Buying a 5dc, already sent money, do these looked photoshopped?

I am buying a 5dc from someone on here. I cannot tell if these are photoshopped. The lighting seems a bit off. What do you guys think? He sent them via text so that gives me a little comfort that the are not. Just getting worried before the money clears the bank.

I'm not sure what you mean by "photoshopped"...? It looks real to me, what are you questioning? In the first one there are two different light sources, but...?

I am just a worry wort. I don't need to be because e has remained in contact but the first one seemed very funny looking. So then I nit picked the second one and got worried.

Well, it just looks like he cleaned it up for the photo!

Looks like a 5d

Looks funny because of the bokeh in the photo. That photo would have gotten torn to bits here on POTN!

I think you've got a point...there's something definitely odd about it...Can you post a 100% crop of the dial area? Do you have any photos of it taken from the rear, but with light from the left side?

Looks like a 5D to me. Just be because it was a text doesn't mean the photo wasn't manipulated. There are tons of smartphone processing programs out there to choose from. Looks like the contrast or blacks have been boosted a bit, but nothing I'd worry about.

rick_reno wrote in post #15685728
Looks like a 5d

looks like a 5D to me too. But before purchasing use camera gear here or elsewhere do some checks - history, feedback, etc.

What are your concerns about the images? "are they photoshopped?" doesn't mean a thing to me, as I sell a lot of stuff online and every shot I use is "photoshopped", I will tweak the contrast, maybe lift the shadows etc., to show the detail better. I don't do anything that will misrepresent the item though. Without knowing what you think you are seeing that is dodgy, it is hard to answer your question.

What is the purpose of the second image though? Has it been included to show that he is in possession of the camera, by taking a shot of it with his ID in front of it? If so, I would be a bit concerned but not because of any photoshopping.

Are those supposed to be the same camera in the shots? One has a strap on and the other doesn't. Straps can be removed of course, but that isn't a quick release strap and is a fiddly job to take off and put back on again. It isn't something most people would bother with. They are also shot in different places (or at the very least on two different objects).

I've just noticed that the first one also shows a slip of paper with his name on it and a date. Is it that that concerns you about being possibly photoshopped in? The shadow doesn't look quite right on the paper, it appears the light is nearer the camera, but that could well be that the paper is so low to the table that the angle on the corner just isn't big enough to clearly show in the shadow. It does look more like the paper is lit from a light straight on to the front of the camera though, whereas the camera is lit from the left. It could still be a match for the paler shadow on the camera though, like I say the shadow is so straight and narrow it is hard to calculate the angle with just the one corner to go off. It may or may not be "wrong". One other thing I would think about is why has he bothered to write his name out twice, once with a date and once without, on two pieces of paper? Why not just write it once and include the same piece in both shots.

I cannot make a real conclusion as to whether the paper is photoshopped into the first image, it is hard to tell from that shadow. There may also be a very good reason to have taken the shots at different times, did you ask for an updated image showing the camera and the date? That could easily explain why they are shot on different surfaces, with different paper tags, and he may have taken the strap off in the meantime as he intended to keep it, which would explain why it is missing in the second shot.

Whenever I have sold an item, I have always taken all necessary pictures in one go, so they would match up. I would say that it raises a warning flag to have such different images used in an advert or auction. However, if you have asked for a further image that explains it satisfactorily, if he had to shoot another one specially.

This may very well be perfectly legitimate. I see a couple of potential warning flags but I would need to view those in relation to everything else in the background story if it was me buying. The original advert or listing, checking out the seller, knowing the messages passed between both parties, etc., would all be part of my decision making process.

You have my thoughts on the evidence shown, but it is only a small part of the evidence you have to go on. You need to make a decision based on all the information you have.

sandpiper wrote in post #15686897
What are your concerns about the images? "are they photoshopped?" doesn't mean a thing to me, as I sell a lot of stuff online and every shot I use is "photoshopped", I will tweak the contrast, maybe lift the shadows etc., to show the detail better. I don't do anything that will misrepresent the item though. Without knowing what you think you are seeing that is dodgy, it is hard to answer your question.

What is the purpose of the second image though? Has it been included to show that he is in possession of the camera, by taking a shot of it with his ID in front of it? If so, I would be a bit concerned but not because of any photoshopping.

Are those supposed to be the same camera in the shots? One has a strap on and the other doesn't. Straps can be removed of course, but that isn't a quick release strap and is a fiddly job to take off and put back on again. It isn't something most people would bother with. They are also shot in different places (or at the very least on two different objects).

I've just noticed that the first one also shows a slip of paper with his name on it and a date. Is it that that concerns you about being possibly photoshopped in? The shadow doesn't look quite right on the paper, it appears the light is nearer the camera, but that could well be that the paper is so low to the table that the angle on the corner just isn't big enough to clearly show in the shadow. It does look more like the paper is lit from a light straight on to the front of the camera though, whereas the camera is lit from the left. It could still be a match for the paler shadow on the camera though, like I say the shadow is so straight and narrow it is hard to calculate the angle with just the one corner to go off. It may or may not be "wrong". One other thing I would think about is why has he bothered to write his name out twice, once with a date and once without, on two pieces of paper? Why not just write it once and include the same piece in both shots.

I cannot make a real conclusion as to whether the paper is photoshopped into the first image, it is hard to tell from that shadow. There may also be a very good reason to have taken the shots at different times, did you ask for an updated image showing the camera and the date? That could easily explain why they are shot on different surfaces, with different paper tags, and he may have taken the strap off in the meantime as he intended to keep it, which would explain why it is missing in the second shot.

Whenever I have sold an item, I have always taken all necessary pictures in one go, so they would match up. I would say that it raises a warning flag to have such different images used in an advert or auction. However, if you have asked for a further image that explains it satisfactorily, if he had to shoot another one specially.

This may very well be perfectly legitimate. I see a couple of potential warning flags but I would need to view those in relation to everything else in the background story if it was me buying. The original advert or listing, checking out the seller, knowing the messages passed between both parties, etc., would all be part of my decision making process.

You have my thoughts on the evidence shown, but it is only a small part of the evidence you have to go on. You need to make a decision based on all the information you have.

Thank you for the response. "Photoshop" meant did he photoshop in the pieces of paper. I asked for the second one a day later because I couldn't read anything in the first one. I thought the same thing about the strap, but he added it because I asked for it. I guess I just thought he would throw it in the box not attach it.

benji25 wrote in post #15687009
Thank you for the response. "Photoshop" meant did he photoshop in the pieces of paper. I asked for the second one a day later because I couldn't read anything in the first one. I thought the same thing about the strap, but he added it because I asked for it. I guess I just thought he would throw it in the box not attach it.

In that case, I would be pretty happy with those, so long as he seems reliable. That nicely explains the differences in location, the strap etc. The only suggestion of adding the paper in the first shot is the shadow line, but that is by no means an accurate guide as it is such a small area and could easily look wrong because of the way the paper is lying. With the other concerns now laid to rest, I would not worry about the photos, they seem OK to me.

The writing in the first shot is there, it's just a bit faint. The name is the same (orlando photorep) and the date looks to be 3 - 5 - 13 but is harder to make out and I may have misread it. It may be your monitor calibration is a bit off, if you couldn't read it.

I don't understand your concern. In fact, I don't even know what your concerns are.
If you are buying a 5Dc, then you will get a 5Dc, right? It really doesn't matter what a photo of the camera looks like, does it?

I have bought almost all of my gear used, and never once have I had any need to see a photo of the actual camera or lens I am buying. What would it matter if the photos were photoshopped? The camera is, well, the camera. Photoshopping the image is not going to harm the camera, is it?

Just relax and enjoy your 5Dc when it arrives.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15687574
... If you are buying a 5Dc, then you will get a 5Dc, right? ...

I expect that this is the OP's concern; does the camera exist at all, or have the photos been taken from elsewhere and altered to show the seller's screen name. In any case, if payment has been sent it's far too late to be worrying about these things. Either the seller is above board and a shiny used 5D will show up in the mail... or he isn't, and one won't. Nothing said here will change that.

Buying a camera or lens over the internet would provide so much more peace of mind if buyer just used a little common sense.

All one needs to do is PM or email the seller, and ask if they would give you a phone call. A good, honest, reputable seller will understand the request, and probably get back to you right away and call you. This works for eBay sales as well as items listed on forums, Craigslist, and other internet classifieds.

Once you have the person on the phone, it is rather easy to assess character, honesty, and integrity. Sending payment to someone I've had a good conversation with leaves me feeling very secure with the transaction, and I have never been ripped off in any way whatsoever.