“Sure just point me to the original file and where I can take a look at the data. Oh wait it will probably never get released. I'm not saying that it was Photoshopped in but it looks like the ball was either tossed up for the photo or it came into the photo off a bounce not a line drive as they would like you to believe. The aperture was not wide open or the depth of field would be much shallower leading me to believe it was shot on a slower speed. Here is a little league pitch (pretty slow) shot on a bright sunny day at 1/3200 http://imgur.com/bGmCJzP the fact that the original was not made available w/ intact metadata after tons of people called BS speaks volumes to me, it could effect someones career you would think they would want that cleared up with some evidence.”
TreetopFlyer on May 2, 2013 at 21:45:25
“I like that shot. I can see a few differences in comparison though and the news article mentions the original image has is in fact been made available for critical viewing. The extended video produced by Fox even interviews a Photoshop professional stating he sees no evidence of manipulation. He would have also viewed any metadata were there any. The woman has three degrees, she's not going to fake a photo and risk her entire career. There were also witnesses. I've been shooting low altitude aerials with the 500CM @ 1/500 sec. for years, and with an airspeed of 30mph! Sharp images are no problem.
The problem here though, is that a lot of people have had poor results with their own camera phones, are generally skeptical because there's so much fraud being perpetrated in all aspects of society, and women sports reporters get little or no respect to begin with - especially pretty blonds.”
“Because she said it it's real? Come on, metadata or GTFO.”
TreetopFlyer on May 2, 2013 at 14:24:50
“Not only does the photo speak for itself but her employer (thoroughly satisfied with it's authenticity) has already published the image and story, so the onus is on YOU to prove it was a fake or GTFO.”