Photoshopped or Real: my vote is photoshopped
What happens when you look through a double convex (converging) lens? If the object is farther away than the focal point, the image will be inverted. This is due to how the rays of light are refracted by the lens. For more details see (http://goo.gl/G4hpmM). So why isn’t the image inverted, i.e. upside down? The glass of water forms a cylindrical convex lens with only one lateral curved surface. So the image should be inverted laterally (left-right). If the glass had a spherical bottom, it would also be vertically inverted. See the example of the tulip glass. Not knowing where the focal point is, we can’t guess if the image should be magnified or not. However, it appears as if the mountain range is taller on the right hand side, both inside and outside the glass. I’m assuming that the image is photoshopped and the “artist” forgot to laterally invert the image.
As C.A. Palma and Asrulfeezam Haniffa pointed out, the birds at the very bottom (base) of the glass give you another clue. The base should be a compressed composite of the entire view, not a continuation of it. Rajini Rao noticed that the lime does not appear to have any distortion from the glass. The glass itself seems to have a little reflection on some surface, but appears to otherwise be floating (also noted by Lionel Lauer and Jun C).
Here are some things that I noticed that are more indicative of photoshop and not so much as clues from optics.
The edges of the glass on the left and right appear very jagged (noticed by many). Lionel Lauer points out that the inner edge of the glass has a strange white light. Many noticed that the top of the water is not flat, yet the image is very sharp. Christopher Dreyer had an interesting idea that the liquid could really be a gel with a high refractive index. That would be very interesting. However, the other clues still lead me to think this is photoshopped.
The OP is here: http://goo.gl/dCqIAY along with the #ScienceSunday reshare here: http://goo.gl/UuGdEZ
Thanks everyone for your comments and votes. This was fun.
December 23, 2013
Thank you for your explaination Chad Haney. It was worth waiting for!
December 23, 2013
You are welcome sophie helfrich. It was fun and many people noticed the same things that I noticed.
December 23, 2013
A nice bit of sleuthing, Chad Haney . Thank you! It was fun and I hope you do more of these in the future 🙂
December 23, 2013
Photoshopped. The image would not appear so clear where the water is moving.
December 23, 2013
Also, you can see the glass through the base of the lime slice.
December 23, 2013
That was definitely fun Chad Haney ! And well done with the photo examples! 😀
December 23, 2013
I should have added a slice of lime to my
drinkexperiment.December 23, 2013
Thanks Rajini Rao and Jun C.
December 23, 2013
Oh, also the glass at the bottom would not show the same image as what’s in the liquid.
But beautifully done bit in any case, and kudos to the person who made it for encouraging #science !
December 23, 2013
Kimberly Chapman and Corran Webster, let me know if this is Peo approved.
December 23, 2013
Rugger Ducky, it was fun to analyze. It was also fun taking my own real photos to demonstrate the optics being discussed.
December 23, 2013
This should totally be Peo approved. Perhaps Peo can do further experiments in water refraction of light and image.
December 23, 2013
Thank you Chad Haney, such an interesting way to start the week XD
December 23, 2013
You are quite welcome Sylvia Riedel. I enjoyed doing this.
December 23, 2013
Good Job
December 23, 2013
Marian Murdoch I’m not a photographer so I don’t mind if someone analyzes my photos. This image was quite popular. As a scientist, I thought it would be a great opportunity to experiment with simple optics.
December 23, 2013
Marian Murdoch knowing Chad well, I’m quite sure that the purpose of this analysis was purely science outreach via a discussion of optics 🙂 I hope to see more #ISeeThisWorldWithScience  posts like this one!Â
December 23, 2013
I need more coffee, Marian Murdoch ! It’s a miserable wet day here 🙂
December 23, 2013
Marian Murdoch you and Chad Haney have much in common then.
December 23, 2013
Stay warm Rajini Rao, until you reach warmer climates. Marian Murdoch reminds me that I need to write a SPECT post for my imaging 101 series.
December 24, 2013
I try not to Marian Murdoch but I have a few times. Seriously though, I do pre-clinical nuclear imaging.
December 24, 2013
I liked the post but Peo’s got Christmas and her cousin over so unfortunately not much interest in reading stuff online right now, sorry…
December 24, 2013
Thanks Kimberly Chapman. I hope that Peo tries the glass experiment after Christmas wares off.
May 25, 2014
Definitely fake. And it would be fairly straight forward to prove algorithmically. I wonder if anyone has ever trained a good classifier to identify ‘shopped images? I’d love a browser extension that tags every modified image. Except, of course, that virtually every image is modified these days. 😀
May 25, 2014
As artwork, it’s beautiful. As science, I’m thinking it’s artwork.
May 25, 2014
Robert Woodman I had fun trying to figure it out. It is a nice image either way.
May 27, 2014
A very good analysis of the optics; providing the three pictures of water-filled glasses on a counter gave context to your analysis.
May 27, 2014
Thanks William Moates. It was fun. I’m curious how many people tried to replicate the experiment in their own kitchen.