82

This image has been widely shared. It has appeared on my Facebook wall after a recent event in Australia where a sacred tree was chopped down to make way for a new road. It was offered as an example of how it could have been preserved. (For clarity: no one is saying this is an Australian scene. I am just showing that it was presented to me as real.)

Image of straight road in rural area that takes a curved detour around a solitary tree

I found hundreds and hundreds of shares on Google, but here are some examples:

This looks completely fake to me. The lack of road signs and fences, and the likelihood of a driver wiping out that tree, all make me suspect that this is a digital artwork being represented as a photograph.

Is this an authentic photo?

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
  • 38
    I agree that this looks fake. The sharpness of the curves are out of place with the obvious remoteness of the road. This is almost certainly photoshopped by someone who does not know road design. But how to prove it? – David Hammen Oct 28 '20 at 05:00
  • 2
    @DavidHammen: I figure it is either going to involve finding the original digital artist or finding the location of the road. – Oddthinking Oct 28 '20 at 05:24
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been [moved to chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/115688/discussion-on-question-by-oddthinking-is-this-photo-of-a-road-detouring-around-a). – Oddthinking Oct 30 '20 at 17:06

4 Answers4

209

Fake / Illustration.

(I know this answer does not cite sources, but it's so obvious that requiring to find the "original artist" to expose it as a fake would be an undue complication.)

Community Wiki answer. Feel free to add more boxes to the image...

Image

  • Green and purple boxes: Repeating ground pattern
  • Red boxes: Repeating rock or bush pattern
  • Yellow boxes: Inconsistent shadows (cars throw 45 degree shadows, tree throws mid-day shadow, horse/donkey has no shadow at all)
  • Yellow boxes: Tree and animal shown from the side, cars from a higher angle
  • Blue boxes: Distortion of the street (lanes get far too narrow in the bend, especially the far lane)
DevSolar
  • 19,034
  • 8
  • 77
  • 74
  • 5
    Repeating bush pattern also evident next to the tree, as well as the start of the highlight. – Jerome Viveiros Oct 28 '20 at 08:22
  • 71
    Horse/donkey is about twice the size it should be. It is almost the width of the road, but a horse is only about 8 feet long, and a donkey is smaller. – Weather Vane Oct 28 '20 at 08:40
  • 1
    @WeatherVane: I am not sure I would list that among the other, more obvious clues. We can't really see the type of car, or the type of horse / donkey / ..., and they both come in many sizes, with 8 feet being an *average*. See [this](http://www.desktopimages.org/pictures/2013/1028/9/beautiful-horse-red-car-wallpaper-33448.jpg) pic for a side-by-side example of horse and car. I admit it looks "off", but it's not quite as condemning as the repetitions, perspective, or the *change* in road width. It would be "debatable", which is why I didn't list it. – DevSolar Oct 28 '20 at 11:55
  • 15
    The horse only just fits between the road's white edge lines. It is "huge", not "debatable". Even a single lane is wider than 8 feet. Some likers agree with me, and I can't understand why you made a long comment putting it down. "Feel free to..." – Weather Vane Oct 28 '20 at 12:06
  • 4
    "[This looks shopped](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/this-looks-shopped)" isn't sufficient here. – Oddthinking Oct 28 '20 at 12:45
  • 160
    @Oddthinking: this isn't "This looks shopped". It's direct, verifiable, evidence of manipulation. It's downright silly to dismiss it in such a fashion. – Jack Aidley Oct 28 '20 at 13:20
  • 2
    @WeatherVane Multiple sites describe the horse/donkey thing as an elephant. It looks more like a shadowless black animal shaped blob to be. – David Hammen Oct 28 '20 at 13:51
  • 22
    It also looks like the line is the "solid/broken" type, meaning that only one side is allowed to pass. On a curve like this, *both* sides would have solid on their own side going in, as it's generally unsafe to pass on or just before sharp curves, with broken coming out (as they'd have a clear straight view once they exit the curve). In the middle I'd expect double yellow. I don't consider this *incontrovertible* proof, but it's not helping. – Doktor J Oct 28 '20 at 13:51
  • 11
    @Oddthinking I know that this site does not condone answers based uniquely on common sense or pure logic, but that is about all you are going to get for this question. – David Hammen Oct 28 '20 at 13:52
  • 2
    @DavidHammen then those commenters don't know there are no wild elephants in Australia, and it's clearly not a kangaroo, camel, drop monkey or cane toad. – Weather Vane Oct 28 '20 at 13:54
  • 3
    @WeatherVane Earlier uses of this same image place it in Africa. This obviously photoshopped image has been used for almost six years (and possibly longer) as the basis for various spurious arguments. – David Hammen Oct 28 '20 at 13:59
  • 1
    @DavidHammen sorry, I meant drop bear. The question asks if the image posted, about an event in Australia, is authentic. If you are claiming it is a scene in Africa, then clearly it isn't. – Weather Vane Oct 28 '20 at 14:03
  • 5
    @WeatherVane The question does not claim the image is from some place in Australia. Somebody on Facebook used this image to demonstrate that cutting down a sacred tree in Australia did not have to happen. – David Hammen Oct 28 '20 at 14:09
  • 2
    @DavidHammen if all you see is a "blob" I suggest veiwing on a larger display. I see spindly legs and upright ears, quite unlike an elephant. – Weather Vane Oct 28 '20 at 14:12
  • 4
    If this is a fake (which it almost certainly is), the start and end points of the Bézier curve used to distort the straight road into a curve are quite visible. – David Hammen Oct 28 '20 at 14:12
  • @WeatherVane It's obviously a shadow. Shadows don't cast shadows. /s – David Hammen Oct 28 '20 at 14:15
  • 1
    @DavidHammen As can be seen with the cars, shadows have objects that cast them, either the donkey is missing a shadow or the shadow is missing a donkey – Christian Oct 28 '20 at 14:16
  • @Christian I explicitly used slash s. Do I really need to be even more explicit? That was sarcastic. – David Hammen Oct 28 '20 at 14:18
  • @DavidHammen it wouldn't be surprising to see sharp changes in curvature on a real road. Sure you can only spin he steering wheel so fast, but not every road engineer thinks about that, at least I'm not sure they do. – John Dvorak Oct 28 '20 at 14:29
  • 28
    A road with a gentle curve over 200 metres would have been much cheaper to build, and easier/less dangerous to navigate. – gnasher729 Oct 28 '20 at 14:38
  • 1
    The parts you marked in red are also used twice in the curve, although it is compressed a bit. – BlackThorn Oct 28 '20 at 15:29
  • 1
    @DavidHammen What does the "slash s" stands for? I never saw that before. – Clockwork Oct 28 '20 at 15:43
  • 7
    @Clockwork "/s" is a common annotation to indicate the end of a sarcastic statement. It's inspired from html formatting. – BlackThorn Oct 28 '20 at 15:51
  • 8
    @JohnDvorak Yes, they do. We were taught about transition curves 35 years ago. Some are sharper than others, sure; but what's in the image would never, ever be built. – Andrew Leach Oct 28 '20 at 16:04
  • 11
    @Oddthinking I'm curious, if the original artist came to this site and said "I took this photo from and it's completely unaltered", would that be an accepted answer? It seems from the available evidence, the claim of authenticity would be the extraordinary claim in need of extraordinary evidence. – Sam Oct 28 '20 at 16:25
  • 1
    Seems like all high-res, uncropped versions of this image have the logo and sometimes attribution of the now-dead site rainforestweb.org (google: rainforestweb.org "save every tree as if it's the last"). The original may be in the wayback machine somewhere, as it does have that site archived. – Dewi Morgan Oct 28 '20 at 16:40
  • @Christian _shadown have objects that cast them_, what is the object is flying outside of the field of view of the camera? :) I've certainly seen shadows of drones or helicopters in aerial photos… – gerrit Oct 28 '20 at 16:57
  • While this pic is fake, I could see rationales for making a (well-signposted!) tight bend around a tree; if the land for the road were bought as a straight line, and the detour required an additional land purchase; or if the plan was to transplant the tree at some point, allowing for straightening the road, so the detour was temporary. Obviously, neither applies in this fake pic, mind. – Dewi Morgan Oct 28 '20 at 17:47
  • 3
    So: it seems the original was a graphic on a poster to go with the slogan "save every tree as if it's the last", and as such does not claim it is an authentic photo. – GEdgar Oct 28 '20 at 18:00
  • 2
    @gerrit you are - of course - totally on point, one of the cars, while trying to avoid the tree, hit a donkey and send it into orbit. – Christian Oct 28 '20 at 18:31
  • 1
    You forgot to add - you can see the dashed yellow line, clearly visible below the solid yellow line. Somebody added the solid line on top of the dashed line, and didn't do a good job covering it up completely – SnakeDoc Oct 28 '20 at 19:16
  • 1
    @SnakeDoc it's not unusual to see double paint where I live. On the other hand, I'm not sure I ever saw a solid line painted over a still visible dashed one. But it is possible. – John Dvorak Oct 28 '20 at 20:43
  • 3
    @JohnDvorak Eh, I think, given the clear abundance of photoshopped evidence, it's yet another clear sign confirming the image is fake. While it's possible to paint over a dashed line - in this exact case with a strong curve, there never would have been a dashed line to begin with as it's unsafe to pass on this curve. So, it would have been built with a solid line. The editor stretched the road and then attempted to color over the dashed lines. – SnakeDoc Oct 28 '20 at 21:57
  • 1
    @DevSolar The picture you linked is not a good example of horse size because the horse is clearly closer to the camera than the car is, so there is at least some amount of forced perspective, and the car is rotated at an angle to the camera while the horse goes straight across the image. Even the largest known horse in the world is 6'10" tall, which is certainly big, but isn't significantly taller than many cars, whereas the animal in the picture clearly dwarfs any of the cars – Kevin Oct 28 '20 at 22:47
  • 34
    I disagree that this is a "theoretical answer". It is an answer based on demonstrable inconsistencies within the original claim. It is not "back of the envelope", the inconsistencies do not require expertise to evaluate once pointed out, it does not rely on pure logic, and it isn't just "common sense". – Paul Johnson Oct 29 '20 at 09:09
  • 15
    @Oddthinking The post notice is off: the answer is neither based on common sense nor on logic. In fact, the answer provides hard empirical evidence (blue and yellow can — with difficulty! — be argued with; but red, blue and purple are indisputable: just open the image in a photo editor and move the rectangles around yourself). – Konrad Rudolph Oct 29 '20 at 10:36
  • 7
    I also disagree with the "theoretical" notice. There is too much evidence piling up. While any single point might be rationalized away as just a trick of the camera or odd coincidence, there are way too many clues here to just be dismissed as "theoretical". – Doktor J Oct 29 '20 at 13:27
  • 5
    If it was dinosaur instead of donkey, I wonder if this answer would still warrant the warning about common sense and logic. – lvella Oct 29 '20 at 14:01
  • 1
    "We do not allow answers based uniquely on common sense or pure logic. " <- what the hell? What can be more correct than pure logic? – Džuris Oct 29 '20 at 17:43
  • 2
    @Džuris Pretty sure it's because of the spirit of the Skeptics Stack Exchange. Haven't you ever seen a conspiracy theorist logic their way into whatever conclusion they want? – DKNguyen Oct 29 '20 at 21:52
  • Green seems just wrong. The two are similar, but how exactly are they repeated? I'm not seeing it. –  Oct 29 '20 at 23:25
  • @Chipster: The shape of the reddish patches of ground is almost identical, although the lower one is truncated on the right. In fact, if you overlay them in an image editor, it's clear that they're clones, although one is scaled up a few percent compared to the other. Either the editor used a "perspective clone" tool that does such scaling automatically, or they applied a perspective change to the image after cloning the ground. (The latter seems quite plausible, since the perspective doesn't actually match the original photo.) FWIW, the purple and red areas aren't quite the same scale either. – Ilmari Karonen Oct 30 '20 at 00:43
  • @IlmariKaronen I'm less concerned about the scale as I am the lines running through the lower left one. There is no equivalent in the other. –  Oct 30 '20 at 01:21
  • 1
    @Chipster I used boxes for simplicity's sake, the repeated pattern is smaller and not box-shaped. Repeated is the darker patch, with three brighter spots in it, and the small blob below. FWIW, the one track running through it is repeated as well. – DevSolar Oct 30 '20 at 07:50
  • 4
    @Chipster: [Here's an animated GIF flipping between the image and a shifted copy of it](https://i.stack.imgur.com/W5uF5.gif), with a box overlaid to highlight the cloned area. It's pretty clear that most of the lower left corner is cloned (and slightly rescaled). BTW, if you look carefully, you can see that the ground behind the tree and the donkey/horse/whatever is also mostly cloned from the same source. – Ilmari Karonen Oct 30 '20 at 15:26
  • Thank you @IlmariKaronen and DevSolar (I don't think I can tag two people at once, but I think DevSolar will get a notification for being the OP of the answer.). I understand now. –  Oct 30 '20 at 18:12
154

TL;DR: No, it's not authentic. This is a digitally edited image based on a stock photo of a straight road in Arizona, USA.


I did some digging based on Dewi Morgan's comment, and it seems that this image was created by Jeski Social Campaign, an ad agency founded by the Korean advertiser Jeseok Yi, to promote the now-defunct RainforestWeb.org web site (archived on the Wayback Machine) which was operated by the Rainforest Action Network from 2001 to 2009 (after which it continued to redirect to the RAN's main site for a few more years before becoming fully defunct).

A version of the picture can still be found on Jeski Social Campaign's online portfolio, and features the RainforestWeb.org domain name in the picture itself:

Image

While searching, I also found a version of the picture with a somewhat different composition in this archived post from 2013 on The Korea Guide titled "Advertising Genius from Korea – Jeseok Yi (Jeski)":

Image

While this version of the image is clearly also heavily retouched, as evidenced by the several duplicated sections of the image (like the rubble on the left side the road near the bottom, and the two identical pinkish patches of ground in the left half of the picture), it does seem to feature a slightly more natural-looking perspective and relative scale. That doesn't necessarily make it the "original" version, though — it's also perfectly plausible that the two images are simply alternative compositions produced from the same source material for use in different contexts.

Alas, while I was hoping to find an explicit statement by either Jeski Social Campaign or the Rainforest Action Network describing this picture as a digital creation, so far I haven't been able to locate one. Thus, while there's plenty of circumstantial evidence of the bend in the road featured in these images being the result of digital manipulation (and, IMO, quite definitive evidence of other parts of the images having been thus manipulated), I cannot quite prove with 100% certainty that these images, even if heavily edited, aren't based on a real photo of a real road with such a bend around a real tree in it.

I'd be willing to bet with pretty good odds that they aren't, though.


Update: After I posted this, two other users picked up the trail from where I left it.

First, Dewi Morgan, who originally pointed me in this direction, found that the second image above (archive link) contains some interesting metadata, including the following XMP metadata entries that appear to come from (one of) the stock image(s) used to create it:

  • Description: Rural Road
  • Country: USA
  • State: Arizona
  • Instructions: RF Image, Not Model Released, Not Property Released
  • Source: Corbis
  • Rights: (C) 2006 Ron Chapple/Corbis
  • Credit: www.jupiterimages.com
  • Headline: 24237409
  • Transmission Reference: 17707700
  • Web Statement: http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchresults.asp?txt=42-17707700&openImage=42-17707700
  • Subject: 24237409, above, aerial, aerial view, america, american, arizona, backroad, country road, desert, diagonal, diagonal line, diagonal pattern, expressway, freeway, from above, heathland, high angle view, highway, land, landscape, line, linear, motorway, nobody, north america, north american, outdoor, outside, overhead, overview, panorama, panoramic, photography, picturesque, pretty, road, roadway, rural road, scene, scenery, scenic, scenic beauty, scrubland, shrubland, southwest, southwestern, southwestern united states, straight, transport, transportation, transporting, u.s., u.s.a., united states, us, usa, vast, veld, view, view from above

Alas, the URL included in the metadata no longer works, but RUOK_ nonetheless somehow managed to locate the original stock image!

Out of caution, I won't include the full original image here — not even the watermarked version available for public viewing on the Getty Images web site — since there's always a risk that the commercial distributor selling usage rights to this image might not like it, and might try to get it taken down as a copyright violation (and potentially cause collateral damage in the process). However, just to demonstrate that the images do indeed match, here's a side-by-side comparison of details from the various versions:

Side-by-side comparison image

Side-by-side comparison of details from various versions of the image. Left column: landscape format ad campaign image from Jeski Social Campaign website; middle column: portrait format image from The Korea Guide article; right column: original rural highway stock photo from Getty Images website, scaled down to approximately match the left column. Top row: cars in top left corner of the campaign images; bottom row: duplicated rocks and shrubs on the road embankment near the bottom of the campaign images, and the corresponding spot in the original stock photo.

And no, the road in the original stock photo does not have any bends, whether around trees or otherwise. It's perfectly straight all the way.

However, the same patterns of repeating rocks and shrubs on the road embankment highlighted on the bottom row in the comparison above can also be seen, scaled down, on the inside curve of the detour around the tree in both of the edited images. The following picture highlights the matching patterns (in the portrait format version of the image from The Korea Guide article, which is the sharpest version I have, and thus best suited for comparing small details):

Comparison of curved road section detail with stock photo and straight road section

This duplication of image details fairly definitively confirms that even the curved section of the road is indeed based on the same stock photo, and has merely been edited to curve instead of going straight.


Based on this evidence, we can thus definitively conclude that the image in question is not an authentic photograph. The roadway shown in the image comes from a stock photo of a straight rural highway in Arizona, and has been digitally manipulated to add the curved section.

There certainly are many real places in the world where roads do detour around trees. But this picture does not show one of them.


Ps. This stock photo from the same series, presumably taken a few seconds earlier, shows the same road and vehicles but also more of the surrounding landscape. I wonder if some skilled geodetective and/or Arizona local might be able to pinpoint the actual location it was taken at…

…never mind, I found it myself! The road in the picture is US Route 160, and the point in the middle of the original stock photo where the small dirt road branches off from it — which is close to where the fake bend and the tree are in the edited version — is located at 36° 55' 59" N, 109° 8' 23" W, about 3 miles west of Teec Nos Pos in the very northeastern corner of Arizona, or about 9 miles from the Four Corners Monument.

(FWIW, I got kind of lucky on this one. I was searching on Google Maps along a bunch of highways in Arizona, trying to find a two-lane one with a straight section running roughly east to west across an escarpment matching the fairly distinctive one in the background of the other stock photo. I wasn't having much luck, though, until I decided to try to be systematic and start searching from one corner of the state — and, just by luck, happened to pick the right one.)

Here's a screenshot from Google Maps that roughly matches the perspective in the original stock photo. Besides the roads and dirt tracks, several actual trees and shrubs in the photo are also quite clearly recognizable in the screenshot, as is the dry streambed that the highway crosses. Unfortunately almost all of those features have been edited out from the manipulated image in the question, so just about the only features that I can directly match between that image and the Google Maps view with any confidence are the road markings.

Coincidentally, there does in fact appear to be a small tree or shrub on the side the highway, in roughly the same place where the fake tree is in the edited pictures. But it doesn't really stand out from among the other similar ones in the area, and the road makes no detour for it.

Ilmari Karonen
  • 1,243
  • 1
  • 9
  • 13
  • 4
    That said, [roads do get detoured around trees sometimes](https://www.google.com/maps/@47.202096,-117.905478,3a,78.2y,197.68h,95.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPRlG3K8NdbH6v2_js4l_CQ!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!5m2!1e1!1e4). – Mark Oct 28 '20 at 21:33
  • 7
    @Mark Roads definitely go around trees, but highways through open land never make sharp 45 degree turns with a sharp turn back right afterwards to go around a tree – Kevin Oct 28 '20 at 22:39
  • 16
    Nice digging :) Relevant stuff from Pic 1 metadata: "Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows, Modify Date: 2012:09:17 01:20:09, Slices Group Name 환경캠페인 - 한그루의 나무도 소중히" (Korean, Google translate gives "Environmental campaign-cherish even one tree"). Pic2 is more interesting: "Image Description: Rural Road, Software: Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows, Copyright: (C) 2006 Ron Chapple/Corbis" (so, photographer is probably http://www.microstockdiaries.com/ron-chapple.html), "URL: http://pro.corbis.com/search/searchresults.asp?txt=42-17707700&Slices" (sadly not this image), "Group Name: save-last-tree.jpeg" – Dewi Morgan Oct 28 '20 at 23:00
  • 3
    keywords: 24237409, above, aerial, aerial view, america, american, arizona, backroad, country road, desert, diagonal, diagonal line, diagonal pattern, expressway, freeway, from above, heathland, high angle view, highway, land, landscape, line, linear, motorway, nobody, north america, north american, outdoor, outside, overhead, overview, panorama, panoramic, photography, picturesque, pretty, road, roadway, rural road, scene, scenery, scenic, scenic beauty, scrubland, shrubland, southwest, southwestern, southwestern united states, straight, transport, transportation,... – Dewi Morgan Oct 28 '20 at 23:02
  • 3
    transporting, u.s., u.s.a., united states, us, usa, vast, veld, view, view from above", "Credit: www.jupiterimages.com". While I failed even with all this info, this SHOULD be enough for someone to find the original image? – Dewi Morgan Oct 28 '20 at 23:03
  • Well done. The best I found was via TinEye, and featured the text on top, but I didn't get a version with text large enough to be able to read. I don't think anyone can do better than this. – Jerome Viveiros Oct 29 '20 at 05:50
  • 1
    Since your source image contains metadata, I think you should include that in your answer. Also, try running the photo through https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/#clone-detection and see if you can find evidence of tampering. I had no luck with other versions of the image, but the original might yield better results. – Jerome Viveiros Oct 29 '20 at 05:55
  • I wonder if the ad agency that made the edited image paid Getty Images for the rights to make derivative works of their image. – nick012000 Oct 30 '20 at 05:35
  • 2
    @nick012000: They almost certainly did. Ad agencies and graphic designers are pretty much the main customers of stock image vendors like Getty, and buying rights to stock images is a perfectly normal and common business expense. It's not like a few hundred dollars will make much difference in the budget of a major ad campaign, not even if it's for a non-profit org. – Ilmari Karonen Oct 30 '20 at 09:35
  • 1
    @Oddthinking: Between the update and the PS, this answer is as perfect a refutation of the picture's authenticity as you're likely to get at this point. How about accepting it, or at least telling us why you are not willing to accept it? – DevSolar Oct 30 '20 at 16:02
  • 1
    This should be the top answer, it matches the site's requirements. While I respect the community photoshop sleuth's efforts, it is still an answer that relies on "Common sense or pure logic" - there's nothing that couldn't be argued as a "strange occurrence of natural features", a large horse/deer/elk, or a poorly made but precisely poured asphalt road. Even if each of those arguments is foolish/silly/illogical to make, they're valid sans common sense and logic. +1 for the research done here. – TCooper Oct 30 '20 at 21:05
  • Masterful work. – Daniel R. Collins Oct 31 '20 at 01:26
50

This appears to be one of the original images used for this composition. In particular, the cars match up between the images.

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/photo/rural-highway-royalty-free-image/78812369

(found using tags noted in the comments for another answer)

RUOK_
  • 431
  • 3
  • 3
  • 1
    **Nice** find. Even the rock / bush formation is in there, below and a bit to the right of the semi. :-D Given that external links can grow stale, perhaps add a quick summary, i.e. that the "original" picture (*one* of the original pictures, because the ground to the left and right is from some other image...) has that road and cars, but neither the curve nor the tree. Ideally, add a scaled-down version of the image. – DevSolar Oct 29 '20 at 08:45
  • @DevSolar Unfortunately the license does not allow for a scaled-down version of the image (they charge €50 even for a small version). – gerrit Oct 29 '20 at 08:56
  • 2
    so wait those painted over lines _are_ real? Color @snakeDoc (and me) surprised :P – John Dvorak Oct 29 '20 at 09:40
  • Another option is that Getty and the disputed image's author managed to get a shot of the same group of cars at different times. It is a peculiar coincidence but not impossible. – John Dvorak Oct 29 '20 at 09:41
  • 4
    @JohnDvorak Or a single photographer took several images from approximately the same place at nearly the same time, then licensed one to Getty and another to the creator of the disputed image. – zovits Oct 29 '20 at 10:34
  • 3
    @gerrit This would *probably* fall under fair use, in particular its application to research. But just because it does doesn’t mean a litigious lawyer agrees. – Konrad Rudolph Oct 29 '20 at 10:40
  • 4
    @zovits for that to work, the cars in question would have had to remain exactly the same distance apart in between the shots, the landscape would have had to change pretty drastically in that time, and that collection of rocks/bushes (red boxes in the community answer) would have to have a doppelganger down the road (no wait, _two_ doppelgangers :P). Also doesn't explain the shadowless horse. – Doug McLean Oct 29 '20 at 12:20
  • @Doug I've got a shadowless horse. Come around one night and I'll show it to you. – Vince O'Sullivan Oct 29 '20 at 17:02
  • 1
    FWIW, [this image from the same series](https://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/photo/rural-highway-royalty-free-image/78812366), presumably taken a few seconds earlier, shows the same road and vehicles but also more of the surrounding landscape. I wonder if some skilled geodetective and/or Arizona local might be able to pinpoint the actual location. – Ilmari Karonen Oct 29 '20 at 17:03
  • @zovits The lines change there because there's an intersection to the "top left" (behind) the cars in the other image found by Ilmari Karonen. Going towards the intersection you shouldn't pass because you might still be passing by the time you get there. Going away from the intersection you're allowed to pass like normal. – Zach Mierzejewski Oct 29 '20 at 18:20
  • @KonradRudolph Getty is very protective of what it views as its copyrighted material. Should this image be embedded in the answer, Getty will eventually find that one of its copyrighted image has been used without a fee, and on a .com site whose parent organization is loaded. While section 230 might protect StackExchange from a lawsuit, it would not protect it from a DMCA takedown notice. And then this wonderful answer will be gone. It's best to leave the answer as-is, with a link to the image. – David Hammen Oct 29 '20 at 18:42
  • @DavidHammen I’m aware, hence my conclusion that it wouldn’t be worth the trouble. The point I was making is purely that Getty would probably be acting illegally in this casel because use of the image in this answer *is (very probably) allowed under US copyright* as fair use. Fair use is frequently misapplied but it fully applies here. – Konrad Rudolph Oct 29 '20 at 18:53
  • IMHO getty would be unwise to apply a takedown notice to the answers here, because it's really providing them with free advertising. – gerrit Oct 30 '20 at 13:58
  • Despite having a lower score than the top rated answers, this should be the accepted answer. It is the original, un-photoshopped image that @Oddthinking was looking for. – David Hammen Oct 30 '20 at 16:55
2

Here's a place where the artist has used a copy-paste option in the image editor: enter image description here

bandybabboon
  • 1,427
  • 8
  • 14