Great White Shark Stalks Kayak

[125gJoe]

Here are 2 pics of it, the second one has "Quick Fix" editing applied.

http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL932/715239/9731223/141539293.jpg

http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL932/715239/9731223/141539291.jpg

There's a website that swears the photo is real and not edited, but right in the middle you can see a "seam" in the photo... Looks like editing to me..


_______________

[sumthin fishy]

Joe, it was scanned into the computer from a magazine, thats just the seam of the pages. :)

[RockabillyChick]

it could have been scanned out of a magazine with half of the picture on two different pages.

[Dangerdoll]

it's totally edited! it doesn't even match up.... AND the front of the "shark" has white markings on it, looking a bit like a young orca.... however the tail looks sharkish. There's too many questionable items in this pic...

[sumthin fishy]

Doll, deffinatly a shark by the orientation of the fins, and the tail is obviously shark shapped (longer on top, seemingly making a sweep from left to right in relation to the dorsal) white spot is just a reflection on a wave. It deffinatly lines up if we assume it was out of a mag. :)

[Dangerdoll]

eh, I'm still skeptical

[RockabillyChick]

that is definately a great white shark DD, not an orca. all aquatic mammals have a horizontal tail. all fish have vertical tails. that one is defintaly vertical. also, great whites are gray/black on top and white on the bottom. this is ts that they blend in. water from above looks very dark, and so anything viewing the shark from above would see the dark back and it would blend into the dark water. water from below looking up looks very light, so the white belly of the shark would blend in with the lighter water. that's why almost every aquatic creature is colored in such a way. dark backs, pale bellies

[125gJoe]

eh, I'm still skepticalMe too!

After cropping the background, zooming in and getting rid of some pixel 'noise', I found the hill in the background to abruptly disappear at the seam. Even with a magazine fold, shouldn't the hill show up just a little bit?

And, the color of the sky is way off...


http://pic18.picturetrail.com/VOL932/715239/9731223/141549152.jpg

The color differences make the photo look like a fake.
But the water "reflections" seem to match.
__________________

[sumthin fishy]

The hill IS there joe! It drops off suddenly but you can still see the light reflection along the top of the ridge. Being at a slight angle when scanned, of course the colors will be off from one page to the next.

[Penfan66]

It appears to be real. It is actually from a National Geographic magazine article. Read this....

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/sharkkayak.asp

[sumthin fishy]

LOL! i was just being silly trying to make people believe. I didn't know if it was real or not :D

[RockabillyChick]

magazines tend to not flatten very well. they have a very stiff spine that wants to hold the pages closed. even pressing it very hard onto a scanner, it would be very hard to get the part of the picture that is shoved down into the center crease. you can lose up to an inch of the center of the picture down in the spine. they also probably scanned each half sepperately and stuck them together. doing so can cause a huge ammount of difference in color, the angle may have been slightly off, etc.

[reiverix]

If the kayak is 3.8m and the great white is 4m, things don't seem to match up.

[125gJoe]

.. they also probably scanned each half sepperately and stuck them together. doing so can cause a huge ammount of difference in color, ... ....Ok -- makes sense. The color difference became very noticeable when zooming in and cropping.

Oh, if anyone needs a nice, free, digital noise reducer, its called "Noiseware Community Edition."

Link: http://www.imagenomic.com/


_____________

[RockabillyChick]

If the kayak is 3.8m and the great white is 4m, things don't seem to match up.


think angle and proximity to the camera. the shark is much closer to the camera and has more of its profile turned towards the camera. the kayak is farther away and turned more perpendicular.

[reiverix]

Even so, it seems that the shark is less than its body length from the kayak. Of course it doesn't prove anything except that the shark is larger than 4m.

[Dangerdoll]

well, even though I still question it, not sure why, just an inkling... here's a better photo
http://graphics1.snopes.com/photos/animals/graphics/sharkkayak.jpg

[Holly9937]

would a shark attack, or should I say "taste" a kayak though? would the boater be at risk?

[125gJoe]

well, even though I still question it, not sure why, just an inkling... here's a better photo
On that photo, the seam is still there, but someone touched it up and "smoothed out" - got rid of digital 'noise', on each side of the seam. The karak wake is a little different with the 'smoothing' out of the middle on the photo.

I don't know, but like it was said, the sizes don't seem right either. A "0.2 meter" difference is not that much, and the photo shows a large difference.

If Snopes is right, that could make this photographer the most sadistic person on the planet! Forget the camera, save the person in the kayak. Was the photographer in a helicopter? Shorebound?


_____________

[Dangerdoll]

I agree Joe.... I can't shake this "fake" feeling still...

the pic is gone, I guess snopes doesn't like hyperlinking... at any rate, you guys can find it in Snopes....