inside of opposite front leg. Just a great pic.


----------



## undercover (Jul 2, 2006)

That is a great picture!

As a couple others have stated, I too have a ton of pictures from my trailcams that give the transparent look to them. It's caused by shutter speed...or better yet lack thereof (double exposure). Quite common with store bought trailcams.

Once again, awesome photo.


----------



## RickNC (Jun 10, 2008)

I have had several pictures where the deer bolts and I have the double image exposure look.....had one yesterday on one the had the headlights of my truck shining THROUGH the deer in the background.

I either get the "see through" effect or a blur effect where the deer look all messed up when movement is real real fast.


----------



## nycredneck (Nov 9, 2007)

I think you got him.. HA_HA GREAT SHOT... by both camera and archer !!!!!


----------



## blue thunder (Jan 20, 2003)

Hell of a picture.


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

bow111 said:


> i call b.s on this .... never seen a deer move so fast that you could see through them..


+1

Something just not right about that photo. Cause you see through it could be a reflection----> BUT you can't get image reflection off of body hair and or off a moving object. That photo is nothing more of a dead animal that was laying on the ground then placed into a game camera photo scene.

If you claim that animal was moving that fast....cudde game cam does not have a fast enough trigger speed to get a crystal clear WHOLE animal picture like that. For those claiming the animal was moving fast----> picture would be blurry. Heck my cannon rebel would even be a bit blurry and that takes live action photos second apart.


----------



## jrmsoccer32 (Feb 22, 2007)

BrowningYukon said:


> +1
> 
> Something just not right about that photo. Cause you see through it could be a reflection----> BUT you can't get image reflection off of body hair and or off a moving object. That photo is nothing more of a dead animal that was laying on the ground then placed into a game camera photo scene.
> 
> If you claim that animal was moving that fast....cudde game cam does not have a fast enough trigger speed to get a crystal clear WHOLE animal picture like that. For those claiming the animal was moving fast----> picture would be blurry. Heck my cannon rebel would even be a bit blurry and that takes live action photos second apart.


Ha dead animal on the ground that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard how is there blood coming out the backside of the animal on the ground? did they take the time to clean all the blood that would have came out of its mouth and nose off so they could take this picture? Did they use fishing line to get everything into the exact position so it looked alive. I'm betting on no. It's real deal with it.


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

jrmsoccer32 said:


> Ha dead animal on the ground that is the dumbest thing I've ever heard how is there blood coming out the backside of the animal on the ground? did they take the time to clean all the blood that would have came out of its mouth and nose off so they could take this picture? Did they use fishing line to get everything into the exact position so it looked alive. I'm betting on no. It's real deal with it.


Well if you look at the upper right side of the photo you'll see the rear end of another deer. Same picture same camera no reflection..that deer looks solid. The buck is transparent which means it was filtered before placing in the photo. As for the blood---> computers now days can create anything you want:wink:


----------



## ruffme (Aug 4, 2005)

I use PS a lot too!
To get the horns, etc spliced in so cleanly would be VERY difficult...
If you look at the horns in front of the poplar trees..its pretty seamless..
If its PS'ed the guy is VERY VERY good!


----------



## bowhuntermitch (May 17, 2005)

Nice pictures anyways... i believe it...


----------



## Twinsfan (Aug 9, 2007)

wow sweet pic


----------



## Lance47 (Oct 25, 2005)

Ahhh - the non-believers! I've seen other trail cam pics where the deer appeared "transparent" in certain areas... I'm not a expert of photography but this can happen due to movement and shutter speed. 
Sometimes the answers that you are looking for are right in front of you. Notice the blood coming off of the entrance wound (it appears to have been captured in motion based on the pattern), as opposed to a deer that would have been lying down as someone suggested. Also, look at the dirt around the deer's right font leg just above the hoof (again, appears to have an element of movement). The deer's tail is straight out and up, as well as another deer's tail in the very left center area of the photo. If you look down a few inches below the deer there appears to be a reddish tint... could be blood that was coming out of the wound. Finally, look at the blood on the far leg coming out of the crease where the arrow would have penetrated the other side. Again, looks like gravity at work.
Wow - I can't believe I just spent this much time trying to defend this photo. As they say... to those who believe no explanation is necessary, to those who don't, no explanation will suffice!

Great photo.


----------



## sits in trees (Oct 9, 2006)

one in a million!


----------



## bullzI25 (Mar 17, 2004)

Def. doctored photo..there is blood specs down by opp leg hoof if that buck was indeed jumping there wouldnt be blood there that fast..also it doesnt look right looks to me as the deer is laying there not jumping


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

Lance47 said:


> Ahhh - the non-believers! I've seen other trail cam pics where the deer appeared "transparent" in certain areas... I'm not a expert of photography but this can happen due to movement and shutter speed.
> Sometimes the answers that you are looking for are right in front of you. Notice the blood coming off of the entrance wound (it appears to have been captured in motion based on the pattern), as opposed to a deer that would have been lying down as someone suggested. Also, look at the dirt around the deer's right font leg just above the hoof (again, appears to have an element of movement). The deer's tail is straight out and up, as well as another deer's tail in the very left center area of the photo. If you look down a few inches below the deer there appears to be a reddish tint... could be blood that was coming out of the wound. Finally, look at the blood on the far leg coming out of the crease where the arrow would have penetrated the other side. Again, looks like gravity at work.
> Wow - I can't believe I just spent this much time trying to defend this photo. As they say... to those who believe no explanation is necessary, to those who don't, no explanation will suffice!
> 
> Great photo.


My answer to that is if you at times get transparent pictures because of a moving object during a photo...then why isn't the arrow in the deer transparent? The arrow is in the deer and moving at the same speed yet no reflection-->cause its solid. Everything to the right & left of the flecthing is transparent except the arrow. That can't be!

Yeah I am a non believer and its just my opinion. There is a deer in the far left corner running through..Then there should be another photo that was taken right before this buck shot..Post that picture up and I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong!! I have just messed around with this type of stuff for a long while to notice picture over picture ....photos.


----------



## JOSHM (Jun 14, 2007)




----------



## Lance47 (Oct 25, 2005)

Cutting an image out in PS will not make it transparent! If the deer was originally laying on the ground then how the heck is some of it transparent and some of it not?


----------



## Virginia Archer (Mar 18, 2007)

I though it was photoshoped too, but if you copy it to your pc then open in a picture viewer and zoom in you can see the red from the blood flying through the air and there are actually a Few Drops that look like they have already reached the ground just beside the Corn...I circled all I saw, so might be real! And the Deer in the corner is preloading those hind legs also! :dontknow:

If its real it's a Once in a Lifetime Photo.....If it's not real someone is really good at photoshoping!!

Congrats though!!


----------



## jessetjames (Oct 17, 2007)

HOLY COW that's awesome :darkbeer: u can evean see bload coming out the other side where the arrow already punctured threw its sweet.


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

Lance47 said:


> Cutting an image out in PS will not make it transparent! If the deer was originally laying on the ground then how the heck is some of it transparent and some of it not?


What makes it transparent is running it through a photo filter to "clean the backgroud clutter" to get a more defined cut out picture. Putting a cut out pic and overlapping is what causes transparent photos. Thats why the arrow is so solid looking and not transparent...cause its a still photo not a moving object photo. If that deer was moving that fast that it would cause the camera to take a transparent photo---> then a detailed picture of this sort is truely amazing all the way down to seeing the knock grove of the arrow---> Sorry I just don't buy it.

Just look through the deer and you'll see light in the tree's of the background..hows that happen and yet you don't see tree's not even a hint?

I could be wrong and if I am I will make a public appology and have no problem doing so. Its just my opinion is all.


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

Great picture and congratulations to him. He really should have the picture with the mount:thumb:


----------



## Jamis (Apr 8, 2007)

That is the coolest trailcam pic ever!!!! O and nice shot too!!!


----------



## Jamis (Apr 8, 2007)

bullzI25 said:


> Def. doctored photo..there is blood specs down by opp leg hoof if that buck was indeed jumping there wouldnt be blood there that fast..also it doesnt look right looks to me as the deer is laying there not jumping


Look out here come the AT detectives


----------



## TxGuy (Oct 9, 2006)

thats freakin crazy....nice pic


----------



## marzo91 (Aug 17, 2004)

The picture may be real. 

Double exposure pictures can also bleed light spots though the first image taken. Possibly, the first image may have been taken of the deer laying on the ground or smooth surface. At that point, the light spots of sky wouldn't show through. If the second image was the bait-pile and fleeing deer on the left, the light spots from the sky could have bled through the first image.

It comes down to this young man's word. Even though it's hard to believe, I believe the story.


----------



## Xiisign (Jan 23, 2008)

That has to be like a one in a million camera shot right there....Nice Buck.....


----------



## OHbowhntr08 (Mar 1, 2007)

why is the deer so high in the air? the arrow is perfect and can even be seen coming out the bottom, but why is it so high? if the deer jumped up at the shot the arrow should be low, idk i want to believe it but seems odd..


----------



## EASTON94 (Jan 25, 2003)

Doc said:


> Great picture and congratulations to him. He really should have the picture with the mount:thumb:


That was my thought too...what a cool conversation piece that would make!!! '94


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

*It's a Fake*

You guys are right the picture is a fake...it was PhotoChopped
Here is the REAL picture:nod:


----------



## OHbowhntr08 (Mar 1, 2007)

i retract my statement if it wasnt a pass-thru...


----------



## marzo91 (Aug 17, 2004)

Doc said:


> You guys are right the picture is a fake...it was PhotoChopped
> Here is the REAL picture:nod:


Those Stihl broadheads cut on heck of a hole.


----------



## SharpStix (May 24, 2008)

Geez... I don't know what to think. I hope it is a real picture, it sure would be cool if it was. The ripples along the deers back near the rump look a little suspicious to me. I'd say it looks like it could go either way. It could be a photo shopped picture of a dead buck laying on the ground and it could be a live shot. I remain neutral.


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

*Lmao*

Oh hell that ain't fake Doc...its got blood on both sides of the chain saw bar:wink:





Doc said:


> You guys are right the picture is a fake...it was PhotoChopped
> Here is the REAL picture:nod:


----------



## Stanley (Jan 18, 2005)

Cool


----------



## SEOBowhntr (May 13, 2005)

waterboyut said:


> that is *the coolest *trail cam pic i have ever seen!!!!


+1


----------



## bushmaster1 (Aug 8, 2007)

mdmountainman said:


> why can i see the sky through the deer? Looks photoshopped to me.:embara:


+1


----------



## acdraindrps (Aug 26, 2008)

It looks photoshopped to me.

Cool pic though.


----------



## passthru11 (Mar 7, 2007)

sweet pic. Congrats to the kid for his first buck. Andyou nay sayers kill me, why would anyone photoshop that. Anyway thanks for sharing.


----------



## slickstalker (Sep 21, 2008)

BrowningYukon said:


> What makes it transparent is running it through a photo filter to "clean the backgroud clutter" to get a more defined cut out picture. Putting a cut out pic and overlapping is what causes transparent photos. Thats why the arrow is so solid looking and not transparent...cause its a still photo not a moving object photo. If that deer was moving that fast that it would cause the camera to take a transparent photo---> then a detailed picture of this sort is truely amazing all the way down to seeing the knock grove of the arrow---> Sorry I just don't buy it.
> 
> Just look through the deer and you'll see light in the tree's of the background..hows that happen and yet you don't see tree's not even a hint?
> 
> I could be wrong and if I am I will make a public appology and have no problem doing so. Its just my opinion is all.


I'm thinking the same way you are too, but if I'm wrong you can apologize for me while you're apologizing yourself thank you. See how I am?


----------



## badbow148 (Dec 5, 2006)

That is down right awesome


----------



## DesignedToHunt (Aug 5, 2008)

I want to believe it but something just caught my eye. I have NEVER seen a deers' ears droop that low unless they were looking for a fight or they were already dead. With an arrow sticking in his side I sure don't think he is looking for a fight :zip:


----------



## jindydiver (Jan 13, 2006)

BrowningYukon said:


> +1
> 
> Something just not right about that photo. Cause you see through it could be a reflection----> BUT you can't get image reflection off of body hair and or off a moving object. That photo is nothing more of a dead animal that was laying on the ground then placed into a game camera photo scene.
> 
> If you claim that animal was moving that fast....cudde game cam does not have a fast enough trigger speed to get a crystal clear WHOLE animal picture like that. For those claiming the animal was moving fast----> picture would be blurry. Heck my cannon rebel would even be a bit blurry and that takes live action photos second apart.



Replies like this one just show the ignorance of the posters

The camera shutter is 1/60th of a second (sometimes 1/125th) and the animal can move plenty in that time, and the trees can be recorded before the animal moves fully in front of them, at which time the flash fires, and because it does so at something like 1/10,000 of a second the deer is caught frozen in time. The short duration of the flash, and it's ability to freeze objects in motion, is how people can take photos of arrows (and bullets) in flight. These photos are taken in a dark room so that the arrows don't look transparent.
It is amazing that someone can get a photo like this, and even more so when it is totally an accident too, and all the calls of "it must be fake" just show how mean spirited, small minded and jealous many hunters can beukey:


----------



## Ack (May 13, 2005)

I just took the pic into Photoshop and zoomed in around the entire deer, and I'll just say that it looks suspicious to me....several pixels on the bottom of the deer just don't look right when zoomed in....a few hard edges and a "shadow" under his back legs.


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

jindydiver said:


> Replies like this one just show the ignorance of the posters
> 
> The camera shutter is 1/60th of a second (sometimes 1/125th) and the animal can move plenty in that time, and the trees can be recorded before the animal moves fully in front of them, at which time the flash fires, and because it does so at something like 1/10,000 of a second the deer is caught frozen in time. The short duration of the flash, and it's ability to freeze objects in motion, is how people can take photos of arrows (and bullets) in flight. These photos are taken in a dark room so that the arrows don't look transparent.
> It is amazing that someone can get a photo like this, and even more so when it is totally an accident too, and all the calls of "it must be fake" just show how mean spirited, small minded and jealous many hunters can beukey:



Hey thanks for all the wonderful words about me and how you can pass judgment on someone whom you don't know. While you took 3/4 of your post to belittle me you do understand the numbers you throw out there do not apply to a cuddeback trail camera. A simple trail camera like a cudde will have atleast a 1-2 second motion trigger before it is even able to take the photo. So to catch a arrow or a bullet (laughable at best) in flight wouldn't be able to take that photo. That object is moving faster through the cameras photo zone that it wouldn't even trigger the camera. And if it did happen to catch a arrow in flight it wouldn't crystal clear it would be a blurry high speed blur.

So your telling me that the owner of this cuddeback trail camera took this picture and went into the dark room and "doctored" it to show the arrow not to be transparent? Maybe while in that "dark room" the deer should have been doctored as well to take the question of transparent out of the argument as well.

Thats what I would do with my cannon rebel picture of much higher quality not a trail camera picture thats probably push 4-6 megs at best


----------



## IBBW (Mar 29, 2005)

*petty jealousy*

I'll buy it. :wink:

Whitetail deer can't jump!!??? I know all there is to know!!! Bull stuffing.

Good job kid!! Hope you make bank with that sucker. :thumbs_up


----------



## old Graybeard (Nov 3, 2005)

Congrats to the boy on his buck but I'm not buying the pic


----------



## OhioBowHntr (Apr 23, 2004)

*Trail Cams*

Its an awesome Picture no matter what you believe... Myself, I have been around trail cameras for a long time and seen many ghosting, Transparent, and wildd things, I am going to post a Picture I caught a few years back, Its crystal clear, airborne Buck flying past cam totally stretched out. Although this cameras trigger speed is a 1 second homebrew, I believe there was no way it triggered on this deer.

I believe another deer or something blew past and this was on its heel, as luck would have it i caught the shot perfectly. Note the clarity, also the transparent antlers whereas other areas are not, But you can tell theres transparency though out the entire picture.

I can show many examples of weird things like this...

I will pass no judgement on this Individual, was not there, did not witness it, Its an awesome picture never the less. And having not witnessed it I believe in the honesty of people and there good name and will believe in that its legit.

As far as those explaining shutter speeds and stoppage, lens capture seeds etc... You obviously have not run Trail cams with pics in the 10'sss of thousands, If so over that time, your gonna see some things you just cannot explain, allot of variables come into play so I would not discount anything!!!

Dan


----------



## Buksknr53 (Mar 30, 2006)

I showed the picture to my brother who has been a proffesional photographer for many years. He is a master at what he does. He too feels that this pictute is photoshopped! He said that the edges are way too sharp. He also told me that regardless of the shutter speed of the camera, there would be a motion blur. He also said that the transparency makes no sense at all. After talking to him, I now understand why Cuddeback would not touch this picture with a 10 ft. pole!


----------



## AdvanTimberLou (Aug 8, 2005)

Awesome, probably the best trail camera action shot I have ever seen. Thanks for posting!!


----------



## insatiable (Feb 8, 2005)

Whats amazing too is that you can see the blood from the exit wound. That rage when clear thru.


----------



## AmishArcher (Feb 6, 2008)

i choose to give a 15 year old kid the benefit of the doubt. i'm amazed at how many people cry foul play whenever something amazing happens, just not to them ( do we need to revive the spider bull thread?). we've all been in the woods and seen some weird thing happen that no one would ever believe. great job by the kid, definitely one to remember!

by the way, textbook shot!


----------



## Southern Sam (Mar 7, 2006)

I think its real!! THe muscles are to tight for the deer to be dead!! Look at how drawn up the neck muscles are, you can see its voice box and the ripples on the lower neck from being tense. Not to mention all the other muscles that are tight!! Deer do not look like that laying on there side dead. I say congrats to the kid and to a great pic!!:wink:


----------



## standsitter (Feb 29, 2008)

All I know it is a nice picture, a nice shot, and another non-pass thru with a Rage on what appears to be a fine shot, you can even see blood on offside leg already. Just my take on it. There is the possibility of a shoulder hit on the offside after looking again could be why no pass thru.


----------



## Bayou Bowhunter (Sep 18, 2007)

AmishArcher said:


> i choose to give a 15 year old kid the benefit of the doubt. i'm amazed at how many people cry foul play whenever something amazing happens, just not to them


Exactly! Great job kid. That is one amazing picture.


----------



## DesignedToHunt (Aug 5, 2008)

As I said, I want to give the kid the benefit of the doubt but along with the ears something else has just caught my attention. This camera picked up every fine detail in the shot. Now, that being said, you can see exactly where the arrow entered the animal but I don't seen an entrance wound 

I see the arrow shaft perfectly as it enters the body and I see a ton of blood, but no actual wound. I would think if this camera is picking up blood splatter, dirt being kicked up and everything else it would definitely be able to pick up a Rage wound.


----------



## tpoof (Dec 18, 2005)

Bayou Bowhunter said:


> Exactly! Great job kid. That is one amazing picture.


x2


----------



## crockett (Apr 6, 2008)

old Graybeard said:


> Congrats to the boy on his buck but I'm not buying the pic


ditto!


----------



## dt5150 (Oct 17, 2007)

awesome pic. gotta send that one to cuddeback.


----------



## SANDBAGGER (May 10, 2005)

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!! great shot, right in the pump station (litterally)............Congrats to him


----------



## Smoke-Walker09 (Jan 6, 2006)

Great Pic!! congrats on the nice buck. cheers!:darkbeer:


----------



## DeerHuntin79923 (Dec 15, 2007)

Sweet Pic!!!


----------



## gun278 (Apr 12, 2003)

paul s. said:


> hunting "photo of the year" right there.:wink:


+1


----------



## mud_duck (Jul 21, 2008)

for all of you that think this is photo shopped havent youever had a double exposure it can happen with digital as well when the object moves faster then the shutter can close

nice shot:darkbeer:


----------



## RxBowhunter (Feb 16, 2005)

Awesome pic! Thanks for sharing!


----------



## bigpinehc (Aug 15, 2006)

Southern Sam said:


> I think its real!! THe muscles are to tight for the deer to be dead!! Look at how drawn up the neck muscles are, you can see its voice box and the ripples on the lower neck from being tense. Not to mention all the other muscles that are tight!! Deer do not look like that laying on there side dead. I say congrats to the kid and to a great pic!!:wink:


Exactly! 
The people trying to say this pic was taken post mortem don't understand deer anatomy. That deer is dying, not dead! I also have got many transparent images just like this one over the years on my trail cams when motion is involved. I feel it's legit.


----------



## matthewsmesiah13 (Dec 16, 2005)

BrowningYukon said:


> Hey thanks for all the wonderful words about me and how you can pass judgment on someone whom you don't know. While you took 3/4 of your post to belittle me you do understand the numbers you throw out there do not apply to a cuddeback trail camera. A simple trail camera like a cudde will have atleast a 1-2 second motion trigger before it is even able to take the photo. So to catch a arrow or a bullet (laughable at best) in flight wouldn't be able to take that photo. That object is moving faster through the cameras photo zone that it wouldn't even trigger the camera. And if it did happen to catch a arrow in flight it wouldn't crystal clear it would be a blurry high speed blur.
> 
> So your telling me that the owner of this cuddeback trail camera took this picture and went into the dark room and "doctored" it to show the arrow not to be transparent? Maybe while in that "dark room" the deer should have been doctored as well to take the question of transparent out of the argument as well.
> 
> Thats what I would do with my cannon rebel picture of much higher quality not a trail camera picture thats probably push 4-6 megs at best


i think ur assuming the wrong things here. dont assume that the arrow is what set the camera off, maybe the deer was just stepping or moved somehow else to set the camera off long before the arrow was in flight and just happened to go off at the perfect time. is it a long shot to have that type of timing sure but nothing is impossible. also, the arrow is obviously not at full speed. its not like its zipping thru the air at 300 fps looks like it has already hit both shoulders so it is at the very least almost stopped if not totally stopped so it wouldnt be blury like a shot arrow. I personally think its real and am glad i dont always looks for fault in things and just enjoy how awesome and rare some things just are.


----------



## Buksknr53 (Mar 30, 2006)

How about a couple of pictures of the deer before the shot. Surely the Cuddeback had to have a shot or 2 of the deer chowing down on the corn pile or standing and looking around. I think that would be a little more convincing. If the Cuddeback can take dramatic action shots like that, then there has to be other pictures before the shot. I want to beleve that the picture is real, I really do, but I'm just not convinced yet!


----------



## OHIOBUCK (Oct 25, 2006)

I've seen alot of deer mule kick......................just not 8ft in the air?


----------



## bigrackHack (Jun 11, 2004)

Great pic. Congrats to the lucky young man!

It's too bad that haters have to ruin what should have been a positive thread. I've had plenty of action trail cam photos with ghosted images. Just the nature of a trail cam. The photoshop police should scram and let this kid have his moment in the sun for harvesting a nice buck and a one in a million photo!


----------



## dhacker (Dec 6, 2005)

Buksknr53 - did you email the rep at Cuddeback after I sent you his address? 

I will have to ask Brian or Logan what the prior picture was and see if I can get it.

I will tell you that Brian sent a photo last night of the buck one week prior to the shot picture to this website - 
http://carolinasoutdoor.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/6797/1.html

Brian also has been in direct contact with that site website admin.

If you believe the picture has been altered there is nothing I can say or do to prove otherwise. I don't believe I have had any digital pics end up like this one but at the end of a role of 35mm - I had two pictures end up on top of each other to give similar results.


----------



## firstshoot (Mar 4, 2008)

Great photo and also a great shot!!!!!!!


----------



## xswanted (Feb 1, 2008)

photoshopped or not,

Its a pretty sweet picture.


----------



## str8sh2ter (Sep 11, 2006)

*re*

interesting picture for sure. My first impression was : alot of action in the picture but no blurring at all.Seems strange for such a slow shuttered camera.Also if it was a double exposure,there would be atleast slight irregularities in the back ground trees and light spots.It looks like the Deer is six feet offf the ground.
It seems amazing that all these variables could come togehter at the exact timebut who knows.shuttle going off,deer in peeak of jump,arrow at full penetration and clear picture of it.none of the legs show any blurr from movement.Even if the shutter were 125th/sec. that's too slow for no blurr.
i guess the debate will go on. my .02


----------



## WNYBowhunter (Jan 15, 2006)

bullzI25 said:


> Def. doctored photo..there is blood specs down by opp leg hoof if that buck was indeed jumping there wouldnt be blood there that fast..also it doesnt look right looks to me as the deer is laying there not jumping


+1.
Also, the arrow should look blurry or streaking toward the deer. In the picture, the arrow looks stationary, if you get what I mean. It should be a blur as it is traveling over 200+ fps.


----------



## sagenhaftein (Jul 25, 2008)

i have a picture of a deer doing a high step not with an arrow but you can see through the deer, like this...its almost like it blurs, like said above shutter speed is slow so it catches both images and overlaps. nice pic. 

You can see the deer on the left of the buck.

Not fast timing camera just another deer had ran right infront of it when they were exiting but cool none the less.

People are to fast to call fake when they dont witness it, people everything in the world isnt made up.


----------



## KYBowhunter (Nov 22, 2005)

Buksknr53 said:


> I showed the picture to my brother who has been a proffesional photographer for many years. He is a master at what he does. He too feels that this pictute is photoshopped! He said that the edges are way too sharp. He also told me that regardless of the shutter speed of the camera, there would be a motion blur. He also said that the transparency makes no sense at all. After talking to him, I now understand why Cuddeback would not touch this picture with a 10 ft. pole!


Your brother needs to find a new line of work then. I have had plenty of trail cam pics that have transparent objects like this. 

I don't know if they pic is real or not but the reasons I have read on here that people are giving to support it to be fake are laughable.


----------



## drawemback (Dec 6, 2006)

Here is a picture that was on the other forum showing the same buck at the same location. Kindof hard to believe that it is a fake.


----------



## sbooy42 (Jan 2, 2007)

old Graybeard said:


> Congrats to the boy on his buck but I'm not buying the pic


me either


----------



## CutTheLoop (Dec 26, 2007)

OHIOBUCK said:


> I've seen alot of deer mule kick......................just not 8ft in the air?



Deer do what they do...not what we think they can or can't do.


Mule kick


----------



## ELKhuntR (Feb 5, 2006)

Wow! one of the coolest trail cam pics I"ve ever seen.

the reason you can see through it is because the deer was moving. and the flash was probably firing at the end of the shutter. Very common effect you can do with manipulating the shutter speed and throwing a flash at the end. It's actually called rear flash sync. the deer was moving so fast, that it was able to get the same effect. Basically, unbelievable timing. deer probably was sitting there and triggered the camera and then a second or third pic fired right at the same time as he triggered his release, that would be my case.

this is as real as they come. Would bet money on it.


----------



## Limb Chicken (Dec 10, 2004)

Congrats on a very cool picture. It would be my opinion after being a graphic designer/art director for over 18 years and working with photoshop on a daily basis that this picture is legit. My opinion of course. You can do just about anything in photoshop and make it undetectable. If someone was good enough to cut this animal out as clean as it need to be they certainly would have taken care of the opacity issue. I have gotten several picture like this on my cameras here is one from a couple of years ago that is my favorite. 

My guess is the first deer set the camera off and the timing of the shot was evidently perfect.

But it also justifies my theory that they can disappear into thin air... :wink:


----------



## MOLLIEN1 (Sep 19, 2007)

Camera companies would have a hard time duplicating that pic with a deer on a leash!


----------



## absolutecool (Mar 26, 2006)

I wish I had some pics like that, before, during and after the shot!! How cool would that be?

Congrats to the young man that harvested this buck. 

That is all that needs to be said...


----------



## matthewsmesiah13 (Dec 16, 2005)

WNYBowhunter said:


> +1.
> Also, the arrow should look blurry or streaking toward the deer. In the picture, the arrow looks stationary, if you get what I mean. It should be a blur as it is traveling over 200+ fps.


no, if u ever watch impact shots the arrow hits and zips thru before the deer has a chance to kick and jump. the arrow has gone thru one shoulder and hit the other and stopped already by the time the pic snapped


----------



## Stangbeater (Nov 23, 2005)

Not for nothing, I think the picture is real. But I suck at photoshop and did this in about 5 min. Anything can happen. Congrats to the kid for bagging a buck.


----------



## FearNot (Dec 22, 2003)

I love the pic!!!!!!


----------



## MXTKTB (Aug 31, 2006)

+1
It don't get any better!


----------



## huntin' hard (Aug 21, 2007)

*trees?*

I dont think you can see trees thru the deer you are simply seeing the areas of light thru the tree which would have made it to the lens when the shutter first opened then the body of the deer covered, but since the had already made it to the exposure you can still see them since they are lighter in color than the deer


----------



## tnarb (Aug 26, 2006)

WOW,,,,,,,I wonder if Mitch R, would have anything to say about the drooping ears on a live deer?:zip:


----------



## jason17 (May 12, 2006)

*Could be real*

I think some people think the arrow is entering the deer right than. I believe the deer was shot, arrow stopped in the oppisite shoulder. The deer jumps and does the mule kick. At the top of the jump the camera takes the pic. Like many of you said, if he was going to fix the pic why noy fix everything. I have seen lots a transparent deer pics, just look here on AT. Nice Photo.


----------



## tldga3 (Sep 8, 2005)

Nuge60 said:


> Exactly. Deer looks like it could be laying on the ground and pasted into the background.


agree


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

bow111 said:


> i call b.s on this .... never seen a deer move so fast that you could see through them..


These aren't photoshopped, and you can clearly see through them. These aren't even in the midst of a heart shot mule kick either.


----------



## Bucket Head (Oct 25, 2006)

*Real*

I have no reason to believe that it isn't real. I've had a fair share of pictures from my cuddeback where the deer are transparent. At least from my experience it seems to happen most of the time at dawn or dusk.

Congrats on the nice deer, and awesome picture.:darkbeer:


----------



## BCFrye_Kansas (Mar 5, 2007)

bersh said:


> These aren't photoshopped, and you can clearly see through them. These aren't even in the midst of a heart shot mule kick either.


But you can also clearly see the trail, the moving deer makes. I'm not a camera expert by any means and have no real opinion on whether the pic is real(actually just accepted that it was when I saw it), but there's no ghost trail on the jumping deer.


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

BCFrye_Kansas said:


> But you can also clearly see the trail, the moving deer makes. I'm not a camera expert by any means and have no real opinion on whether the pic is real(actually just accepted that it was when I saw it), but there's no ghost trail on the jumping deer.


I think that is probably due to the fact that the cudde has a faster shutter than the crappy Wildview that I had at the time my pics were taken. I used to have a couple more that were transparent and not blurry or no ghost trail, but some power issues at my house this spring wiped out my hard drive and I lost them. I'll do some digging to see if I can find any other examples though.

I'm editing to add that the speed of the deer in my pics may actually be the reason for the ghosting. These deer are moving slow, just barely walking or moving their head. This slow movement may have allowed the camera to capture more of them at their original location. The buck was probably moving a LOT faster, so maybe the camera wasn't able to capture enough of him to give that ghosting effect. I'm just guessing here, not trying to slam you.


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

BrowningYukon said:


> Hey thanks for all the wonderful words about me and how you can pass judgment on someone whom you don't know. While you took 3/4 of your post to belittle me you do understand the numbers you throw out there do not apply to a cuddeback trail camera. A simple trail camera like a cudde will have atleast a 1-2 second motion trigger before it is even able to take the photo. So to catch a arrow or a bullet (laughable at best) in flight wouldn't be able to take that photo. That object is moving faster through the cameras photo zone that it wouldn't even trigger the camera. And if it did happen to catch a arrow in flight it wouldn't crystal clear it would be a blurry high speed blur.
> 
> So your telling me that the owner of this cuddeback trail camera took this picture and went into the dark room and "doctored" it to show the arrow not to be transparent? Maybe while in that "dark room" the deer should have been doctored as well to take the question of transparent out of the argument as well.
> 
> Thats what I would do with my cannon rebel picture of much higher quality not a trail camera picture thats probably push 4-6 megs at best


Rather than spouting a bunch of stuff that you don't seem to know much about and getting so defensive, perhaps you should just pm the original poster and get the original picture. From there, you can look at the metadata and see if it has been altered or not.

I use Photoshop on almost a daily bases, and to me, as unlikely as this photo is, it doesn't looked 'shopped' at all. There are classic signs of, and artifacts within, images that have been altered. This one has non of them.


----------



## inmyelement (Aug 15, 2008)

On the left femur there appears to be a vein or artery that is distended. If the animal was dead there would be now blood moving in the body to cause this and the vessel would lay flat. I could be a tendon or ligament but the bifurcation makes it seem more like a blood vessel. I voting for real.


----------



## BCFrye_Kansas (Mar 5, 2007)

bersh said:


> I think that is probably due to the fact that the cudde has a faster shutter than the crappy Wildview that I had at the time my pics were taken.


I'm just playing devils advocate since it's a slow day at work. Am I right in saying the slow shutter causes the ghosting(causing transperency on the back end and front end). I assume this happens because the shutter is open long enough to get some image of the background behind the deer as it's jumping, but open long enough that it also gets the deer as it comes into play. My question would be if you've got the ghosting on one side, shouldn't it mirror the movement on the other, i.e. if you have the ghosting on the top, shouldn't it be on the bottom as well. Once again, not trying to pick, just bored.....


----------



## BuckWyld (May 5, 2006)

*Fake!!*

OK- I have definitive proof the the photo is a fake! In the picture of the deer with the kid holding his head up, the deer has a tag zip tied to his antler that is clearly not in the jumping arrow picture.:wink: Some of you guys are cracking me up, you should try out for the CSI series. I hear there is an opening. Who really gives a damn......shut up and HUNT! :zip:


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

redruff said:


> I use PS a lot too!
> To get the horns, etc spliced in so cleanly would be VERY difficult...
> If you look at the horns in front of the poplar trees..its pretty seamless..
> If its PS'ed the guy is VERY VERY good!


I'm with you. I think the pic is real. If you zoom in really tight on the image, none of the usual signs of altering are present. If it was shopped, whoever did it spent a LOT of time and really knows what they are doing.


----------



## jindydiver (Jan 13, 2006)

BrowningYukon said:


> Hey thanks for all the wonderful words about me and how you can pass judgment on someone whom you don't know. While you took 3/4 of your post to belittle me you do understand the numbers you throw out there do not apply to a cuddeback trail camera. A simple trail camera like a cudde will have atleast a 1-2 second motion trigger before it is even able to take the photo. So to catch a arrow or a bullet (laughable at best) in flight wouldn't be able to take that photo. That object is moving faster through the cameras photo zone that it wouldn't even trigger the camera. And if it did happen to catch a arrow in flight it wouldn't crystal clear it would be a blurry high speed blur.
> 
> So your telling me that the owner of this cuddeback trail camera took this picture and went into the dark room and "doctored" it to show the arrow not to be transparent? Maybe while in that "dark room" the deer should have been doctored as well to take the question of transparent out of the argument as well.
> 
> Thats what I would do with my cannon rebel picture of much higher quality not a trail camera picture thats probably push 4-6 megs at best


It is easy to "pass judgment" on people who wear their ignorance on their sleeve, and who are telling the world that the original poster is a liar and a cheat. How well do you (or any of the other nay-sayers) know the original poster? Didn't stop you all from jumping up and calling him a liar 
Would any of you posters who are voicing doubts about this guys photo call him a liar to his face? Maybe without the anonymity of the internet you guys would temper your commentary with the knowledge that you aren't really experts in photographic technique or in Photoshop manipulation of photos.

Trigger time is not the same thing as shutter speed and so has no bearing on how this pic turned out, except of course that it allowed the deer to be in front of the camera when it fired. The arrow is solid simply because the arrow has stopped forward movement (it is hanging out a deer) and it's speed is only as fast as the deer can move.


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

inmyelement said:


> On the left femur there appears to be a vein or artery that is distended. If the animal was dead there would be now blood moving in the body to cause this and the vessel would lay flat. I could be a tendon or ligament but the bifurcation makes it seem more like a blood vessel. I voting for real.


Holy cow, that's a lot of big words in one post.

If I understand what you're saying correctly, then I generally agree. This deer is way too tense, muscles too tight, for this to be a picture of a dead deer overlayed onto the background. 

Even though I don't think it was altered, if it was my guess would be that the picture itself is real, and they added the arrow and blood.


----------



## dhacker (Dec 6, 2005)

As a follow-up I have not received one request for the original file and am more than willing for someone(s) to inspect the file / picture. Update (bersch makes a good point below and I will leave this decision up to Brian and Logan if they want it forwarded somewhere or to someone questioning it)

I will tell you that Logan is excited that this picture has attracted so much interest. Logan wants to try and get this into a photo contest or to try and get it published in a magazine. The webadmin from the Carolina website may work with them to try and get it published. If anyone else has any recommendations - shoot me a PM and I will forward to Brian and Logan. Otherwise I have sent them this link and can see if if posted.

If this was a fake picture I would never put myself out there as I care about my integrity and for what I stand (and Brian and Logan would state the same). I know we are only as good as our word - and that can be difficult when you don't know me as a person or I - you.


----------



## JDS-1 (Nov 15, 2007)

dhacker said:


> I shoot a Mathews and was looking at the Mathews website after hunting this weekend and was surprised to find a link to a South Carolina website (http://carolinasoutdoor.com/forums/.../Arrow_caught_on_film_by_cuddeb.html#Post6797) with this picture on it of my cousins buck. My cousin is from and hunts in Wisconsin so that is quite a quick little Internet trip. In case anyone wants to complain about the corn, there was less than the WI two legal gallons.
> 
> My 15 year old cousin (Logan) shot this buck. The next day he went back and pulled the pics from his camera and this one was on there. He was as stunned as many are. I sent the above website link to Logan's Dad (Brian)and sure enough that was his picture.
> 
> ...


HAAAA...just found my new background for my computer  Awesome pic. Congrats on the deer :thumb:


----------



## aztrophytaker (May 10, 2007)

nice placement


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

dhacker said:


> As a follow-up I have not received one request for the original file and am more than willing for someone(s) to inspect the file / picture.
> 
> I will tell you that Logan is excited that this picture has attracted some much interest. Logan wants to try and get this into a photo contest or to try and get it published in a magazine. The webadmin from the Carolina website may work with them to try and get it published. If anyone else has any recommendations - shoot me a PM and I will forward to Brian and Logan. Otherwise I have sent them this link and can see if if posted.
> 
> If this was a fake picture I would never put myself out there as I care about my integrity and for what I stand (and Brian and Logan would state the same). I know we are only as good as our word - and that can be difficult when you don't know me as a person or I - you.


My only suggestion (if it's not too late) is to make sure that he keeps the original version of the photo. Even though I think it is real, given the responses here, on the original site, and now other other sites, he will need that original to keep the naysayers quiet.


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

bersh said:


> Rather than spouting a bunch of stuff that you don't seem to know much about and getting so defensive, perhaps you should just pm the original poster and get the original picture. From there, you can look at the metadata and see if it has been altered or not.
> 
> I use Photoshop on almost a daily bases, and to me, as unlikely as this photo is, it doesn't looked 'shopped' at all. There are classic signs of, and artifacts within, images that have been altered. This one has non of them.


So defensive? I wasn't the one "name calling"

Ok there photoshop pro...take the pic into photoshop and you will see a black shadow all the way around the back half of the buck. Under the belly to hind leg you'll also see real shoty work where it was "fixed"...Across the top rear end near the tail you'll also see where the pic was "fixed" with way to many sharp edges.

Again thanks for the personal slam:wink:


----------



## Bowdiddly (Jan 19, 2004)

That's too cool.


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

jindydiver said:


> It is easy to "pass judgment" on people who wear their ignorance on their sleeve, and who are telling the world that the original poster is a liar and a cheat. How well do you (or any of the other nay-sayers) know the original poster? Didn't stop you all from jumping up and calling him a liar
> Would any of you posters who are voicing doubts about this guys photo call him a liar to his face? Maybe without the anonymity of the internet you guys would temper your commentary with the knowledge that you aren't really experts in photographic technique or in Photoshop manipulation of photos.
> 
> Trigger time is not the same thing as shutter speed and so has no bearing on how this pic turned out, except of course that it allowed the deer to be in front of the camera when it fired. The arrow is solid simply because the arrow has stopped forward movement (it is hanging out a deer) and it's speed is only as fast as the deer can move.


You can assume all you like of what I may have called the op...but don't put words in my mouth. I also said if I was wrong I would make a public apology. Never the less the only one on this thread calling him a "liar" in word is YOU. With another deer already in the camera pic shot (upper left) then there should be "before" shot of the buck pictures on that camera...POST them up thats all I ask.

I'm not going to argue the what if's...here is one for yah..set a trail cam up at the range and see if your camera will pickup the arrow in flight when shooting your target...then get back to me on trigger/shutter speeds


----------



## LeEarl (Jun 1, 2002)

I think the picture is real, and IF you understood photography you would know why it looks like it does. I can reproduce a picture like that in the same situation no problem. Those of you stating that the deer is too clear and the background is showing thru need to take a camera class :nod: Just read up on slow shutter flash and you will understand how this can happen... By the way, the deer is at the top of the jump so there is not much movement at the time of flash, creating a clear deer picture with slight ghosting.... Now get back to class......


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

LeEarl said:


> I think the picture is real, and IF you understood photography you would know why it looks like it does. I can reproduce a picture like that in the same situation no problem. Those of you stating that the deer is too clear and the background is showing thru need to take a camera class :nod: Just read up on curtain shutter and you will understand how this can happen... By the way, the deer is at the top of the jump so there is not much movement at the time of flash, creating a clear deer picture with slight ghosting.... Now get back to class......



Dear teacher,

How do you explain away black shadows around the bottom half of the rear section of the deer? Or and the sharp edges around the of the deers back section near the rump? 

So teacher how does one get those type of photo reactions if the deer is "ghosting" as you call it?

Thanks I will be awaiting your answer.:wink:

*OK I see your picture and see the light through the peoples heads as well as the bars..there are no tree's showing through the deers body only light. So are you telling us what?


----------



## jindydiver (Jan 13, 2006)

BrowningYukon said:


> Ok there photoshop pro...take the pic into photoshop and you will see a black shadow all the way around the back half of the buck. Under the belly to hind leg you'll also see real shoty work where it was "fixed"...Across the top rear end near the tail you'll also see where the pic was "fixed" with way to many sharp edges.


And that is your basis for calling someone a liar

Of course there is a black shadow under the deer, the flash on the camera is above the lens, and because of this the further from the obstructing object (the deer in this case) the shadow falls the thicker the shadow.
"Sharp edges" are normal, as are all sorts of "straight lines", "solid colors", "single pixels" etc, when you are viewing a JPEG in only 72 pixels per inch resolution.


----------



## jindydiver (Jan 13, 2006)

BrowningYukon said:


> I'm not going to argue the what if's...here is one for yah..set a trail cam up at the range and see if your camera will pickup the arrow in flight when shooting your target...then get back to me on trigger/shutter speeds


Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really this thick. The arrow isn't "in flight" it is "in deer"
The hunter didn't nail this deer as it was in flight either, he quite obviously nailed him (with awesome placement) as he was feeding, the camera triggered as the target deer moved (or possibly the deer in the background, or one that has completely left the frame) and fired as the deer leaps.


----------



## Kuminatcha (Apr 15, 2006)

*Camera*

Does any know how fast the shutter speed would have been needed to capture the arrow where it looks like its sitting still? It sure looks real fishy to me but I'm no expert for sure. But I do know somethings fishy.


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

jindydiver said:


> And that is your basis for calling someone a liar
> 
> Of course there is a black shadow under the deer, the flash on the camera is above the lens, and because of this the further from the obstructing object (the deer in this case) the shadow falls the thicker the shadow.
> "Sharp edges" are normal, as are all sorts of "straight lines", "solid colors", "single pixels" etc, when you are viewing a JPEG in only 72 pixels per inch resolution.


​
Never called him a liar 1 time..But I believe you have used that word atleast a half dozen times..what are you trying to prove by putting words in my mouth?

Perfect shadows are "normal" in a ghosting picture..man we all seem to be moving the goal post here to defend the picture as real....ok


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

jindydiver said:


> Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you really this thick. The arrow isn't "in flight" it is "in deer"
> The hunter didn't nail this deer as it was in flight either, he quite obviously nailed him (with awesome placement) as he was feeding, the camera triggered as the target deer moved (or possibly the deer in the background, or one that has completely left the frame) and fired as the deer leaps.


Sir, again thanks for the personal slams.:tongue: IF you took the time to read THAT post it was my response to something he said about "transparent arrows" being fixed in a black room. Also how cameras can pickup arrows and bullets in flight. 

So again I asked ok....setup a trail cam at the range and try to pickup a arrow in flight...that was all! 

Before you respond maybe just take 1 minute to read what I was qouting before getting all hell bent on me.:cocktail:


----------



## King (Dec 8, 2002)

That's just incredible.


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

BrowningYukon said:


> So defensive? I wasn't the one "name calling"
> 
> Ok there photoshop pro...take the pic into photoshop and you will see a black shadow all the way around the back half of the buck. Under the belly to hind leg you'll also see real shoty work where it was "fixed"...Across the top rear end near the tail you'll also see where the pic was "fixed" with way to many sharp edges.
> 
> Again thanks for the personal slam:wink:


I wasn't trying to slam you. Take the original poster up on his offer and get the original photo and go from there.

In terms of the shadow/ghosting & rump, I think it is a matter of seeing what you want to see. To me, it just looks like a shadow or a slight ghosting effect, not a remnant of editing. Nothing in the rump area really stands out as being edited either. When deer move, their fur gets ruffled. Even at an extreme zoom, there aren't any odd pixels or anti-aliasing or sharp edges or anything else that normally occurs during the type of editing you're suggesting.

Lets just assume for a second that it is a fake - if I had to take a guess at this thing being altered, to me it would be that the picture itself of the buck jumping is real, and the arrow was added later. 

In terms of this being a picture of a dead deer laying on the ground and overlayed onto the background, I highly doubt it. For one the deer in this picture is alive. Two, the legs would have to be propped to provide what appears to be proper spacing. If it was laying on the ground, the legs would basically be laying on top of each other, thus making them look similar in size/scale. The legs in the pic don't have that appearance at all. Third, the amount of time that would have to be spent cleaning the deer up/probability of getting it this clean to only have blood in those two spots is pretty much impossible (or even using the magic of computers to do it that well would almost be impossible). The amount of time it would take to cut in/blend in/filter/mask/add needed detail/cut out unwanted detail would be pretty substantial. Unless they dragged the deer onto cement to take the picture, I've yet to see a picture of a dead deer in the field where parts aren't obscured by leaves, brush, grass, etc. Finally, if they were going to go through all that effort, why would they bother with the transparency? This seems to be a sticking point for some reason, so clearly if they were going to spend that much time/effort on trying to do this, the last thing they would want to do is purposely make a picture that would draw skepticism right out of the gate.


----------



## gobblercrazy (May 9, 2008)

amazing...


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

Kuminatcha said:


> Does any know how fast the shutter speed would have been needed to capture the arrow where it looks like its sitting still? It sure looks real fishy to me but I'm no expert for sure. But I do know somethings fishy.


I don't think the arrow is moving anymore - it's stuck in the deer. Looks to me that it hit and stopped at the far shoulder. I guess technically it is moving, as the deer is jumping and the arrow is moving with it, but it is no longer in flight from the shot:wink:


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

bersh said:


> I wasn't trying to slam you. Take the original poster up on his offer and get the original photo and go from there.
> 
> In terms of the shadow/ghosting & rump, I think it is a matter of seeing what you want to see. To me, it just looks like a shadow or a slight ghosting effect, not a remnant of editing. Nothing in the rump area really stands out as being edited either. When deer move, their fur gets ruffled. Even at an extreme zoom, there aren't any odd pixels or anti-aliasing or sharp edges or anything else that normally occurs during the type of editing you're suggesting.
> 
> ...


Ok, now we can have a civil conversation atleast

Reason it draws "skepticism" is for the fact nothing anywhere that I know of shows a picture like this. Then to hear that cudde wouldn't use it for PR purposes with PETA. I find that very odd as this pic if real would make cudde a gazillion bucks in the marketing world in selling their products. Which would out do the bad PR from animals rights groups. Looking at this from the biz side and refuse to "use" the picture is rather strange to me. Again just my opinion.

I understand your opinion on how much time it would take to clean the deer and put into position to have a picture made up. But at the sametime it didn't take very long for someone to take that same photo insert a "chainsaw" show blood on both sides of the bar and remove the arrow from the picture.

Editing: The deer body line from head to almost rear is "perfect" then you have atleast 5-7 spots of real sharp edges. This where my pixel count went hay wire in my photo program..which leaves me to believe something isn't just right. Same for the shadows: you have shadows for furthest hind leg but not for the furthest front leg. While the shadows around the bottom back half of the belly to hind leg is not normal.

Again its just my opinion...and a few others as well:wink:


----------



## aztrophytaker (May 10, 2007)

BrowningYukon said:


> Ok, now we can have a civil conversation atleast
> 
> Reason it draws "skepticism" is for the fact nothing anywhere that I know of shows a picture like this. Then to hear that cudde wouldn't use it for PR purposes with PETA. I find that very odd as this pic if real would make cudde a gazillion bucks in the marketing world in selling their products. Which would out do the bad PR from animals rights groups. Looking at this from the biz side and refuse to "use" the picture is rather strange to me. Again just my opinion.
> 
> ...


Since you are the current resident expert explain why the left front and rear hooves are larger than the right side? If it really was a photo of a deer laying on the ground wouldn't the feet be the same size?


----------



## marcusjb (Jun 22, 2005)

:welcome::argue::boink::lalala:


----------



## mxdkfreestyle13 (Sep 15, 2006)

that is so fricken awesome its unreal. congrats on the great deer and an unbelieveable pic.


----------



## bullzI25 (Mar 17, 2004)

It is great that this kid got his fist buck and I would like to think that the picture is real but it just doesnt look that way to me..It looks to me is like that deer is laying on its side its just doesnt look dimensional to me..It looks like the back legs are laying together..Im not saying its not real just that it doesnt look right.. Im not a camera expert and ive used cuddebacks but it seems to me theres alot of light left there coming through the trees and the eye is glowing??? im no expert as im sure someone will bash me and say the flash went off but I have a lot of pics even when the flash went off with daylight left having black eyes


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

aztrophytaker said:


> Since you are the current resident expert explain why the left front and rear hooves are larger than the right side? If it really was a photo of a deer laying on the ground wouldn't the feet be the same size?


Didn't claim to be a "expert" if you chose to read this whole thread allot of points have been raised by many others. 

Your asking a good question as it goes back to why isn't there a shadow for the front legs, as there is for the rear legs. There should be shadows. As for the hoove size I guess you are saying depth perception as one is closure than the othe. You also get that when a picture is taken of a deer on its side un-gutted.


----------



## Teson34 (Oct 8, 2008)

Ok here is my take........ 

-for the deer’s dropping ear, it's like a tit, it stays behind for a spit second after a chick jumps because of the weight and support structure.

- Deer has a tight body, I've never seen a dead deer with a tight body, have you

- the arrow has hit the opposite shoulder and has stopped moving forward. In the picture the arrow is now on the way up with the deer, as it jumps ie. The arrow hit the deer while it was still on the ground and it jumped, that’s we the arrow can be caught on camera.

-we don’t need to go to the bow range and try to take a picture of an arrow in fight BECAUSE the arrow it this picture is NOT in flight, it has stopped forward momentum.

-The arrow didn’t set off the camera, the deer did.

- if you've never seen a deer jeep that high, you need to get in the woods, I've seen a deer jump an 8 foot chain link fence from a stand still.

- if you never had a burred picture from a trail cam, you need to set it out more then one week before the season, get some time in the woods.


----------



## AERO63 (Feb 26, 2008)

Here's a trail cam pic my buddy's cam snapped...he just posted it on another forum discussing this same topic and I thought I'd post it here as well.

The "ghosting" effect does happen...


----------



## bullzI25 (Mar 17, 2004)

Arrow vanes are perfectly clean. If this buck were hit with a rage and did indeed jump then the blood should have pumped out of the nonexistan gaping wound as its moving so fast and there should be at least a little blood on the vanes...


----------



## WACK&STACK (Mar 28, 2007)

Nuge60 said:


> Exactly. Deer looks like it could be laying on the ground and pasted into the background.


Thats what it is!!!!


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

Teson34 said:


> Ok here is my take........
> 
> -for the deer’s dropping ear, it's like a tit, it stays behind for a spit second after a chick jumps because of the weight and support structure...ok!
> 
> ...


my opinion is in the red


----------



## gecl (Jul 31, 2002)

GREAT PIC LOGAN!!!
As amazing as the pic is, what I find more amazing is the some of the opinions of of the naysayers. I've gotten over 12,000 pics with various homebrew trailcams and ghost type images although not common, do happen. (attached a sample) Notice it is fairly sharp. Did the jay trigger the cam, absolutely not. Just as the arrow didn't trigger it in Logan's pic. The deer could have triggered it seconds earlier with the cam actually shuttering at this amazing moment. The dark fringe around some of the deer is very common with cheap digital cameras. Now I know the Cudde is not a cheap trailcam but the actual camera inside of it is (although it serves its purpose well)

Photoshop is something else I'm VERY familiar with. I could go on and on but to make it short, I'll say I find MUCH, MUCH more evidence that it is NOT doctored than it is.

Once again, great pic Logan!
Amazing coincidental timing!


----------



## CR_Switchback (Apr 5, 2006)

Now that is a cool trail cam pic


----------



## JLorenti (Mar 17, 2004)

*another clue...*

is the deer in the background left is about to bound off with back legs bent ready to spring forward, in reaction to the noise of the shot?

Joe lorenti


----------



## gecl (Jul 31, 2002)

If someone was good enough to make the pic in Photoshop, why in the world would they not have taken the extra 40 seconds I took to easily take it to this point. 

Point is....orig. pic was NOT Photoshopped


----------



## FoamSticker (Jun 11, 2008)

jindydiver said:


> Replies like this one just show the ignorance of the posters
> 
> The camera shutter is 1/60th of a second (sometimes 1/125th) and the animal can move plenty in that time, and the trees can be recorded before the animal moves fully in front of them, at which time the flash fires, and because it does so at something like 1/10,000 of a second the deer is caught frozen in time. The short duration of the flash, and it's ability to freeze objects in motion, is how people can take photos of arrows (and bullets) in flight. These photos are taken in a dark room so that the arrows don't look transparent.
> It is amazing that someone can get a photo like this, and even more so when it is totally an accident too, and all the calls of "it must be fake" just show how mean spirited, small minded and jealous many hunters can beukey:



NO FAKE. The above explanation is dead on. Flash photography is difficult to understand when most only know how to point-shoot- and play with photoshop. Awesome Pic.


----------



## ruffme (Aug 4, 2005)

I blew up the horns in front of the tree.
I'm not seeing ANY bad blends...pixels smeared, wrong colors replaced, etc..
I've been using PS for years....
I don't see any telltale signs that it was faked...this would be a really tough one with that complicated background...

But I'll send it to my bro...he's a real pro graphic designer..I'll get his opinion..


----------



## shkyhnds (Jul 11, 2007)

I have thought about this thread and picture most of the day.....I have to say I am skeptical about it. However, I am not an expert! I do know a little about photography, so I can understand the "ghostly" image. If it is real it is a once in a lifetime picture and should be framed! But I will give congrats to the youngster who shot this buck. This buck along with the pic makes a great trophy!


----------



## hitman846 (Jan 25, 2003)

Now that is a cool pic :thumb:


----------



## jindydiver (Jan 13, 2006)

BrowningYukon said:


> you have shadows for furthest hind leg but not for the furthest front leg.



Look again
You can plainly see what appears to be a shadow from the hoof of the right foreleg. The reason you can see a shadow for the rest of the leg is because the trees where the shadow might fall are obviously a lot further back than the trees the rear end is shading. You will also notice that because the tree the foreleg shades is further back than the trees the rear end shades the shadow is further from the deer, again a function of the flash being above the lens on the camera.


----------



## VorTexan (Jan 8, 2005)

The AT lawyers are still at work



great photo and great first buck!


----------



## celticgladiator (Feb 13, 2008)

shkyhnds said:


> I have thought about this thread and picture most of the day.....I have to say I am skeptical about it. However, I am not an expert! I do know a little about photography, so I can understand the "ghostly" image. If it is real it is a once in a lifetime picture and should be framed! But I will give congrats to the youngster who shot this buck. This buck along with the pic makes a great trophy!


+1 - i agree, the tail is blurred like i would have expected more of the deer to be but the tail to me at least proves movement. who woulda ever thought this thread would draw so much debate from everyone. still a cool picture either way. just let me pretend.


----------



## Whaack (Apr 2, 2006)

AmishArcher said:


> i choose to give a 15 year old kid the benefit of the doubt. i'm amazed at how many people cry foul play whenever something amazing happens, just not to them ( do we need to revive the spider bull thread?). we've all been in the woods and seen some weird thing happen that no one would ever believe. great job by the kid, definitely one to remember!
> 
> by the way, textbook shot!


Exactly. This is why I will probably never post a cool photo like this because the AT detectives will call Photoshop and drag me through the mud.


----------



## 22lyons (Jul 30, 2007)

gecl said:


> If someone was good enough to make the pic in Photoshop, why in the world would they not have taken the extra 40 seconds I took to easily take it to this point.
> 
> Point is....orig. pic was NOT Photoshopped



great point....

some people have a hard time believing something incredible can actually happen.

cool pic. great shot.


----------



## Ib4Hoyt (Jan 19, 2004)

i know nothing about photos so the only thing i see wrong is he didn't get a pass through,,what head was he using?


----------



## Thundr (Jan 18, 2008)

Looks to me like this is 100% B.S. 

If its moving so fast, why then isn't the deer the least bit blurry?


----------



## UntouchableNess (Mar 30, 2007)

I'm a believer, as I've seen what motion and slow camera shutter speed can produce. Check out the "see through" bird in front of the gate.

To the guy who got the pic, congrats on it and the buck.


----------



## DesignedToHunt (Aug 5, 2008)

Now I am even a little more "iffy" about the pic after the release of this second photo. You have the buck and that second deer in pretty much the EXACT same locations in both photos


----------



## moethedog (Aug 27, 2007)

I'm not buying it....

Keith


----------



## Ib4Hoyt (Jan 19, 2004)

moethedog said:


> I'm not buying it....
> 
> Keith


me either

Keith


----------



## harleyrider (Jul 5, 2006)

Looks like a nice deer killed by a young hunter. Congratulations! :thumbs_up:thumbs_up Cool action shot as well.

HR

p.s., Overall AT reaction to the trail camera photograph has sure been interesting.:zip: The vigor with which some defend their assumptions (both positive and negative) on such a benign issue is eye opening. Whether the photograph is authentic or altered is pretty much irrelevant. I certainly was entertained by it and I'm guessing that was the intent of the original poster.


----------



## BayouBob (Apr 9, 2007)

All the people crying fake are just exposing their ignorance about photography.


----------



## dressed2kill (Sep 10, 2007)

Very cool pic. The non-believers are just jealous. I always wondered if anyone had a pic like this, it is very possible.


----------



## vortecman (Dec 10, 2005)

Cool picture, I know you can get picture's with light showing through the deer because I have a few.


----------



## Todd1700 (Dec 22, 2002)

> Your brother needs to find a new line of work then. I have had plenty of trail cam pics that have transparent objects like this.


I have had ghost photos like this with trail cams as well. So if that guys brother is truely a photography expert then my @$$ is a Flugelhorn and I can fart Beethovens fifth symphony. 



> Finally, if they were going to go through all that effort, why would they bother with the transparency?


Exactly. I could fix that transparentcy in photo shop easily. So much of that photo would be so hard to fake and require so much expertise at photo manipulation that it's laughable that fakers would leave the transparentcy. 



> Then to hear that cudde wouldn't use it for PR purposes with PETA. I find that very odd as this pic if real would make cudde a gazillion bucks in the marketing world in selling their products


Name me one company that has an ad in a magzine or a TV comercial that shows close up graphic images of blood splattering everywhere from a gaping broadhead wound like that? What's that? Can't name one? That's cause there aren't any. Hell some hunting shows don't even show photos that graphic and the advertisers surely don't. 



> All the people crying fake are just exposing their ignorance about photography.


Yep. Most definately.



> The non-believers are just jealous.


Nope, just ignorant.


----------



## rodney482 (Aug 31, 2004)

Picture is real. no doubts!


----------



## nimrod-100 (Jan 11, 2006)

Incredible - Congrats to Logan - nice buck


----------



## bullzI25 (Mar 17, 2004)

Im not ignorant and Im happy the kid got his first buck and it is a sweet pic none the less it just doesnt look real..Another thing I have noticed is the placement of that arrow and the color of the blood dont mix in my experience where that deer is hit the blood looks dark as a liver or gut shot not a heart/lung shot..Here is a pic of a buck I shot 3 years ago..you can call it doctored or not but my neighbor was the one that got the pic..I never did find this buck and the neighbors dad shot him a Year later..


----------



## z28melissa (Feb 8, 2007)

BrowningYukon said:


> What makes it transparent is running it through a photo filter to "clean the backgroud clutter" to get a more defined cut out picture. Putting a cut out pic and overlapping is what causes transparent photos. Thats why the arrow is so solid looking and not transparent...cause its a still photo not a moving object photo. If that deer was moving that fast that it would cause the camera to take a transparent photo---> then a detailed picture of this sort is truely amazing all the way down to seeing the knock grove of the arrow---> Sorry I just don't buy it.
> 
> Just look through the deer and you'll see light in the tree's of the background..hows that happen and yet you don't see tree's not even a hint?
> 
> I could be wrong and if I am I will make a public appology and have no problem doing so. Its just my opinion is all.


Yes, you are wrong. Show this picture to anyone halfway experienced in Photoshop or cameras and you'll get the truth, which is that the "transparency" you see in the deer is very much expected when there's such quick movement. No, it is not what happens when someone has photoshopped the background out of an image, no it has nothing to do with photoshop filters, it is exactly what you'd expect from a trail camera (plus very lucky timing and placement resulting in an absolutely amazing photo).

It's an incredible photo, deal with it! Be happy for the guy!


----------



## z28melissa (Feb 8, 2007)

bullzI25 said:


> Im not ignorant and Im happy the kid got his first buck and it is a sweet pic none the less it just doesnt look real..Another thing I have noticed is the placement of that arrow and the color of the blood dont mix in my experience where that deer is hit the blood looks dark as a liver or gut shot not a heart/lung shot..Here is a pic of a buck I shot 3 years ago..you can call it doctored or not but my neighbor was the one that got the pic..I never did find this buck and the neighbors dad shot him a Year later..


Wow tough buck! Did the neighbor know it was the same one you had shot?


----------



## Ib4Hoyt (Jan 19, 2004)

looks like 50% of us are Experts ........
and 50% of us are just ignorant......


----------



## NY911 (Dec 12, 2004)

What IS amazing is how grown men can be reduced to grade school level playground fights over something they have no stake in.........


----------



## scottparker (Mar 31, 2006)

Cool pic no matter what  Congrats


----------



## bullzI25 (Mar 17, 2004)

yes he knew as he let me come see it when his father shot it..It looks like a good shot and thats what i thought when i first hit it but my arrow went in and hit a rib and just slid alongsid the ribcage never entering the body cavity..


----------



## Tarheeler (Nov 12, 2006)

Congrats Dude 

Nevermind the HATERS:wink:


----------



## dhacker (Dec 6, 2005)

In case you may not have went to the carolinasoutdoor.com website, here is a pic of the buck alive a week prior.


----------



## EASTON94 (Jan 25, 2003)

OMG you photoshop police guys can ruin a thread in no time flat.....Why on God's green earth can ya'll not say cool pic and go on??? You would think this thread was an entry for a million dollar trail cam pic contest....This kind of thread is what runs people off from this site, post a pic and get 7 pages of guys calling it fake. To the original poster, cool pic photoshopped or not.....I for one will take you at your word and believe it is real. '94


----------



## MiBuckhunter (Aug 8, 2007)

*Ghost buck*

Ghost buck for sure! Nice try & gives us something to talk about. If that deer was moving so fast that you could see threw him don't you think he would be out of focus? And why is he the only thing in the whole pic that is lite up with the flash? No trees no ground & he is almost overexposed. Besides that I have and use the same brand camera's and they do not shoot quick enough to get that kind of shot. But a great job on your photoshop program don't make the subject so transparent next time you merge the layers together & you'll have it.


----------



## z28melissa (Feb 8, 2007)

MiBuckhunter said:


> Ghost buck for sure! Nice try & gives us something to talk about. If that deer was moving so fast that you could see threw him don't you think he would be out of focus? And why is he the only thing in the whole pic that is lite up with the flash? No trees no ground & he is almost overexposed. Besides that I have and use the same brand camera's and they do not shoot quick enough to get that kind of shot. But a great job on your photoshop program don't make the subject so transparent next time you merge the layers together & you'll have it.


Obviously the deer is in front of the flash, the flash can only reach so far, of course the deer is going to be brighter. It's a shame there are people like you that have to put everything down just because it's not yours. If you've never seen a trail cam picture with a transparent animal, read this thread again.


----------



## Hoyt Havoc (Jul 27, 2006)

I can't believe people don't have nothing better to do but to argue over a pic on the web.........I think its real :wink:and have had many pics doubled over like this one one my trail cam.


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

It's pretty obvious that most that are claiming photoshop actually have very little trail camera and/or photoshop experience. I literally have thousands of trail cam pics, and what is seen in this pic in terms of transparency, shadows, "only the deer is lit up", parts are solid while others are transparent, and all of the other excuses that hold no water are VERY common with trail cams, and off-the-shelf trail cams are even worse. I hate to break it to most of you, but the actual camera that Cuddebacks use isn't exactly high end, regardless of the price of the overall unit. There have been some questions regarding a "before" pic of the buck. I really don't understand what this has to do with anything. Maybe the camera is set ot take pics every 10 minutes. Maybe the buck walked into camera range while the camera was waiting to take the next pic, whatever. I've got hundreds of pics of bucks that are only in one picture, and I have my cameras set to take pics every 2 minutes. The lack of a before pic does nothing to prove/disprove the authenticity of this particular photo.

In terms of photoshopping, as has been mentioned, to pull this pic off would have taken somebody that REALLY knows what they are doing, and would have required a lot of pre-planning on their part, and many hours of work. I've been using photoshop on an almost daily basis since 1997. I'm admittedly still learning things almost every day with the program, but at this point I can say that I'd probably be considered a scratch handicap (for you golfers) using it. You've seen a few examples of people doctoring this photo, but none of them look real, and when you look close it's obvious they have been doctored. Granted, they probably only spent a few minutes on the pics, but they still show the type of artifacts that become apparent when you alter a photo.

I've taken a look at the original photo (as in, the actual photo, not the one posted here). It's a lot larger, and I'm able to zoom in better. I'm also able to look through all of the metadata. If this thing has been altered, the person that did it absolutely covered every base in terms of covering their tracks. The photo itself shows no usual evidence of being altered. The metadata shows no indication that it has been altered. Granted, the metadata can be altered, but there are a few core pieces of data that get saved with every file that would require some pretty sophisticated editing to alter.

Back to a post I made a while ago, if they were going to go through this much effort to dupe us, why wouldn't they go all the way with it? Why would they make the deer transparent? Why wouldn't they make the arrow transparent? Why wouldn't they blur the image? Why would they they spend hours on it and not make it perfect? Anyone skilled enough to get it to this point would be skilled enough to finish it off. 

The naysayers can believe what they want. It's just too bad that a vocal minority of uninformed individuals can sidetrack the thread and detract from the fact that a 15 year old kid shot a nice buck and happened to capture a once in a lifetime picture of it.


----------



## JAMBF750 (Jan 7, 2008)

You guys are crazy...I think we should create some trail cam laws...:wink:

My vote is 100% real and I would like to pass on congrats to a fine photo and buck.


----------



## right eye blind (Oct 9, 2008)

That is one of the coolest things I have ever seen!!!


----------



## bullzI25 (Mar 17, 2004)

Ok so you guys like to sit and bash some of us because we dont believe the pic..We dont bash you for believing the pic we are just saying that we dont believe it and explaining our reasoning. I for one havnt said a word about photoshop because Ive never used the program and dont have it but to my eye the pic just looks fake. Congrats to the kid that got the buck but he didnt post this pic his cousin did. If the kid would a came on here and posted my first buck with a bow..eveyone would have congratulated him and said sweet buck..but no his cousin posted this picture that to some looks real to some looks unreal so yes there is going to be controversy.. You sit and bash us because we dont believe it when we are not bashing anyone... If you look at the deer in the first pic its really lit up by the flash especially in the head area ITS DAYLIGHT OUT THE FLASH DOESNT LIGHT IT UP THAT MUCH...the deer in the live pic of it walking isnt even lit up that much and its NIGHTTIME WHERE THE FLASH SHOULD LIGHT EVERYTHING UP.. also the live walking pic looks smaller yet looks the same distance away from the camera?


----------



## marzo91 (Aug 17, 2004)

At any rate, it's great that the picture was posted. It has generated a lot of interest, critisizm, and praise. Either way, it will help make all of us think more about those wiley white-tails.

Thanks for posting the pic.


----------



## ARCHERYSNOB (Feb 13, 2006)

Great post. That picture is so beautiful,it is bringing a tear to my eye.


Teson explained it the best. It is entirely possible,especially since it may have gone thru some bone. It is a deer that tripped the camera,then got shot,jumped with arrow in deer,NOT a freely moving arrow, picture taken as deer jumped with arrow in him. Not a running deer,nor the flight of an arrow. The tragectory if the exit wound is perfect also. Entirely possible and makes perfect sense.


Truely an amazing picture. Thanks for sharing-joe


----------



## JH SWAIN JR (Nov 2, 2007)

I love the pic, I'm shocked so many people are talking about the deer being real when you can clearly make out BIGFOOT hiding just behind some branches in the background.


----------



## tuckr (May 31, 2005)

*nice*

Sweet


----------



## Teson34 (Oct 8, 2008)

ARCHERYSNOB said:


> Great post. That picture is so beautiful,it is bringing a tear to my eye.
> 
> 
> Teson explained it the best. It is entirely possible,especially since it may have gone thru some bone. It is a deer that tripped the camera,then got shot,jumped with arrow in deer,NOT a freely moving arrow, picture taken as deer jumped with arrow in him. Not a running deer,nor the flight of an arrow. The tragectory if the exit wound is perfect also. Entirely possible and makes perfect sense.
> ...


At least someone read what I wrote, I think it makes prefect sense. Thanks for the name drop, lol


----------



## CutTheLoop (Dec 26, 2007)

MiBuckhunter said:


> Ghost buck for sure! Nice try & gives us something to talk about. If that deer was moving so fast that you could see threw him don't you think he would be out of focus? And why is he the only thing in the whole pic that is lite up with the flash? No trees no ground & he is almost overexposed. Besides that I have and use the same brand camera's and they do not shoot quick enough to get that kind of shot. But a great job on your photoshop program don't make the subject so transparent next time you merge the layers together & you'll have it.



This is just an attempt to shed a little light on the see through "ghosting" effect.

I'm no trail cam expert, but I do know a little about how some digital cameras work.

All of them contain memory in the form of cache, much the same way as many modern car CD players have to prevent skipping when the ride is bouncy. Part of the data stream is cached slightly ahead of time and actualy played from there, instead of in real time from the disc. The cache reads the data contents on the fly and drops what it detects as bad or inconsistent data(no skip).

A digital camera will do "almost" the same thing.

For the sake of efficiency, it reads the cache(very quickly), and if there are portions of an image in cache that have not changed enough(static background) then it will simply reuse a portion of that data already stored other than redrawing the entire image(or data).

This is what gives digital cameras the ability to shoot in "burst mode", they reuse any data that has not changed.

This appears to be the case in this image, the camera, in an attempt to operate "efficiently" captured the data that it recognized as updated information(the deer) and simply combined it with the unchanged background information(from cache). Literaly drawing the deer over the top.

To quote Dennis Miller

"That's just my opinion, I could be wrong."


Awesome picture either way:darkbeer:


----------



## jms375 (Jul 29, 2007)

Awesome pic and congrats to the kid on his deer. Every big deer or elk pic or any cool pic of game I have ever seen posted on here always gets some know it alls saying its photoshopped or poached. I appreciate that people on here want to share their photos with other hunters. Why in the heck would anyone spend the time to doctor up a picture and then post it on here or poach an animal and then post up the evidence. I really hope some of you aren't like this in real life. I don't understand how you can have that frame of mind that you automatically want to start accusing people of stuff without ever meeting or knowing anything about them. You can say well we aren't calling anybody a liar or bashing just saying the pic is fake. Well if I post up a pic and then you all tell me its a fake I would take that as calling me a liar.


----------



## z28melissa (Feb 8, 2007)

bullzI25 said:


> Ok so you guys like to sit and bash some of us because we dont believe the pic..We dont bash you for believing the pic we are just saying that we dont believe it and explaining our reasoning. I for one havnt said a word about photoshop because Ive never used the program and dont have it but to my eye the pic just looks fake. Congrats to the kid that got the buck but he didnt post this pic his cousin did. If the kid would a came on here and posted my first buck with a bow..eveyone would have congratulated him and said sweet buck..but no his cousin posted this picture that to some looks real to some looks unreal so yes there is going to be controversy.. You sit and bash us because we dont believe it when we are not bashing anyone... If you look at the deer in the first pic its really lit up by the flash especially in the head area ITS DAYLIGHT OUT THE FLASH DOESNT LIGHT IT UP THAT MUCH...the deer in the live pic of it walking isnt even lit up that much and its NIGHTTIME WHERE THE FLASH SHOULD LIGHT EVERYTHING UP.. also the live walking pic looks smaller yet looks the same distance away from the camera?


Are you being serious? Looks like the flash worked just as it would in any other wooded area at 7pm. Nobody is "bashing" you just educating you.


----------



## CutTheLoop (Dec 26, 2007)

bullzI25 said:


> Im not ignorant and Im happy the kid got his first buck and it is a sweet pic none the less it just doesnt look real..Another thing I have noticed is the placement of that arrow and the color of the blood dont mix in my experience where that deer is hit the blood looks dark as a liver or gut shot not a heart/lung shot..Here is a pic of a buck I shot 3 years ago..you can call it doctored or not but my neighbor was the one that got the pic..I never did find this buck and the neighbors dad shot him a Year later..


Blood, especialy arterial blood(inside) the animal actualy is that dark(or darker) until it has contact with oxygen, nitrogen and other gases that make up "air"

Once exposed, it begins to turn brite red, muscle tissue does the same thing, ask any friendly neigborhood butcher about "blooming".

When a steak is first cut from it's primal, it is maroon to dark red, and as it is exposed to "air" it begins to "bloom" and turn the bright red you see in the display case.


----------



## AdvanTimberLou (Aug 8, 2005)

NYBowhunter911 said:


> What IS amazing is how grown men can be reduced to grade school level playground fights over something they have no stake in.........


+1 :wink: I have no horse in this race and could care either way. I just enjoy seeing the pictures.


----------



## Springhill (Oct 30, 2007)

AdvanTimberLou said:


> +1 :wink: I have no horse in this race and could care either way. I just enjoy seeing the pictures.


What he said :wink:


----------



## ARCHERYSNOB (Feb 13, 2006)

Cuddeback lucked out with that picture,but now that it is well known to be possible and explainable. Wanna bet other trail camera companies will be setting their cameras up for an after the shot photo. LOL

-I predict more similar ,,awesome pictures this fall for sure.-joe


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

bullzI25 said:


> Ok so you guys like to sit and bash some of us because we dont believe the pic..We dont bash you for believing the pic we are just saying that we dont believe it and explaining our reasoning. I for one havnt said a word about photoshop because Ive never used the program and dont have it but to my eye the pic just looks fake. Congrats to the kid that got the buck but he didnt post this pic his cousin did. If the kid would a came on here and posted my first buck with a bow..eveyone would have congratulated him and said sweet buck..but no his cousin posted this picture that to some looks real to some looks unreal so yes there is going to be controversy.. You sit and bash us because we dont believe it when we are not bashing anyone... If you look at the deer in the first pic its really lit up by the flash especially in the head area ITS DAYLIGHT OUT THE FLASH DOESNT LIGHT IT UP THAT MUCH...the deer in the live pic of it walking isnt even lit up that much and its NIGHTTIME WHERE THE FLASH SHOULD LIGHT EVERYTHING UP.. also the live walking pic looks smaller yet looks the same distance away from the camera?


Some would consider calling the original poster & his cousin liars as bashing. The reason I got involved is that I have yet to read a post saying it is fake that offers any sort of real proof other than vague or unsubstantiated opinion. On the flip side, a number of us have provided a number of arguments based on experience with not only trail cameras, but with photoshop of why we believe it is real.

As far as your flash & size comments, I'm not sure what you are basing those on. The first picture is physically larger than the second one, which is common to posting pictures on these forums. Also, if the deer is 6" closer to the camera, it is going to make a big difference in terms of it's size relative to the frame, as well as the amount of light that will hit it from the flash. I've got plenty of pics from my cameras where I know exactly how far away the deer are, and yes, 6" can make a huge difference.


----------



## jgd2305 (Oct 2, 2005)

bullzI25 said:


> yes he knew as he let me come see it when his father shot it..It looks like a good shot and thats what i thought when i first hit it but my arrow went in and hit a rib and just slid alongsid the ribcage never entering the body cavity..


I'm very interested to know what broadhead you were using, it looks like a great shot, I would have been shocked if I were in your shoes.

I don't want to steer this thread in the wrong direction, so feel free to pm me if you want.


----------



## RossShooterMI (May 19, 2007)

jrmsoccer32 said:


> You just don't understand how cameras work as the deer was jumping the shudder was opening on the camera so it got the trees and sky in the background and the deer in front of them all in the same picture trust me it happens I have a ton of pics that come out like this when they are an action shot


Bingo, some people even try to get this effect.

I posted a picture like this last year, will not even bother doing it again here. Too many folks are just to clueless


----------



## jhlewis10 (Sep 15, 2006)

jrmsoccer32 said:


> You just don't understand how cameras work as the deer was jumping the shudder was opening on the camera so it got the trees and sky in the background and the deer in front of them all in the same picture trust me it happens I have a ton of pics that come out like this when they are an action shot


It has to be a double exposure for this affect. If the deer was moving when the shutter opens it will not make the deer see through it will make the deer blurry. 

The flash stopped the action, looks like either it fired once, then again with the flash and combined exposures or it is fake.


----------



## z28melissa (Feb 8, 2007)

jhlewis10 said:


> It has to be a double exposure for this affect. If the deer was moving when the shutter opens it will not make the deer see through it will make the deer blurry.
> 
> The flash stopped the action, looks like either it fired once, then again with the flash and combined exposures or it is fake.


Again, pictures like these happen A LOT with store bought trail cams, read through this thread or through other trail cam topics here on AT you'll see a handful of them. Even in the short time I've been using trail cams I see probably 1 out of every 10 "action" shots - flash or no flash - with this same "see through" result. Don't be so quick to assume.


----------



## dhacker (Dec 6, 2005)

Broadhead was a Rage - I did not ask if it was 2 or 3 blade.

The picture of the buck alive the week before was saved as a smaller file thus a smaller pic. It was copied from the other website


----------



## Boone (Jun 13, 2003)

I have to question how fast the blood appeared I've seen deer shot in slow motion with both gun and bow and haven't seen it blow out as fast as it is on the hit side in that pic . Just my thought, very cool pic though !


----------



## frickpse (Jun 22, 2007)

thats so awsome!!!! a one in a billion chance of that happening


----------



## jgd2305 (Oct 2, 2005)

dhacker said:


> Broadhead was a Rage - I did not ask if it was 2 or 3 blade.
> 
> The picture of the buck alive the week before was saved as a smaller file thus a smaller pic. It was copied from the other website


Actually, I was asking about the picture that bullzI25 put up of the deer walking around with the arrow in it.


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

Boone said:


> I have to question how fast the blood appeared I've seen deer shot in slow motion with both gun and bow and haven't seen it blow out as fast as it is on the hit side in that pic . Just my thought, very cool pic though !


Based on the arrow placement, it looks to me that it took out the top of the heart (ie - where all the plumbing is at). I've had a couple deer that I've heart shot with my rifle that I've had blood splatters 3-4' in front of where the deer were standing. Although the force of the bullet is a lot greater and could be causing it, I think part of it was due to the fact that I hit them right where they could spring the biggest leak.


----------



## CWG (Nov 20, 2003)

redruff said:


> I use PS a lot too!
> To get the horns, etc spliced in so cleanly would be VERY difficult...
> If you look at the horns in front of the poplar trees..its pretty seamless..
> If its PS'ed the guy is VERY VERY good!


No fooling. It would take a serious master on photoshop to get this one.
Many many many hours and years likely to produce this. 
My immediate thought was it was shopped, a few quick glances and man, if its shopped, the guy that did that could make Obama look honorable. 
Great shop. 


right click/saved


----------



## bigrackHack (Jun 11, 2004)

CWG said:


> No fooling. It would take a serious master on photoshop to get this one.
> Many many many hours and years likely to produce this.
> My immediate thought was it was shopped, a few quick glances and man, if its shopped, the guy that did that could make Obama look honorable.
> Great shop.
> ...


Above all others, the opinion of a photographer of your caliber shines above all others. In my book anyway. :darkbeer:

To the cynical few always looking for a scandal and photoshop under every rock---:moon: C'mon guys.


----------



## 1stbowblacktail (Mar 11, 2005)

Nice deer and GREAT picture! Congrats to you!


----------



## CHAMPION2 (May 6, 2004)

That is one of the coolest things I have ever seen. Unreal!!!


----------



## AmishArcher (Feb 6, 2008)

NYBowhunter911 said:


> What IS amazing is how grown men can be reduced to grade school level playground fights over something they have no stake in.........


truer words have never been spoken...


----------



## DeerDude (Sep 16, 2004)

WOW !!! Awesome shot and picture....That has to be one of the coolest things I have ever seen...Congrats to the young man who shot it.....:darkbeer:




And to the people who are so ignorant...If you spent half as much time in the woods as you do sitting on here trying to see if the photo is fake or not,maybe you would be killing some deer too....Get a life!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## nywoodsman (Sep 21, 2007)

That picture is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!. Nice shot and congrats on a nice deer.


----------



## RMac (Feb 4, 2005)

Perfect shot and great photo. What else is their to say.:darkbeer:


----------



## sa_hunt (Jun 25, 2007)

just looks like a dead deer on the ground thats been put on top of another outdoors picture. The deers height and leg placement are unbelievable, no way this is real.


----------



## z28melissa (Feb 8, 2007)

sa_hunt said:


> just looks like a dead deer on the ground thats been put on top of another outdoors picture. The deers height and leg placement are unbelievable, no way this is real.


What's so unbelievable about it? Never seen a deer jump when it gets shot? How should it look?


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

Well since there seems to be alot of bashing of the naysayers here including myself. I have taken it upon myself to have this photo looked at by a thrid party professional. 

Stinky Journalism http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/the folks who broke open the photoshoped Alabama pig story that was shot by the kid using a pistol..is going to look into this photo as well. I have personally contacted them and talked with the lady in charge (Rhonda Roland Shearer) that is going to look into it by phone. 

Lady (Rhonda Roland Shearer) from Stinky Journalism said that her Tech guy is out this week but it will be looked into for sure she said. She said to tell the folks it could take 2 weeks to get her findings.

There yah have it


----------



## Ib4Hoyt (Jan 19, 2004)

DeerDude said:


> WOW !!! Awesome shot and picture....That has to be one of the coolest things I have ever seen...Congrats to the young man who shot it.....:darkbeer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


my seasons not in yet,,i'll try and catch up to you when it does though:wink:


----------



## lnevett (Apr 9, 2006)

Impresive!!!


----------



## Bowtech Kid 08 (Aug 11, 2008)

I dont Buy it. Something fishy... 

Like why is the picture so clear with everything happenig  a million miles an hour... From my experience the picture is just a little too perfect to be real...


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

Did want to also mention that for the people who beleive the arrow stuck in the opposite shoulder----> from the thee person whom claims this picture, says it was a pass through and was stuck in the ground. (have email proof)

So if that were to be true that means this deer was shot in flight?

Edit: The personal opinion of folks who had the phone conversation is here say. So therefore I removed it.


----------



## dhacker (Dec 6, 2005)

So everyone knows what Browning Yukon is referring to is that I checked with Brian to see if he had any problem sending it to Yukon to have the picture checked. What I sent him was the original email sent by Brian to Cuddeback excluding direct phone numbers. 

So he is correct about the statement in the email of Brian saying the arrow went through.

However, I assumed that Browning Yukon would have waited for the analysis to be returned before posting his opinions on the post that the photo is a fake. But I could be wrong - thats just what I would have done.

Also, if the photo is fake why would Brian have agreed to have it analyzed - give me a break.

Don


----------



## kzz1king (Jan 21, 2007)

The giant pig was FAKE:wink:


----------



## kzz1king (Jan 21, 2007)

Whoops,I meant to say " The giant hog was a fake??


----------



## Teson34 (Oct 8, 2008)

BrowningYukon said:


> Well since there seems to be alot of bashing of the naysayers here including myself. I have taken it upon myself to have this photo looked at by a thrid party professional.
> 
> Stinky Journalism http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/the folks who broke open the photoshoped Alabama pig story that was shot by the kid using a pistol..is going to look into this photo as well. I have personally contacted them and talked with the lady in charge (Rhonda Roland Shearer) that is going to look into it by phone.
> 
> ...


That’s what should of happened before we all got on here running our mouths, I'll like to see what the findings are! I really want to believe it, I think there too many opinions evolved, now, but what the heck I guess that’s what these places are for, right. I'd rather spend my time in the woods looking for mister BIG. Thanks for doing the "grunt work" (not meant to be a pun, but it's funny) for us B.Y.


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

dhacker said:


> So everyone knows what Browning Yukon is referring to is that I checked with Brian to see if he had any problem sending it to Yukon to have the picture checked. What I sent him was the original email sent by Brian to Cuddeback excluding direct phone numbers.
> 
> So he is correct about the statement in the email of Brian saying the arrow went through.
> 
> ...


Don sent me a PM and didn't care for the fact I had posted the opinion of 2 people who had the conversation. Myself and Rhonda. Thats fine, I didn't post anything that was un-truthful but just stating what we had said, nothing more. Never the less, I went back to my post and removed the 1 sentence that I had posted. It appears that Don didn't do the same when I replied back...I'm fine with that but it does require me having to all this.

I see from now on my opinions on this picture are no longer looked at as being "fair"..even though my opinion has never changed from first post until now. So that being said when the finding of the picture gets made those results will go from Rhonda at Stinky Journalists to Adminstration to have them post. I won't have anything to do with it or will I be able to "fix" the results. I do NOT know Rhonda or do we have any conflict of internest. 

I will contact adminstration to have ALL this looked at to keep this as honest and fair as can be.


----------



## Redemption (Jul 18, 2007)

Why does anyone bother posting a picture on this site? I know I never will again.........and I kill biguns!!!:amen:


----------



## Terrortodadeer (Aug 24, 2006)

*Just what i see...*

Arrow going through heart, stereotypical mule kick as a reaction... Blood spurting as arrow enters side of deer... and doe with tail at half-mast fleeing the scene after something (most likely the deer jumping after the shot) spooks it... And honestly, do you really think this kid would go through all of the trouble to edit or photoshop this picture? It was obviously the same deer as in the recovery picture... and by the lighting, i doubt they laid that bad boy back out in matching light to take snapshots... Plus, to add science into the mix, yes you may be able to see partially through the deer's body, but isn't the camera constantly stationary getting solid views of the background? And with the, i would assume, rather quick moving deer, and as someone was exactly right earlier, not completely *perfect shutter speed, this is very possible... There are numerous example pictures to go by here on archerytalk to look at... Not just playing odds... but consider the time, effort, and truth, in essence being completely wasted, in order to create this fraud photo...

Kudos to you son for harvesting your first!  

And as far as the picture goes... "Hell of a shot", "Wow", and "Amazing" don't do it justice... This picture is BADASS! :darkbeer:


----------



## willyd5 (Jul 25, 2007)

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up


T-Bone80 said:


> I have gotten several photos on my moultrie cams that the deer looks transparent. most of the time when it happens it is because of a quick sudden movement of the deer just as the camera starts to capture the image. I would say that there isn't anyway that picture was photoshoped. It looks very real and believable to me from my experiences with trail cams.
> 
> Congrats on the awesome picture and an awesome buck!


Agree the pic looks just fine to me. Great work on an awesome harvest


----------



## Dale Furze (Jan 1, 2008)

I'm no expert, but aren't the shadows on the tree, cast in the wrong direction?
And arrows shot at even 200fps are hard to freeze crisply.
Nice photo to prompt conversation.

Cheers. dale


----------



## SteveR (Sep 18, 2002)

Interesting.

I do a lot of photoshop work. If this is a photoshop effort, it was very poor. It's simple to put any background on without no transparency of the foreground. Even kids can do a better job than this with no real effort. I doubt it's photoshopped. It's extraordinarily difficult to detect a good photoshop effort, and virtually impossible without looking at the image at the pixel level. 

I don't know how this particular camera works, but getting the transparency effect is quite easy on many good digital cameras, by setting the shutter speed to a slow setting. This camera may do this automatically on dark scenes or maybe even on all scenes since it expects most people to use it at night. The long exposure allows the background to become more visable. A fast shutter speed would cause the background to be very, very dark, allowing only the areas hit by the flash to be captured. If the exposure is slow then the brighter areas are imprinted before the deer actually gets that high on the jump. When the flash goes off, it captures the foreground. The bright areas of the background still show through. The flash does not go off a soon as the shutter opens and on some cameras, it goes off just before the shutter closes. Flashes operate at very fast speeds with the light only lasting for a very short time, which freezes the subject (and arrow). It is not difficult to get this effect.

On the passthrough, it seems as if some on this thread don't understand the definition of this. If the broadhead passes through both sides of the ribcage, it's a passthrough. When stuck in the opposite leg, it's still a passthrough and quite common. I've had many shots where the arrow hit the opposite leg and and stayed in the deer. Those shots are most certainly passthroughs. It's the broadhead that does the damage and the only thing that has to go through both sides. 

To me, this photo looks very legit and is an amazing capture in my opinion.


----------



## SteveR (Sep 18, 2002)

I just took a quick look at the pixel level. The bright areas of the background clearly show through in a normal manner. However, if the foreground were a transparency, then the dark areas of the background should show through the white areas of the deer. They don't. What we're seeing is easily explained by a slow shutter speed with a flash capturing the foreground. I'll be shocked if the company doing the analysis says this is a photoshop effort. It does not look photoshopped to me and I do this kind of stuff all the time.


----------



## DougKMN (Nov 7, 2006)

jindydiver said:


> Replies like this one just show the ignorance of the posters
> 
> The camera shutter is 1/60th of a second (sometimes 1/125th) and the animal can move plenty in that time, and the trees can be recorded before the animal moves fully in front of them, at which time the flash fires, and because it does so at something like 1/10,000 of a second the deer is caught frozen in time. The short duration of the flash, and it's ability to freeze objects in motion, is how people can take photos of arrows (and bullets) in flight. These photos are taken in a dark room so that the arrows don't look transparent.
> It is amazing that someone can get a photo like this, and even more so when it is totally an accident too, and all the calls of "it must be fake" just show how mean spirited, small minded and jealous many hunters can beukey:



Indeed, ever wonder how pics like this:










are taken?

They don't set the camera on a timer and hope to catch it. They set the camera so the shutter is open and have a high-speed flash that flashes when the subject is in frame. This is the same thing. The camera is capturing the background before the flash fires, and since the foreground (the deer) has moved between that time and the flash, the background shows through. 

This image right here demonstrates the same thing (only this is intentional)









This would be several exposures of the same thing....one with the boys, one of just the background. Notice the background is "solid" because it is in both exposures. 

If you look closely at the cudde pic, you can see the "motion cloud" from where the deer was moving prior to the flash.

This pic isn't fake.


----------



## madarchery (May 28, 2003)

The transparency thing is real. I have a half dozen pics of this. End some that show a double image of the deer or a ghost image as the deer was moving quickly.

The shadows of the trees. Well duh. The camera flash is good to 30 ft tops. So the shadow of the deer will be different then that of the surrounding woods.

The past thru. Well this shot was about perfect. I bet as the deer came back down the arow was thru and lying on the ground maybe even stuck. I have also shot deer that as the deer takes the first bounding steps the arrow drops out on a pass thru. And you will not get the blur on the arrow as it was moving away and the back of the deer is moving the most.

Its real as far as I can see.

Apparently the naysayers do not use digital cameras much. Either hand held or the game cams. I have a dozen shots of elk that I took in pretty good light that the auto camera could not register right. As the elk walked I have the same transparent ghost problem.


----------



## DougKMN (Nov 7, 2006)

This picture would be easy to recreate. Throw a tennis ball up in front of a camera in lower light with a lighted background.......It may take a few tries, but I can guarantee that you will get the same effect.


----------



## trumbow (Jul 1, 2007)

thats amazing ,,,, great picture definenetly gonna make some money on that one..


----------



## HoytHunter4 (Jan 17, 2007)

Seems like everyone can learn from this thread... dont post your pics on AT. I made that mistake and had much of the same thing happen to me.:darkbeer:


----------



## DougKMN (Nov 7, 2006)

OK, I took a quick peek at the actual file from the camera (dhacker sent it to me) and I can say this:

1) The metadata indicates that this pic came from a cuddeback camera, with an F/3 Aperature, .89 second shutter speed. ISO 100, and a 1/6 second exposure time. If this photo was doctored, this would information would have changed to the program used to edit it* (This data is easy to change and not conclusive)

2) The pixel concentration of the deer is the same as the background. That is, the pixels are the same size. Again, not conclusive, as this could have been matched prior to shopping.

3) There are no jagged edges. This is a big one. For someone to photoshop a deer "in flight" with such care that there are no jagged edges, and yet they blurred it so much the background shows through is just stupid.

4) There are no signs of artificial blurring around the deer. Its all motion blur. 

5) When you zoom in on the deer, you can see its shadow cast on the trees. Most people when photoshopping don't bother with shadows, as they are hard to mask. 

6) You can see the deer's whiskers/single hairs around its head, where it is moving the slowest.

With .89 seconds shutter, and 1/6 second exposure, the deer could move a LOT in that time, which would make it appear transparent.


----------



## Kstigall (Feb 24, 2004)

I have no opinion on whether this pic is shopped or not. I don't care. 
The thing that I find interesting is the blood spatter on one side, the blood where the arrow is exiting and the arrow is clearly frozen in flight. I never thought about whether the deer was shopped into the pic but I did wonder if the arrow and blood were shopped into a good pic of the deer jumping/kicking after it was shot.

From some others have said it appears the deer pic isn't shopped. But is the arrow shopped into the deer? ................I absolutely don't care what the answer may be! Either way he made a nice kill.


----------



## ELKhuntR (Feb 5, 2006)

You don't get it to you Browning!!!

Go get a dang photography book and start reading if you want take up such an interest in photo effects. our best runners jump of the starting line at I believe around 1/100 of a second. That deer is moving at least 10 times faster than our fastest human being, putting the deer moving at least 1/1000 of a second. to capture motion with photography, starts at 1/60, however that's for something moving slow. For basketball and sports, football, baseball, etc. you need a shutter speed of at least 1/125 of a second and preferably around 1/500 and higher, of course by opening up your aperture, you lose depth of field however are able to use a faster shutter speed. So, let's say ideally, to shoot a moving deer, I'm going to set my camera to 1/2000 of a second and have my shutter open to 5.6. Now, I'm not sure what the cuddeback's shutter is but I would imagine it's slower than that. So, if the shutter is slower than what is needed to freeze a deer's motion, you're going to have blurry and ghost like effects in areas where the deer moved super quick. Also, the reason the deer is so tick tack sharp yet see through is because the camera popped a flash at the end of the shutter. the shadow below the belly signifies that a flash was used. And the placement of the shadow and view of the image shows that the deer was fairly close to the camera and that the camera was placed low. Wide angle view from below. that's why the deer appears to be skying

there you have it. There's my Sherlock holmes answer of the day.

And if isn't real, darn!



BrowningYukon said:


> Did want to also mention that for the people who beleive the arrow stuck in the opposite shoulder----> from the thee person whom claims this picture, says it was a pass through and was stuck in the ground. (have email proof)
> 
> So if that were to be true that means this deer was shot in flight?
> 
> Edit: The personal opinion of folks who had the phone conversation is here say. So therefore I removed it.


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

BrowningYukon said:


> Did want to also mention that for the people who beleive the arrow stuck in the opposite shoulder----> from the thee person whom claims this picture, says it was a pass through and was stuck in the ground. (have email proof)
> 
> So if that were to be true that means this deer was shot in flight?
> 
> Edit: The personal opinion of folks who had the phone conversation is here say. So therefore I removed it.


I'm not sure it is fair to use the "pass through" statement as any sort of proof of the authenticity of this photo. Keep in mind that this statement came from a 15 year old who just shot his first buck. Technically, the arrow did pass through, even if it was stopped at the far shoulder. Maybe the arrow came out after the mule kick and was in the ground afterwards. It's not like he has a lot of personal experience to draw on to know if it was a complete pass through and stuck in the ground, or got stuck in the ground while the deer thrashed and kicked. I've shot lots of deer and on most of them I couldn't tell you exactly what happened from watching impact in real time (other than the bang/flops). I could tell you that they bucked or kicked and then ran off that way, looked to be a good shot, etc, but that would be about it.

I am very interested in seeing what kind of conclusion they come up with. Even though my experience and opinion pretty much have my mind set, if they are able to come up with any compelling evidence, I'm open to accept it. One thing I would like to add is that they didn't exactly crack the hog case - that ball was already rolling. They just helped to confirm what was already felt by many. Also, the pictures (except for one which wasn't the basis of their investigation) weren't photoshopped. They were real photos that were staged to give a false perspective of the size of the hog.


----------



## ELKhuntR (Feb 5, 2006)

Exactly about the hog. Super wide angle, almost fish eye, and the kid posed to sit in back of the animal. 

the pig was still huge but also not exactly i think what you call hunting from what I remember. More shooting than anything.

but, for the most part I believe most of those hog pics were real. Photographer just knew what he was doing. Hey, fishing guys have been exaggerating there fishing pictures for years. With today's photography equipment, hunters are catching on.



bersh said:


> I'm not sure it is fair to use the "pass through" statement as any sort of proof of the authenticity of this photo. Keep in mind that this statement came from a 15 year old who just shot his first buck. Technically, the arrow did pass through, even if it was stopped at the far shoulder. Maybe the arrow came out after the mule kick and was in the ground afterwards. It's not like he has a lot of personal experience to draw on to know if it was a complete pass through and stuck in the ground, or got stuck in the ground while the deer thrashed and kicked. I've shot lots of deer and on most of them I couldn't tell you exactly what happened from watching impact in real time (other than the bang/flops). I could tell you that they bucked or kicked and then ran off that way, looked to be a good shot, etc, but that would be about it.
> 
> I am very interested in seeing what kind of conclusion they come up with. Even though my experience and opinion pretty much have my mind set, if they are able to come up with any compelling evidence, I'm open to accept it. One thing I would like to add is that they didn't exactly crack the hog case - that ball was already rolling. They just helped to confirm what was already felt by many. Also, the pictures (except for one which wasn't the basis of their investigation) weren't photoshopped. They were real photos that were staged to give a false perspective of the size of the hog.


----------



## Bowbuster (Dec 9, 2004)

Wow, another good thread gone bad on AT, imagine that.....

Cool pics and congrats on the buck, thanks for sharing......:darkbeer:


----------



## 12ozd (Jan 25, 2007)

Congrats on textbook shot placement and a fine deer !

The picture will make it that much more for you.

I agree as stated earlier,picture with the mount would be awesome !


SOME OF YOU PEOPLE NEED TO GET A LIFE !​


----------



## WVDXT (Jan 20, 2008)

*Great Pic*

Great shot placement on your first buck and picture to go along with it..

No matter what they think it's your trophy not there's any way..:wink:


----------



## spoco57 (Aug 31, 2005)

The trees and background are caught in the long exposure. The deer is frozen in space by the much faster firing of the flash. It's not a double-exposure, it's a single exposure. The aperture was open long enough to expose the background, but the flash fired and froze the deer where it is, so you get both images in the frame.

The sports guys who shoot film used to do this with a gymnast, using the same frame, but firing the flash multiple times at super high speed, thus capturing a kind of stop motion sequence all in the same picture. The same principle is at work here. If you remember these pictures, you remember that the film guys always used a black background for those sequences, otherwise IT WOULD SHOW THROUGH. 

My money is on NOT PHOTOSHOPPED.

Incredible picture.


----------



## poole (Jan 10, 2008)

Anybody that has every played around with photography in detail has more than likely seen transparent photos like this. I have only been playing around with photography for a few years so Im no pro, but I have taken similar photos when playing around with the manual settings on my camera. So saying its fake just based on the transparency of the deer does not hold water.


----------



## Dchiefransom (Jan 16, 2006)

:sign10::sign10::sign10::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Things I've learned on AT. EVERY photo is Photoshopped, and mountain lions don't live where there's habitat and plenty of food for them.





Good placement on that shot.


----------



## pointysticks (Nov 24, 2006)

mdmountainman said:


> Why can I see the sky through the deer? Looks photoshopped to me.:embara:


can i explain the see through deer? it really has nothing to do with the speed of the deer. it is the flash. imagine opening your shutter in absolute darkness. the film (or digital) is not exposed at all. just like the shutter is closed. in this case the ambient light was enough to expose the trees. so they burn into the image, then the flash pops and catches the deer movement. hence the DOUBLE image. i could duplicate a shot like this easy. none of you have ever taken a photo, not advanced the film and reexpose the picture with yourself in the image? i guess the digital world eliminated the ability to "cock" the camera without advancing ht film. this pic is not photoshopped

really high speed photos (like bullets blasting thru apples) dont rely on really fast shutter speeds. only a fast blast from a high end flash unit can capture the action. the shutter is fully opened even before the shot.


GREAT SHOT! even the composition is great. the arrow hit is meeting the 2/3's photo rule. everything. great!


----------



## JAMBF750 (Jan 7, 2008)

Just in case you all forgot what this awesome pic looked like from 8 pages ago….










DHACKER, I would be honored to have this image emailed to be just to save it on my PC. I will show it to all my good friends that are not members of AT. I think its one of the coolest photos taken.


----------



## Bvan (Sep 16, 2008)

its doctored!!!!


----------



## Boonie_Hunter (Jan 14, 2005)

I don't care what it is, it's still freakin Awesome!!!


----------



## gecl (Jul 31, 2002)

BrowningYukon said:


> Well since there seems to be alot of bashing of the naysayers here including myself. I have taken it upon myself to have this photo looked at by a thrid party professional.
> 
> Stinky Journalism http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/the folks who broke open the photoshoped Alabama pig story that was shot by the kid using a pistol..is going to look into this photo as well. I have personally contacted them and talked with the lady in charge (Rhonda Roland Shearer) that is going to look into it by phone.
> 
> ...


Browning Yukon,
Even though we may be on different sides of the fence on this pic, I do applaud you for taking the initiative to get this settled.
Although I'm not convinced that the folks at Stinky Journalism are, by themselves, really qualified in the technicalities of this pic, hopefully they will see fit to consult people who can help. If you haven't already, I would hope you provide them with a link to this thread. It may show them the issues that need to be addressed to make an informed decision.

Interesting thread for sure.


----------



## Aggieland (Jun 23, 2007)

mdmountainman said:


> Why can I see the sky through the deer? Looks photoshopped to me.:embara:


I agree it might be fake. i can see the trees through the deer.. whats up with that?


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

AggieHoyt28 said:


> I agree it might be fake. i can see the trees through the deer.. whats up with that?


You obviously haven't looked at the dozen or so examples shown in this thread of similar transparent pictures.


----------



## JAMBF750 (Jan 7, 2008)

AggieHoyt28 said:


> I agree it might be fake. i can see the trees through the deer.. whats up with that?


You just opened up a whole can of “WHY DONT YOU READ THE ENTIRE THREAD TO SEE THE PERFECTLY GOOD EXPLANATION FOR THIS"…:zip::wink:


----------



## WhitetailChaser (Feb 15, 2006)

There are so many people on this forum that need to either a.) get a life or b.) learn how to kill a deer themselves so they aren't so jealous when something cool happens for a fellow hunter (and a young one at that).

Congrats on the buck AND the pic young man! Awesome! :thumbs_up


----------



## Elkman (Aug 27, 2004)

Not this again! :sad:
Don't want to seem like a know it all, But, I have been shooting video professionally for 28 years, and Still photography for 30 years.

I have been using PS since '96. and other video and still computer programs since '85.

I will be a smart ***** and say the naysayers are you average joe's that can't believe because they want to try to prove their point of being right because they don't understand something.

Sort of like this "so called professional Forensic Photo Analyst "
link here.

I don't have the time or the energy to go into all the technical reasons like most that say it real, but THEY are right.

The posted picture from the OP is REAL and NOT Photoshopped.

Nice capture! :wink: :darkbeer:


----------



## 22lyons (Jul 30, 2007)

bersh said:


> You obviously haven't looked at the dozen or so examples shown in this thread of similar transparent pictures.


+10 go back and read the posts please.


----------



## trumbow (Jul 1, 2007)

JAMBF750 said:


> Just in case you all forgot what this awesome pic looked like from 8 pages ago….
> 
> 
> DHACKER, I would be honored to have this image emailed to be just to save it on my PC. I will show it to all my good friends that are not members of AT. I think its one of the coolest photos taken.


+1 would love to have it also


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

Oh, blah blah...let the professional do her work and stop blovating. You seem to be very good at bashing people with personal attacks whom disagree with you. I mean HOW DARE I question a picture posted on the internet..cause we all know the internet is as truthful as the bible.. And if it isn't real? darn! LMAO! So went to all that trouble to explain to me how you are soo right ..then you question yourself at the end...thats a gooder there!

The arrow went was a complete pass through and land behind the deer in the ground..stated in the email sent to cuddeback. Thats the truth as its written.

So again its not a opinion but a legit question knowing that piece of info does this now look like and appear that the buck was shot in mid air?







ELKhuntR said:


> You don't get it to you Browning!!!
> 
> Go get a dang photography book and start reading if you want take up such an interest in photo effects. our best runners jump of the starting line at I believe around 1/100 of a second. That deer is moving at least 10 times faster than our fastest human being, putting the deer moving at least 1/1000 of a second. to capture motion with photography, starts at 1/60, however that's for something moving slow. For basketball and sports, football, baseball, etc. you need a shutter speed of at least 1/125 of a second and preferably around 1/500 and higher, of course by opening up your aperture, you lose depth of field however are able to use a faster shutter speed. So, let's say ideally, to shoot a moving deer, I'm going to set my camera to 1/2000 of a second and have my shutter open to 5.6. Now, I'm not sure what the cuddeback's shutter is but I would imagine it's slower than that. So, if the shutter is slower than what is needed to freeze a deer's motion, you're going to have blurry and ghost like effects in areas where the deer moved super quick. Also, the reason the deer is so tick tack sharp yet see through is because the camera popped a flash at the end of the shutter. the shadow below the belly signifies that a flash was used. And the placement of the shadow and view of the image shows that the deer was fairly close to the camera and that the camera was placed low. Wide angle view from below. that's why the deer appears to be skying
> 
> ...


----------



## BTROCKS (Jan 24, 2008)

*86 yds!*

Is it to early to say that this thread may go the distance?:zip:


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

gecl said:


> Browning Yukon,
> Even though we may be on different sides of the fence on this pic, I do applaud you for taking the initiative to get this settled.
> Although I'm not convinced that the folks at Stinky Journalism are, by themselves, really qualified in the technicalities of this pic, hopefully they will see fit to consult people who can help. If you haven't already, I would hope you provide them with a link to this thread. It may show them the issues that need to be addressed to make an informed decision.
> 
> Interesting thread for sure.



Why are they not qualified? This type of the stuff is what they do for a living. Look at their webisite. 

I have provided them with everything. This picture a picture that was of this buck that was a week prior. A pic of the kid with the deer in the pickup..link to this thread. The original cuddeback photo, also have 3 professional taxidermists that are going to way in with their opinion. and a grapic art professional. And from what I understand Rhonda at Stinky Jorualism real or fake is doing a ESPN outdoor special I beleive already booked.

She as good as they come!:wink:

Also for those concerned that I'm doing all this for nothing but personal gain of some sort: From Rhonda


> They will be credited in ESPN for the research and photo, of course. Mom will be proud!


----------



## poole (Jan 10, 2008)

elkman said:


> not this again! :sad:
> Don't want to seem like a know it all, but, i have been shooting video professionally for 28 years, and still photography for 30 years.
> 
> I have been using ps since '96. And other video and still computer programs since '85.
> ...


+1


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

If there is someone who would like to provide Rhonda at Stinky Journalism with a before gut picture of either a buck or doe laid on the ground in the same or there abouts position as the buck in this thread would be greatly appreciated.

The person whom provides that picture will also be credited on ESPN in her research piece. She going to do her own picture like this of the buck doing a compare/contrast.....know matter if the picture comes to be real after software analysis she is wanting to do her own picture.


----------



## z28melissa (Feb 8, 2007)

Hey Browning, guess what? The picture is real. Professional hunters, professional photographers and professional graphic designers have ALREADY verified this right here for YOU. I'm not sure who you are trying to convince :noidea:


----------



## Whaack (Apr 2, 2006)

Elkman said:


> Not this again! :sad:
> Don't want to seem like a know it all, But, I have been shooting video professionally for 28 years, and Still photography for 30 years.
> 
> I have been using PS since '96. and other video and still computer programs since '85.
> ...



Right on there Elkman. The link you gave is another EXCELLENT example of people who think they know SO much about PS and yet that picture was proven to be real. 

Some people just can't accept that cool things happen in real life.


----------



## Elkman (Aug 27, 2004)

How much gear do you want me to analyze this picture with? :wink:
By the way, these are from my jobs.


----------



## Southpaw38 (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm with this dude.


----------



## NM_HighPlains (Nov 25, 2005)

JAMBF750 said:


> JDHACKER, I would be honored to have this image emailed to be just to save it on my PC.


All you have to do is click on the picture, then right click, and select Save Image As... That's Firefox. IE will be very similar.


----------



## ELKhuntR (Feb 5, 2006)

personal attacks?? uhh don't think so. I just said to get a book and learn about photography if you have such an interest. Does that sound like a personal attack. And I never come on here to bash people. It's archers helping archers, a motto I stick to and preach!

The negativity on AT makes me sick. Plain and simple and that's why I jump in when I do. To take such a great memory and experience and twist it with conspiracy theories by people who don't even know what the shutter button is, aperture, depth of field, flash sync, white balance, f-stops are, seems sad.

I shouldn't even get into this but since you're throwing out that this is beeing looked at by a professional, well I am a professional also as well as a couple others here.

I have a bachelors degree in photojournalism and a minor in photography and also only a couple credits short of a minor in multi-media design. I've worked for 4 newspapers, three large monthly magazines and won two state photography awards for journalism. I've been doing photography for more than half my life and half worked almost 7 years as an editor. Also have been working in photoshop since 1996. 

Again, WHAT AN AWESOME PHOTO!




BrowningYukon said:


> Oh, blah blah...let the professional do her work and stop blovating. You seem to be very good at bashing people with personal attacks whom disagree with you. I mean HOW DARE I question a picture posted on the internet..cause we all know the internet is as truthful as the bible.. And if it isn't real? darn! LMAO! So went to all that trouble to explain to me how you are soo right ..then you question yourself at the end...thats a gooder there!
> 
> The arrow went was a complete pass through and land behind the deer in the ground..stated in the email sent to cuddeback. Thats the truth as its written.
> 
> So again its not a opinion but a legit question knowing that piece of info does this now look like and appear that the buck was shot in mid air?


----------



## Smada962 (Dec 25, 2007)

WhitetailChaser said:


> There are so many people on this forum that need to either a.) get a life or b.) learn how to kill a deer themselves so they aren't so jealous when something cool happens for a fellow hunter (and a young one at that).


wow, so off point. This is one of the most obvious fakes I have EVER SEEN. This is the internet, AT is not immune to people playing a little joke. Anyone who know how to photoshop a picture can tell this is certainly FAKE.


----------



## NY911 (Dec 12, 2004)

Smada962 said:


> wow, so off point. *This is one of the most obvious fakes I have EVER SEEN*. This is the internet, AT is not immune to people playing a little joke. *Anyone who know how to photoshop a picture can tell this is certainly FAKE*.



It has already been WELL established that the overall consensus is the pic is legit. Even experts in PS have said IF it is a fake, it is the best they have seen...but they do not think it is a fake. :wink:


----------



## GCOD (Nov 24, 2006)

Congrats on a nice buck and picture


----------



## Elkman (Aug 27, 2004)

Quick question....
How many of you, ^, have been to Istanbul?
How do you know it's real if all you have seen is pictures? :wink:


----------



## twogun (Nov 25, 2003)

I quit reading four pages in.

How do you think a person could photo shop a picture so that the only places the deer is transparent line up exactly with skylight through the trees.

That's why the arrow isn't transparant. That's why the other deer isn't transparent.

Great picture!!!!


----------



## ELKhuntR (Feb 5, 2006)

Last post! Here is an image with transparency effects that were all done in the camera. No photoshop effects whatsoever. notice the skyline and transparency and as it gets darker/detailed in my face and body.

Taken on some mountains/buttes on the Great Salt Lake


----------



## pointysticks (Nov 24, 2006)

i love how the pro photo guys showed up. 

i just had to revisit to look at the picture again. simply awesome!
i understand how a camera works. i have a BFA in photojournalism, and a stash of oldschool cameras that can make that shot. i dont know squat about a cuddleback. for me the see thru deer makes the image. it makes me realize just how "lucky" that image is. all the stars aligned to capture that image.

awesome


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

ELKhuntR said:


> Last post! Here is an image with transparency effects that were all done in the camera. No photoshop effects whatsoever. notice the skyline and transparency and as it gets darker/detailed in my face and body.
> 
> Taken on some mountains/buttes on the Great Salt Lake


You need a coozy on that refreshing, carbonated beverage.


----------



## JAMBF750 (Jan 7, 2008)

NM_HighPlains said:


> All you have to do is click on the picture, then right click, and select Save Image As... That's Firefox. IE will be very similar.


OK...guess I deserved that response, but I already knew how to do that. But I did get emailed a much higher res photo...that is pure AWESOME!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Whitefeather (Jul 27, 2003)

ELKhuntR said:


> Last post! Here is an image with transparency effects that were all done in the camera. No photoshop effects whatsoever. notice the skyline and transparency and as it gets darker/detailed in my face and body.
> 
> Taken on some mountains/buttes on the Great Salt Lake



Obviously photoshopped!:tongue: j/k

Don't you think if someone would have taken the time to photoshop that picture, they'd take the extra two and a half minutes to fix the bleeding sky on the deer's back?:frusty:


----------



## CLB (Oct 2, 2004)

Once in life time shot. I can't wait until the non-believers are proved wrong. I will bet most of them won't be back once the truth is found out. There have been so many guys explain what happened with the flash and posted examples yet the non-believers still won't admit it is real.


----------



## Whaack (Apr 2, 2006)

Elkman said:


> How much gear do you want me to analyze this picture with? :wink:
> By the way, these are from my jobs.





CLB said:


> Once in life time shot. I can't wait until the non-believers are proved wrong. I will bet most of them won't be back once the truth is found out. There have been so many guys explain what happened with the flash and posted examples yet the non-believers still won't admit it is real.


When Pro's like this comment on the photo and say it's real then I would hope most people would realize this is a closed case.

Cool photo's Elkman!


----------



## Elkman (Aug 27, 2004)

*My take.*












So we all know the transparency is from the pre flash with the shutter open, where the brighter part of the sky was exposed to the sensor prior to the deer's arrival into that part of the frame, then the flash exposed the deer over that part of the frame.

The shadows on the tree, (orange arrow) are from the deer's body casting the shadow from the flash which is above the lens on the camera, figure the angle, (remember from school :wink and this makes perfect sense.

The blood droplets are a dead give away as there are ROUND, not splashes from hitting the animal, if they had they would look like a splash pattern, Ever watch CSI? there all over and under the deer in the AIR, you can see them better here as I pushed the RED channel in PS so the would show up better.

Another good example is the cornea of the deer, if he was dead it would not have reflected this well from a flash after it was dead. (sorry, see earlier picture, it's not in this image)

The Tail. It's the fastest thing on this deer, that's why there is a slight motion blur to it.

As I said before, I see NOTHING that would constitute this being a fake.

I could probably find more positive things to say, but I have to help my boy do his homework.

As for the pass through comment, I never saw it. I brought it up when as was asked to review the original image.
The arrow did hit the far side and the blood on the far leg is evident of that happening.

What I believe happened was that once the deer hit the ground, and made a move to flight, it came out based at the angle the arrow went in in relationship to the front right leg and rear left shoulder.

My elk shot at a broad side cow a few years ago at 7 yards did the same thing.

Not sure what he really saw with the adrenaline pumping and the darkening woods, plus, he was looking in the direction of the flash when it went off.
And we all know what that can do to one's vision.

Look, there will be naysayers in EVERYTHING in life.
I believe this picture for what it is, a real lucky shot and something to pass down for years to come be it in the family or around the camp fire.

I always liked this analogy....
Atheist say there is no God... 
Believers say there is a God...

If the believer is wrong, no big deal, right?
But if the Atheist is wrong.........

Don't know if that really works here, but I still like it. :wink:

Have a nice day everyone! :darkbeer:


----------



## bow duke ny (Oct 15, 2006)

Great Pic///////////////////////////////:darkbeer:


----------



## jason060788 (Jul 14, 2006)

I guess Cuddeback wasn't lying about the fast trigger speed. :wink:

Pic of the Century there!!!!!


----------



## Doubleshot75 (Jan 31, 2007)

ELKhuntR said:


> Last post! Here is an image with transparency effects that were all done in the camera. No photoshop effects whatsoever. notice the skyline and transparency and as it gets darker/detailed in my face and body.
> 
> Taken on some mountains/buttes on the Great Salt Lake



Well, since the "Busch" isn't transparent......... then it's definetely REAL! As for your head, you gotta win that argument!:tongue:


----------



## sirrobinhood (Jun 15, 2005)

BrowningYukon said:


> If there is someone who would like to provide Rhonda at Stinky Journalism with a before gut picture of either a buck or doe laid on the ground in the same or there abouts position as the buck in this thread would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> The person whom provides that picture will also be credited on ESPN in her research piece. She going to do her own picture like this of the buck doing a compare/contrast.....know matter if the picture comes to be real after software analysis she is wanting to do her own picture.


Hey Browning,
I got to give you credit for coming on here and fighting everyone over your opinion of this photo. 
It will be interesting what becomes of it.


----------



## 22lyons (Jul 30, 2007)

Elkman said:


> So we all know the transparency is from the pre flash with the shutter open, where the brighter part of the sky was exposed to the sensor prior to the deer's arrival into that part of the frame, then the flash exposed the deer over that part of the frame.
> 
> The shadows on the tree, (orange arrow) are from the deer's body casting the shadow from the flash which is above the lens on the camera, figure the angle, (remember from school :wink and this makes perfect sense.
> 
> ...



I'm glad i have been a believer since post #1


----------



## fletchman (Mar 29, 2005)

BrowningYukon said:


> Well since there seems to be alot of bashing of the naysayers here including myself. I have taken it upon myself to have this photo looked at by a thrid party professional.
> 
> Stinky Journalism http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/the folks who broke open the photoshoped Alabama pig story that was shot by the kid using a pistol..is going to look into this photo as well. I have personally contacted them and talked with the lady in charge (Rhonda Roland Shearer) that is going to look into it by phone.
> 
> ...


See you in two weeks,

How do you like your crow?


----------



## 12-Ringer (Jan 3, 2008)

*Unbelievable*

That is UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!


----------



## greimer (Feb 13, 2007)

Just think if he didn't use a rage you would have had a pass through and you wouldn't have seen the arrow, you would only have seen a hole in the side of the deer...then no one would be talking about it.

Another reason to not use a rage...


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

BrowningYukon said:


> If there is someone who would like to provide Rhonda at Stinky Journalism with a before gut picture of either a buck or doe laid on the ground in the same or there abouts position as the buck in this thread would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> The person whom provides that picture will also be credited on ESPN in her research piece. She going to do her own picture like this of the buck doing a compare/contrast.....know matter if the picture comes to be real after software analysis she is wanting to do her own picture.


If I happen to plug a deer this week, I'll drag it onto the driveway, wash all the dirt & blood off, get the stepladder out so I can take a perfectly straight on picture of it, then figure out how to prop the legs up and position them so they are properly spaced and in a position so it looks like it is moving. 

Sorry, just busting your chops a bit.

Honestly, the pics most of us take would be of the deer laying in the bush somewhere, with who knows how much blood & dirt on it, from an angle of some sort. The likely hood of being able to take a perfectly straight on picture like this is pretty slim, and would require quit a bit of forethought and planning, or pure luck to have the deer die right below a tree stand. If she's looking to replicate this at all, the only way she is going to be able to make it look remotely real is going to require a picture specifically staged for this exact purpose. Even then, I'd bet money that a few of us will be able to pick it apart and show you the usual telltale signs of "photoshopping" and how to spot them.


----------



## Double S (Mar 30, 2008)

DUDE, SWEET! :wink:


----------



## Doc (Jun 10, 2003)

Even with the background flattened, it still doesn't look like a deer laying on the ground...:noidea:


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

fletchman said:


> See you in two weeks,
> 
> How do you like your crow?


Cooked over a non-photoshopped fire:tongue:


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

bersh said:


> If I happen to plug a deer this week, I'll drag it onto the driveway, wash all the dirt & blood off, get the stepladder out so I can take a perfectly straight on picture of it, then figure out how to prop the legs up and position them so they are properly spaced and in a position so it looks like it is moving.
> 
> Sorry, just busting your chops a bit.
> 
> Honestly, the pics most of us take would be of the deer laying in the bush somewhere, with who knows how much blood & dirt on it, from an angle of some sort. The likely hood of being able to take a perfectly straight on picture like this is pretty slim, and would require quit a bit of forethought and planning, or pure luck to have the deer die right below a tree stand. If she's looking to replicate this at all, the only way she is going to be able to make it look remotely real is going to require a picture specifically staged for this exact purpose. Even then, I'd bet money that a few of us will be able to pick it apart and show you the usual telltale signs of "photoshopping" and how to spot them.



Just passing along what she wants is all. I know I'm taking all the heat on this (even though I'm not the only one that believes it to be a fake) and really could care less. Like I have said in emails to the OP if its real then yeehaw if not well there we have it. Thats all I wanted to get out of this. Never the less, if its real or fake the 15 year old kid will get his 15 minutes of glory on ESPN Outdoors and in my opinion thats a perty big deal anyway yah cut it. Rhonda will treat this fair and all the credit will go to where the credit belongs..no matter the outcome.


----------



## Elkman (Aug 27, 2004)

...................


----------



## Elkman (Aug 27, 2004)

Seriously? You have to wait for a Internet rag equal to the National Enquire in journalistic ability to confirm or deny this photo?

Tell ya what naysayers, I need some new lenses for my D3.
I just dropped $10k on my new rig so I'm a little tight right now.
Anyone up for a small wager? :wink:...........Anyone?


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

Elkman said:


> Seriously? You have to wait for a Internet rag equal to the National Enquire in journalistic ability to confirm or deny this photo?
> 
> Tell ya what naysayers, I need some new lenses for my D3.
> I just dropped $10k on my new rig so I'm a little tight right now.
> Anyone up for a small wager? :wink:...........Anyone?



I thought you said you made your last post couple pages ago?

Well that "rag equal" is setup a deal with ESPN what can you do? Just asking to see if you have the equal game or just talking....


----------



## Elkman (Aug 27, 2004)

BrowningYukon said:


> I thought you said you made your last post couple pages ago?
> 
> Where did I say that? PLEASE show me where.
> 
> Well that "rag equal" is setup a deal with ESPN what can you do? Just asking to see if you have the equal game or just talking....


So your telling me and everyone else that since you contacted them they set something up involving THIS picture. 

1st, I have already shown pics of the gear I work with, in other words, my JOB.

Want a list of who I work with, read my resume, it's right there I'm my signature, be it a bit outdated. but ESPN and who I work with has Nothing to do with the validity of said image. even tho I have worked for ESPN in the past myself.

Them and a few studios in L.A. from Sony, FOX, Universal, WB, Dreamworks, The NFL. but then again all this has nothing to do with the fact that I and most others know it's not a fake.

But I digress, Sometimes it takes me awhile to realize who I am dealing with and it's like showing a flashlight to a deep woods tribe member from papa new Guinea. (nothing personal, just the analogy that popped into my head).

Hey, I had an uncle that thought the moon landing was faked, could have been, I wasn't there.

But when someone Say's this picture is a fake, I say it's not based on my years in digital work.

By the way, I worked a little studio in Seattle in the mid 80's the was the 1st fully digital editing facility in the world. Digital Post and Graphics. so again more information to base MY statements on.

NOW I'm done, unless you, or someone else has more questions or direct statement towards me.

Have a nice day. :darkbeer:


----------



## kingmt (Oct 15, 2008)

I see the mouth closed & was thinking that must hurt & wouldn't it nock the breath out of it. It's legs look limp & it is jumping 6' in the air. I also see blood on the other side by its legs indacating shoot through but if the arrow is still sticking this far out he must be using 48" arrows. Also if the deer is moveing fast making it transparent & the arrow if it would be a pass through would be moving faster & not transparent?


----------



## AmishArcher (Feb 6, 2008)

Elkman said:


> How much gear do you want me to analyze this picture with? :wink:
> By the way, these are from my jobs.


dude! you look like you could work for jack bauer at CTU!


----------



## DeerHunter85 (Dec 15, 2007)

*New broadheads*

Doc,

Just curious if you are going to market those new broadheads?? If so whats the name going to be and ship me three of them please!!!! Looks to be effective!!!!!!! :darkbeer:


----------



## SteveR (Sep 18, 2002)

From the moment I saw it, I thought it was real and when I looked at the photo at the pixel level, I was certain. After seeing all the other evidence people have presented, everything points to it being real. The thing that should convince everyone is the motion blur on the tail. If it's dead before the photo and laying on the ground, how the heck does the tail blur. And if the person was a photoshop expert who could accomplish a realistic blur, I still have a hard time believing they'd even think to do it.


----------



## ARCHERYSNOB (Feb 13, 2006)

Kirk-Thanks for the input. I learned alot from your posts here. Happy Fall-joe


----------



## BLHACK (Oct 14, 2008)

*Owners of Cuddeback photo*

​Owners of Cuddeback photo
Brian and Logan Hacker,

Thank you to Cousin Don Hacker for notifying us on Sunday afternoon October 12th, that Logan’s buck photo had been posted on line and where it originated we are not sure as we had just shared it with Cuddeback first off for them to declare rights to the picture if they so desired and secondly to a couple friends and family that were interested. 

We intentionally had kept the photo in somewhat of a limited exposure because of major reactions we were getting around our small town of Luck, Wisconsin until we could decide just what to do and who to notify of this non typical picture off of our Cuddeback Capture trail camera. 

Don Hacker had been waiting for us to e-mail him the photo as he had heard a lot about it from family. With Don’s involvement in different websites Don stumbled on it and sent it to us asking if this was Logan’s Cuddeback Deer Photo. Well, that is exactly how this got started on Sunday and with my wife and I holding down full time jobs and Logan very busy in school and High School Football practice and games last night was finally the night for us to finally clear up everyone’s negative and thank you to the positive replies to our once in a lifetime photo. After getting all registered and finally getting our personal story together we lost connection so we are attempting it again. We feel it is most important for all you hunters out there to realize this IS a real photo.

Logan is a very avid sports minded hunter that has spent countless hours preparing for the season by getting his stand ready, hunting gear and making time to enjoy the outdoors and wild life by being a very patient young hunter because of his love for just being in the woods with his friends or Grandpa to observe several 1 ½ yr. bucks that he had passed up due to herd management. He is always thinking beyond the moment and we are proud of him for that. 

With our busy schedule he does not get out to retrieve his chip in the camera as often as he would like but when he makes his quick trip out after school activities (when time permits) he has a complete night of viewing all kinds of deer and other wild life which keeps him up too late on school nights but it all paid off with the photo that he did capture and didn’t even realize it. 

So the story goes, Logan and his friend Brandon also of Luck ,Wisconsin went out 9/20/08 bow hunting as it was a beautiful evening. They enjoyed watching several deer before this 8 point buck came up from a watering hole, stopped put his head down and Logan let fire. It was about a 12 yard shot with the deer jumping straight up in the air and traveled approximately 50 yards before they heard him drop. They waited just a couple minutes before coming out of the tree stand to find his FIRST buck with his bow, how exciting for him. Logan and Brandon found the deer, field dressed and brought it home on the four wheeler. He called us as we had gone to a golf benefit to tell us that he had shot a buck and had gotten it home and was very excited. We went home to see as it was as exciting for us as parents as it was for him. The deer was registered and processed. The photos that we carried were that off our regular digital camera showing friends and family Logan and his first deer (buck) with his bow. Logan was pretty proud of that and brought his pictures to school. Then things got more interesting:
Not until the following Thursday September 25 was Logan able to get back out to his stand to retrieve his camera chip. He again brought his buddy Brandon out on the four wheeler just to check things out and get his chip for them to review and ooh and ahh over what had been coming in over the last few days. Logan brought the chip home, downloaded to the computer and then they began to review only to find this once in a lifetime photo that they had absolutely no idea had been captured on the trail camera. Who would ever believe that a person could capture such a clear, full view, detailed shot as this one???? What can a person say, this is truly a ONCE in a life time ordeal.
As one of his teacher stated, “You would have a better chance at winning the lottery than capturing a photo like this”. That was enough for our interest to peak so we contacted Eric at Cuddeback and he had us forward the picture for his review. After his review he stated that was truly exceptional and asked what model camera had taken this photo. We told him it was the Capture model. He was a bit disappointed to tell us that it was too graphic for them to post on their web site or for advertising purposes. He stated that they have to be very careful as to what they could actually publish because of Peta and so forth. He thanked us for forwarding the original photo and stated that he would keep it in a confidential file as they would not be able to use it because of us having the copyright to this photo. 

After that conversation, we weren’t sure as to what exactly what we were going to do with the photo as people were calling us and asking us at every school event if we had the picture on us as they just couldn’t stop looking at it because it was so unbelievable.

It was truly a experience of a lifetime for our 15 year old Son Logan Hacker of Luck Wisconsin and he would love to be able to share his story for anyone to hear as it again is a once in a lifetime ordeal. 

Hopefully this posting will help you understand just what happened the night of September 20th and don’t think it was not only a surprise to everyone else but for me as well. 

One last note, our family is not quite up to speed on much as far as computer experience so as far as this being photo shopped we wouldn’t have a clue!

Thank you for letting us give you the story from the horses mouth.

We value your feedback.

Brian and Logan Hacker
Luck, Wisconsin


----------



## BLHACK (Oct 14, 2008)

With my previous post I was just trying to maybe clear up the story a bit for those of you non-believers. I think the Elkman was very appreciative to take his time for running this picture through his equipment. I’ll tell that he is 100% correct with saying that this picture is legit. I hope I can Elkman will read this because the work he has done was worth it, and anyone else that has explained why this picture is true. 

P.S For all you that think it is fake, I wouldn’t recommend betting with Elkman, but if you are willing to bet, I am right there with Elkman on any wagers. For I am the one that knows this picture is 100% TRUE


----------



## EASTON94 (Jan 25, 2003)

Thank you for taking the time BLHACK, I for one believe you 110%!!! Congratulations to Logan on a great hunt, a great buck and a truely amazing photo!!! '94


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

Elkman said:


> So your telling me and everyone else that since you contacted them they set something up involving THIS picture.
> 
> 1st, I have already shown pics of the gear I work with, in other words, my JOB.
> 
> ...


Yep, all I did was send them a email and not but 5 minutes later Rhonda phoned me. Next day she had ESPN outdoors willing to do something. True!

I like the fact your great in self promotion in all but you didn't answer my question. You seem to find it in your best interest to cut Rhonda down and her Job and then take little cheap shots at myself in the process. All I asked was if you could do something better than ESPN or are you just talking...Well after many lines of your blovating the answer is ......just talking!

I'm sure your all gitty that you are the first to verifiy the picture and congrats to you! Then it shouldn't bother you one bit to have a 3rd party outside Archery Talk confirm your finding. 

Yeah I'm done with yah always were until you decided to take shots.


----------



## Elkman (Aug 27, 2004)

BrowningYukon said:


> Yep, all I did was send them a email and not but 5 minutes later Rhonda phoned me. Next day she had ESPN outdoors willing to do something. True!
> 
> Cool!
> 
> ...


Oh and since your asking, I will again also.

Originally Posted by BrowningYukon 
I thought you said you made your last post couple pages ago?

Where did I say that? PLEASE show me where.


Look, This really isn't the best use of our time. I love my job, my family and hunting.

I come on this site when I have the time to say hey and look around and catch up with some of my friends from around the country that have similar interest.

Most of my day's at home are spent raising my 6 year old son who has Leukemia and my 11 year old step daughter who is autistic.

Life is to short to get all hopped up over a picture on the Internet.
But where alike in our opinions and our strong Will's to voice them.

I said what I know and my convictions compelled me to defend this family and there fantastic picture.

I don't think I can say anything else that will make you happy or help you understand my convictions that I haven't said already.

You don't have to feel compelled to answer my earlier questions, it was more cathartic for me then anything.

Have a nice day. :darkbeer:


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

Ok...not sure where to go with all that. I'll just start with and end with what pertains to this thread.

As for Rhonda yah you did cheap shot her and compared her to nothing more than the National Enquire in journalistic ability. Making that comparsion after you admit to only a "quick look" at her website.

As for cheaps shots to me.."Sometimes it takes me awhile to realize who I am dealing with and it's like showing a flashlight to a deep woods tribe member from papa new Guinea. (nothing personal, just the analogy that popped into my head)."...yeah right



> I told and showed you what I can do, and I did.
> What did you expect a sport network to do that I didn't do? Run it on sports center? because then it would be true? because we all know, if it's on Television, it must be true.


You asked "You have to wait for a Internet rag equal to the National Enquire in journalistic ability to confirm or deny this photo"

Again all I asked was can you do better than what Rhonda can. Cause basically you were down playing her ability like you are the only one that has it here. Thats fine! Your call! But don't get all uptight when someone is asking a simple question. You seem to be proud of your "jobs" and I'm happy for yah, ok!

All I was trying to do from the very start was to verifiy the picture. In my book, if true, its one thee greatest pics I have ever seen. For the reason I question it, nothing more. Like you said if it runs on TV it must be true? Everyone seems to believe if its posted on the internet it must be true...I don't take anything either posted on the internet or the TV as being true if its out there beyond belief. Kinda where this picture was in my view from looking at it. For why I emailed Rhonda in the first place.

Sorry that I ruffled your feathers but I'm not questioning your ability at anything. Just taking issue of why you seem its ok to down play Rhonda and her ability and other members. She is doing this for the good of the 15 year old. He is going to get his 15 minutes of fame as he should get for a great picture either way. Congrats to him!

At the sametime...I won't and didn't ask nor want anything further from it. As I emailed Don Hacker and told him that very thing. I just made the connection that happened to be a fluke deal with the ESPN thing, kinda suprised myself on that one. Never the less Its not about me its about the picture and who owns it..PERIOD!


----------



## IBBW (Mar 29, 2005)

*Ha!!*

:hungry: How many for pie?

No faith in your fellow man anymore. What a shame. There are still some good people out there.

:thumbs_up To the Hacker family.


----------



## Big_tojo (Aug 18, 2007)

WoW!!! That is Crazy!!!!


----------



## ArchersParadox (May 12, 2005)

I am SURPRISED no one has caught this:

see green circle...that is WAY too COOL...nice pic,


----------



## z28melissa (Feb 8, 2007)

ibbw said:


> :hungry: How many for pie?
> 
> No faith in your fellow man anymore. What a shame. There are still some good people out there.
> 
> :thumbs_up to the hacker family.


+1


----------



## B&C Bones (Jan 15, 2007)

unbelievable


----------



## bersh (Dec 27, 2006)

Elkman said:


> Oh and since your asking, I will again also.
> 
> Originally Posted by BrowningYukon
> I thought you said you made your last post couple pages ago?
> ...


Kirk,

Good luck with everything - sounds like you have your hands full and more than enough stuff to worry about in your life. My thoughts and prayers go out to your family. Not that I am in a position to preach at all, but I will say I've known a few families that have had young children with Leukemia. I graduated high school with one of the kids and he is still doing fine at 40. Another is married and expecting their first child (they were able to collect sperm before he went in for chemo). The third is in her mid 30s. It was a rough go for them and their families for a couple years, but they are all doing fine now.

Back to this thread. It's obvious that BY doesn't seem to get it. Any sort of disagreement with his opinion is viewed by him as a personal attack. The irony is that he doesn't seem to understand that without expressly saying it, he has accused the OP and his cousin of lying and fraud, and he has told a number of us that work in this field and do this for a living that we are incompetent - for some reason those aren't considered to be attacks. He has nothing to base his case on other than an uninformed opinion, whereas we have shown and cited a number of actual examples of why we feel it is real, based on both extensive personal and professional experience.

In any event, good luck with everything. Hopefully this post will deflect any more flack towards you and will allow you to worry about the more important things in life.


----------



## fletchman (Mar 29, 2005)

?


----------



## fletchman (Mar 29, 2005)

Browning,

You owe us,

Dont make the crow burn.

Tell all of us what a dumb***** you're

You can dooooo itttttttt


----------



## BrowningYukon (Jan 9, 2007)

bersh said:


> Back to this thread. It's obvious that BY doesn't seem to get it. Any sort of disagreement with his opinion is viewed by him as a personal attack. The irony is that he doesn't seem to understand that without expressly saying it, he has accused the OP and his cousin of* lying and fraud, *and he has told a number of us that work in this field and do this for a living that we are incompetent - for some reason those aren't considered to be attacks. He has nothing to base his case on other than an uninformed opinion, whereas we have shown and cited a number of actual examples of why we feel it is real, based on both extensive personal and professional experience.
> 
> In any event, good luck with everything. Hopefully this post will deflect any more flack towards you and will allow you to worry about the more important things in life.


Are you talking about the same guy that made the connection to get this picture and story published? Sounds like I'm really going after these people

Man of all the stuff slung on this thread what a low blow..First I'm not the only one on here thats a "naysayer"...second thats about the craziest thing to accuse someone of. Never the less, you are entitled to your opinion just as I am. To bad you not open to allowing others express theirs without getting bashed for it.


----------



## fletchman (Mar 29, 2005)

Do I have to name names?

I want all of you non-believers to step forward and admit you were wrong.

And tell the 15 year old boy congrats.

Kay?


Otherwise? Im your worst nightmare, and I have list.


----------



## slowen (Jun 27, 2006)

*It is REAL!*

The photo is real.
The photo is special.
Logan Hacker is to be congratulated for his first buck and a once in million lifetime photo that will forever remind him of his first buck.

Now let's all get over it and continue rebuilding our 401 K's so the next president can set us back a few years.

Slowen


----------



## fletchman (Mar 29, 2005)

BrowningYukon said:


> Are you talking about the same guy that made the connection to get this picture and story published? Sounds like I'm really going after these people
> 
> Man of all the stuff slung on this thread what a low blow..First I'm not the only one on here thats a "naysayer"...second thats about the craziest thing to accuse someone of. Never the less, you are entitled to your opinion just as I am. To bad you not open to allowing others express theirs without getting bashed for it.



Dude? You are the man that was negative?


Have you killed any deer?

I have killed many that have jumped higher than that one.

When you come to this table, you better to have something to say.


----------



## bowhuntrrl (Oct 9, 2004)

Buksknr53 said:


> I showed the picture to my brother who has been a proffesional photographer for many years. He is a master at what he does. He too feels that this pictute is photoshopped! He said that the edges are way too sharp. He also told me that regardless of the shutter speed of the camera, there would be a motion blur. He also said that the transparency makes no sense at all. After talking to him, I now understand why Cuddeback would not touch this picture with a 10 ft. pole!



Gee, than how do you explain the transparency in the picture above your negative post??? Just because he's a so called "photographer" doesn't mean that he knows anything about trail cams. 

I too have seen this phenomenon with trail cam pics. Instead of criticizing the guy, why don't you spend some time on some trail cam forums and maybe learn before you speak !!!


----------



## Pa. Patriot (Oct 8, 2007)

Wow!
*Once in a lifetime pic. Tell your cousin congrats.*

To the nay-sayers:
Looks real to me.. The "transparent" deer is because the flash duration is not as long as the shutter speed.
Common phenomenon any pro or serious amateur photo geek would know  Actually, it's downright elementary.


----------

