To think this kid has been photoshopped

[Flymetothetoon]

Onto the photo to give the appearance that the dog is not on a puppy farm?
Other photo on the add shows the dog with puppies in a barn style setting with a heat lamp.

It looks out of proportion to me unless it's the camera angle. If that child stood up she'd be nearly as tall as what I assume is a fully grown man, yet she appears to be quite a young toddler.

Everyone go to their phone photos. Hold on a picture... Personal /screenshot pic whatever. Hold now on the picture..
It will Google itself to see where else it appears. Fb /sm /a Googled screenshot etc.
That picture appears only on ops thread.
It wasn't ever a complete legit photo. Does not even link on the p4h advert as a legit picture.

Puppy farm. Photo m gives me the creeps- his shoes, dirty hands and trousers, tight lead, unhealthy looking dog, patch of AstroTurf etc.

@Windyatthebeach are you trying to say I manufactured this photo myself for the shits and giggles? It is on Pets4Homes ffs!
Look at my other posts if you really must I've been on this site over 15 years (current name a few months)

Not at all!! The advertiser not you op!!

Been with you all the way and have been looking myself to catch them out via other ads.
I have a list of past reports to p4h and they are pretty speedy with replies and taking ads down!

Sorry @Windyatthebeach .
Wrong end of stick 👍

phew!!

Bloody hell, the Daily Mail picked this up.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8379853/Woman-accuses-seller-Photoshopping-child-advert.html

[quote CrocodilesCry]Bloody hell, the Daily Mail picked this up.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8379853/Woman-accuses-seller-Photoshopping-child-advert.html[/quote]
🤣

Omg I can’t believe that constitutes an article!

I’m just still irked by the fact so many people think it’s photoshopped when everyone who posted saying they actually do photoshop work knows it totally isn’t (and it doesn’t make any logical sense for the seller to have such great photoshop skills going to the effort of including the child but leaving everything else about the picture completely repellent

Using a fast and dirty analysis it does show evidence of image manipulation in 3 different areas.
29a.ch/photo-forensics/#forensic-magnifier

there is a straight line through the brickwork that doesn't match.
the tail doesn't match along its length.
the levels (albedo) on the child are completely different from the rest of the image.

If it was the link posted above, it has gone now

I wouldn't buy a puppy from that grubby individual.

If you were photoshopping a child into this photo why would you end up with a straight line through the bricks that doesn’t match? How would that artefact occur? The line in the bricks is simply a crap extension.

No one with the skills necessary to carefully blend in every strand of the child’s very wispy hair would then leave a bunch of weird accidental artefacts in the rest of the image and fail to account for the scale of the inserted child.

The overall image is a pile of shit because it’s been snapped in a bad position, in bad light, on a phone by Mrs Mucky Joggers. None of that matches with someone with the photoshop skills to blend the child’s hair in.

They haven’t blended the hair, thats why they have left in the brickwork from the original image...yes, some extensions are crap, but I’m yet to see one where there isn’t any mortar at all between bricks!

Catching up with this thread, I think the line on the wall is just a dog-leg. But you can't see it because the child's head obscures the bottom of the building, and the mortar joints happen to align. To see what I mean, I photoshopped out (badly) the child's head and put the bottom of the wall in.