Another avian miscreant

by Matthew Cobb

This photo has been floating around the interwebs for some time, but it fits with the kingfisher below, plus, you know – that’s just the way gulls are!



  1. Mal
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 12:30 am | Permalink

    Yes, but what’s the point of the sign?

  2. Dominic
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 1:13 am | Permalink

    Got to be fake – the gull is in an identical pose! Nice though!

    • Hayden
      Posted March 29, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink

      Yes, I think this is from an old Fark photoshop contest. I’m too lazy to go digging to find it, though.

  3. ray perrins
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 1:41 am | Permalink

    Agreed, photoshopped – the three tail protrusions are exactly the same on gull and sign, and also agreed – what exactly would that sign mean, anyway??

  4. BillyJoe
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 3:22 am | Permalink

    That was my first thought: what on Earth would that sign mean? After that I failed to see that the seagull and seagull image were identical in shape.

  5. Naked Bunny with a Whip
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 4:28 am | Permalink

    The sign obviously means “no photoshopping gulls”.

  6. Hamilton Jacobi
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 5:59 am | Permalink

    Plus, if it was a real gull, it would have crapped on the sign already.

  7. Kevin Alexander
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 6:53 am | Permalink

    Well, DUH! They could’t just write ‘No Seagulls Allowed’ Seagulls can’t read.

  8. fullyladenswallow
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    Yes. Definitely Photoshopped. Looks as though the artist overlaid a beach scene image (you can just barely see the water ripples and sand) of a seagull on the metal sign, then cut out the seagull itself and perched it atop the sign. Then they filled in the seagull-shaped hole with black. Almost convincing.

    • Hayden
      Posted March 29, 2012 at 10:41 am | Permalink

      You’re over thinking this. This is from a Fark photoshop thread that I remember. IIRC, the original photo was of the bird standing on a sign. All the ‘shopper did was replace the contents of the sign.

      • fullyladenswallow
        Posted March 29, 2012 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

        As a serious user (for the last 12 years) of Photoshop myself, I was simply trying to reconstruct what the Photoshopper did to achieve this particular image. Of course it (the image) falls short a bit since nearly everyone spotted the similarity of the seagull and the silhouette. To me it’s rather fun to pick apart a mystery. Unfortunately the Fark thread to which you refer (if this is the one you are thinking of) [] doesn’t show the un-Photoshopped sign, so it would be difficult to tell for sure about the ripple effect in the background (is it just painted-over rust?…don’t know). However, going through the exercise of evaluating the given image and trying to re-create the steps it took to deceive the eye of the beholder gives me a better appreciation of what scientists like Jerry Coyne do for a living (investigate and assess), which is what this blog, at least partly seems to be about, yes? So actually, I don’t believe I’m over thinking this at all. It would just be interesting to actually see what two-or-more images the Photoshopper used to create the final picture.

  9. Michael Scullin
    Posted March 29, 2012 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    Sign needed nonetheless. A few years ago while walking around Duluth MN harbor I passed a MacDonalds with outdoor picnic tables. A young woman was eating a BigMac, and a herring gull was sitting at the far end of the table. Suddenly the gull flew into the young woman’s face. She dropped her BigMac in a combination of fright and astonishment, The gull picked up the BigMac and flew off with it. If the sign had been there she might have whacked the gull with it.

%d bloggers like this: