Photo #1 is pretty good, especially if it’s actually antique. As far as the people, the barn and the vegetables, perspective is not off much, shadow and highlight do not disagree much, I’d give it an A.
Photo #2 is hilarious. Everything that can be wrong in a manipulated image is present here. If it weren’t so funny, I’d give it an F.
Photo #3 actually is two men carrying a giant shoe, in my opinion. Where viewers no doubt go wrong is in the assumptions made as a result of the image. I know cobblers and shoe repair shops used giant shoes to advertise their services in the past, so I’d assume that’s what we’re looking at in the photo. Awfully light, though. Papier maché maybe.
Photo #4 isn’t as funny as the giant locust in a duel with a man, and it’s not been cobbled together quite so badly. The main problem is that the “wake” of the fish is unrealistic, and not on the same plane as the rest of the water. So, I’d give it a D-.
I have a book on details to look for in photo photography. It references techniques used by the CIA and national security to determine false images circulated by the Soviets and others.
I cannot find this book on Google though because of all of the tinfoil literature attacking the CIA for faking photos.
Meanwhile Al Reuters engages in such trickery commonplace (as does the LA Times, National Geographic, and other “respected” media outlets).
I’d tell you the title of the book if I could look it up at this time...