[ChrisTP]

Pete and Stack, you already agreed it's possible and agreed the images most likely aren't edited but now you're mostly disagreeing with semantics. It's a pointless and antiproductive debate to be honest.

Were the images edited? Probably not. Can they be edited without a trace? Yes. With ease and via off the shelf tools? A grey area are best. When it starts getting to the point of writing your own scripts or using random scripts from the internet I'd say that's not for the average amateur photographer and not exactly "off the shelf".

The fact that it was even debatable between you two makes it a grey area that can be claimed both ways. I think the website claiming it cannot have been done with off the shelf tools probably referring to exactly this. If it were edited with "off the shelf tools" it would be Tracable and effort to do any other way.


Who knows though maybe the guy who wrote it tried for 5 minutes and concluded it couldn't be done that way without a trace and assumed that people knew what he meant by it.

Either way does it matter? I don't think it shows as desperate.

[Pete Svarrior]

It matters immensely. When your "source" is known to be peppered with (if we're generous) extremely sloppy mistakes, and the specific article is shown to be no different, then we should stop insulting each other with said source.