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.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 42,182 other followers

%d bloggers like this: