Damn, this is a tough call. A photographer at another site commented on one of my pics, and asked me to critique one of his. Now, I've gone and looked at the shot which is a deer head with a grass background, saying it was taken outside. However, I've notcied the following things about it; The DOF of the grass to me seems out for the deer itself, and seems to recede at a strange angle....while the deer is perfectly upright, the grass seems to go uphill. It looks like he's added airbrush technique on the grass area above the deer nose - which also seems to have overlapped onto the nose. The tip of the nose itself is perfectly sharp and 'cut' from the background, whereas elsewhere (the lower mouth for instance) it looks blurred in. Finally, the reflection in the deers' eye doesn't tie in; it looks like a lighting setup, not a natural light, and the grass - even where it's sharp in close-up - seems to have a lot more grain. Now, that's a few things that point towards the picture not being what it says it is, but I damn well can't come out and say that - I even composed an email (the bulk of which is the explanation above) but in the end couldn't send it. Y'see, even though I think it's p/worked, a) he can deny it and just say the airbrush/blurring was cleaning it up or b) deny it quite validly because I am very, very wrong and it's a genuine picture....... I mean, hell, in the overall scheme of things it's nothing, but if I'm right......... Whatcha reckon I should do?? (I thought at this point it was unfair to post a link or identify the artist. If you think it's ok to post a link, I will) Cheers Mike.