I found
this photo over at
J-Walk Blog. J-Walk can't tell if it's real or fake, and the people who have posted comments over there seem split also. I think the image itself has to be real, in the sense of not being digitally manipulated... simply because the image quality is too high. Typically photoshopped images tend to be low-quality, to hide any mistakes. One person claimed that the guy falling off his bike is actually a statue, which could be, though I haven't been able to find any verification of this. If it is a photo of a statue, that would put it in the same genre as the
Splat photo (i.e. photos of life-like, bizarre statues). I'm not sure where the image is taken. Is that the Vienna Opera House?
Comments
So if it is a statue, it is not one which has a long history : you see nothing at the bottom of the pole in the one given above.
But in my opinion, there are some problems with the statue hypothesis : it looks quite instable (only two close points of contact with the ground), and you can see some logos written on the objects - something uncommon with statues, moreover when the "product" is displayed in an accident !
On the other hand, do you notice the person in green shirt behind the "statue" ? It looks like he's looking at something happening towards the photographer. Well, he may be puzzled by the statue, but also by a real event...
Also, I can't figure out exactly what would cause the bike rider to fall off the bike over the handlbars. There's a bike lane in the frame but it's a few feet from the pole. Maybe he ran into the pole but it seems he would fall at a different angle.
I would guess that it's real but a staged stunt.
I have also just look at a 400% zoom of this image, if it is photoshopped, it is even more incredible ! 😊
Finally, let us remind that, looking at the position of the guy, he may be falling "slowly" : ie : one second after he brakes in front of the pole, the bike is almost vertical, and the guy is just trying to control everything instead of letting his bike fall alone. So it also gives some time for the photographer to actually take the picture without being so "lucky"...
I absolutely disagree - I just got back from a 3 week trip and trying to get a shot with a)my BF/me/cute animal/etc, b)a famous building and c)an absurd billboard all in the same picture would be exactly the thing we'd do.
Come on - Lexus sponsoring G̦tterd
There isn't any EXIF file information. That would have made it too easy to identify.
1. I have had the experience of turning a corner and seeing a cyclist at the peak of an accident, where she had applied the front brakes too suddenly and the bike was effectively overturned, and she along with it. As a consequence, I turned the corner to see a cyclist almost udside down and motionless in the middle of a road, with no evidence as to why or hjow it had happened, and making me think she was some sort of performance artist or something for the brief moment she was "stuck" in that pose. It was very odd and had I taken a photo of it, no-one would have believed it was real. This makes me think the pic is real.
2. The shadows seem wrong, despite other comments claiming they are fine - the telephone pole's shadow seems to cut off suddenly at the road and I cannot figure out where the cyclist's shadow falls (the bike's is there, and I know most of the cyclist's shadow is hidden by the pole itself, but surely there should be more visible?).
3. Images that have been doctored successfully are not always low-quality or blurry - I work in publishing and we photoshop images all the time. They are always high resolution and you could not tell they were photoshopped unless someone told you. In fact, I would argue that most of the images you see in print today have been manipulated, so arguing that the "image quality is too high" doesn't make any sense - it may be a case of the manipulator being very good.