Yeah, I’m suspicious about this. I’m no expert in Photoshop image analysis, but generally fakes are uncovered by aspects of the image itself—repeated background, odd shadows.
For someone to rely on the Photosho STAMP without any evidence from the photo itself is ridiculous. I’ve worked in desktop publishing for over 15 years. Whenever I get a scan or a photograph I want to put in the mag what do I do? Scan it into Photoshop. The mere fact that someone used the program means absolutely nothing. It is useful for all kinds of harmless corrections like improving contrast, cropping, etc.
Antoninus, I hate to waste your time with this...but I’m pinging anyway.
This could well be a plant. What’s the deal with this website? Who owns it?
Either that or it’s just somebody who is a little overeager to uncover their own scandal.
In addition, scanning an image that has been printed produces different results than scanning an original continuous tone photo because the printed image has been screened (converted to a dot pattern) in preparation for printing.
Before the scanned image of a previously printed photo can be used, the dot pattern has to be dealt with and that would most likely be done in Photoshop. The exception would be if a printed image were significantly reduced in which case the dot pattern would pretty much disappear.