I have some experience with Photoshop and other photo editing software. However, I would the opinions of people here on this matter: has this photograph been edited in any fashion?
1 Correct answer
Yeah it's been edited, but the image is so low res that it is difficult to tell how much editing or why. Something looks wrong with the right foot of the guy in question. Look at the space between his foot and the shovel. Looks like half his foot is missing. There are also some repeated patterns usually caused from cloning along the right edge.
Explore related tutorials & articles
23
Replies
Not that I can see, but Google reverse image search found the original!
Do you have a particular area of interest? What is it that you suspect might be wrong? It all looks good to me, but I am mainly looking at the people.
It's a very nicely done edit IMO, but difficult to give a definitive answer with such a low res, and blurred image. Looking at the length of the shadows relative to each person's height, the man in question clearly appears to be out of kilter with the other people, but I am choosing the base point more or less arbitrarily. Having said that, if his left foot had been further forward, and I still used it as my datum, the disparity would be even greater.
Do the other people in the picture have a vested interest in supporting version of events? Do you know who they are and can you ask them? The more I look at the relative lengths of the people's shadows, the harder time I am having picking holes in my supposition. His shadow is too long... ipso facto he wasn't there. 
I'll run the reality filter on it and see if that reveals anything....
Woah! I wasn't expecting 'that' result. And my reality filter broke its needle on the evil super-villain scale.
Very insightful comments. Thank you all. I'm fairly certain that the original image is from elsewhere, at an earlier date, and the man on the far left is a local TV newscaster: the original was from the groundbreaking of a charitable project. I do suspect the two people on the far right were added--see the people on the FB profile. The author of the article--who is also credited with the photo--is un-contactable; the newspaper credited has no such article on file. The FB profile reminds me of a fake profile from a Nigerian-type scam I'd encountered: a group of photos from the same timeframe, nonsense on the wall. I suspect a scam, and have brought my concerns to several law enforcement parties. When I say 'several,' it's because Canada is unlike any G7 country, in that there is no sole Federal authority under which securities or real estate fraud falls within the purview of. In the real estate and development world here, massive frauds aren't uncommon, and more improbable things have gone on than what I'm suspecting--Google "Riaz Mamdani"+"Concrete Equities"+"shooting"+Rolls Royce"+"Titanic" for a story that's to bizarre to believe.
The project in question involves a large plot of land, part of the local wetlands system, which wasn't considered developable even in the 1950s, when nobody was environmentally aware. Basically, creek and stormwater foods the area, and there is no way to fix this. The original owners (a local ranching family) kept it as a low-end golf course for years, because there was nothing else that could be done about it. Most of the local residents are up in arms at the destruction of six hundred mature trees and a basically undeveloped wetlands habitat, but oddities involving the corporate structures of the three associated firms (a developer, and two brokerages, operating out of a condo in another Province), and the purported identity of the CEO were the red flags that caught my eye. At any rate, maybe some of you would be interested in seeing the area in question. I snapped these pics in the summer of 2013, with a Fuji P&S camera, no editing save for resizing them 25%:
Still...
Take a look at the shadows, here exaggerated with Curves. Is it likely that these purplish color casts would match this closely, if it was a random composite from separate images? No way. They would have to be made to match - and if it's worked over at this high level of precision, then there's no way to conclude either way.
People watch too much TV. The idea out there is that it's always possible to spot a fake image, all you have to do is push the "enhance" button enough times. But in reality, it's just one pixel next to another. If you know what you're doing, you can always cover your tracks completely. If the image is important, for any reason, it may well be worth the effort.
Bottom line - there's no smoking gun here. Nothing points to a manipulated image. It can still be fake, but in that case so expertly done as to be undetectable.
Even looking for jpeg artifact patterns is futile if it was done before downsampling/saving out to jpeg.
http://www.stopfake.org/en/13-online-tools-that-help-to-verify-the-authenticity-of-a-photo/
Also try using the Foto Forensics...
But like others said all this isn't an exact science...
^^My two cents... 
AdChoices