# Photoshop or real



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

*Photoshop or real...*​
Real1862.07%Photoshop1137.93%


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

What do you think to this colour scheme, folks?


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

I especially like the dodgy geezer in the background. Looks like it could be on a Scottish plate as well.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Rank colour

Real

Scottish  SB - plate


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

saint said:


> Rank colour
> 
> Real
> 
> Scottish  SB - plate


I did think of that but it might also be S8 something or SBS 123 or something like that. All is not lost! Failing that, it might be a "foreigner" driving it... :wink:


----------



## dj c225 (Nov 3, 2004)

Looks like somebody added the wheels using photoshop...

Also whats wrong with the paintjob? dark on one end light on the other :?


----------



## b3ves (May 6, 2002)

brave


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

dj c225 said:


> Looks like somebody added the wheels using photoshop...
> 
> Also whats wrong with the paintjob? dark on one end light on the other :?


Inc kerbing?


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

Could well be a cut n shut.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

THere is uniformity across the reflections.


----------



## stgeorgex997 (Feb 25, 2004)

My initial thought was PS the deeper the colour the more blurry the picture becomes, but having said that the theme runs throughout with blue calipers and centre of alloy at the rear and silver at the front...

Waste of time, I voted real in the end


----------



## ronin (Sep 6, 2003)

saint said:


> THere is uniformity across the reflections.


Not meant in that context, i meant rung.


----------



## fastasflip (May 13, 2003)

It does'nt surprise me that the owner is hiding in the bushes, facing the other way and wearing an anorak with his hood up and satchal!

Must be waiting for the 10:45 from Crewe to go through!


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Real :lol:

You took your time posting that. Been busy  :wink:


----------



## Jazzedout (May 8, 2002)

IMHO, if it was a photoshop he would have blended the colour nicer where the hardtop meets the front windshield. Looks true and ugly to me. :?


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Boxster is a fairly ugly car anyway.... that paint does not help it at all.


----------



## jonno (May 7, 2002)

Well, despite all the weight of opinion above, I quite like it.

Would love one in just the colour at the front - a kind of purple Avus silver. (Yum)
If its real, must have been a bu$$er of a job for the paintshop.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Being a person who uses PS for a living, i would say that it isn't a Photoshop job. If it is then the person has taken time to replicate reflections of the white lines in the front bumper, the side, and also the bushes in the rear. Also the blend is near perfect!

I would hazard a guess that the car was involved in a front end smash and this is the result. I say this becasue anybody who has 'lookied into' buying a boxster can tell you that the 'clear light' upgrade is an expensive upgrade, so if the owner could afford a front end job like that without insurance cash, then they would have carried the clear light upgrade through to the rear.

All IMHO of course.


----------



## Jac-in-a-Box (Nov 9, 2002)

As the owner of these "ugly cars" (thanks saint!) I'll have to point out Kev's little error...


> boxster can tell you that the 'clear light' upgrade is an expensive upgrade


....the car is fitted with Litronics (xenons) which have clear indicators; the earlier Boxsters with these lights still had the orange rear lights.

The front bumper isn't right for the year though, it looks as though it's from the facelift Boxster (not the 987)

So whens the truth to be revealed? 

Anorak Jac x


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Sorry Jackie.... but I do think the Box ain't a thing of beauty  It's like a tongue hanging out IMOO - could have been better........ carrera for me please.


----------



## Jac-in-a-Box (Nov 9, 2002)

> It's like a tongue hanging out IMOO


Some imagination you've got 

Anyway, a Carrera must look the same - front end on both is identical! (nearly) :wink:

J x


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Jac-in-a-Box said:


> As the owner of these "ugly cars" (thanks saint!) I'll have to point out Kev's little error...
> 
> 
> > boxster can tell you that the 'clear light' upgrade is an expensive upgrade
> ...


Sorry Jac, i disagree(although i am open to be proved wrong). When i was looking at early boxsters, ALL of them had orange front lenses. So were Litronics not availble on early cars (IIRC pre 01)?

Plus that car seems to be a S reg.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Jac-in-a-Box said:


> > It's like a tongue hanging out IMOO
> 
> 
> Some imagination you've got
> ...


Hell - you really don't want to know...... these computer type nerdy geeks...... what else have we go to do with out time? :wink:


----------



## Jac-in-a-Box (Nov 9, 2002)

> Sorry Jac, i disagree(although i am open to be proved wrong). When i was looking at early boxsters, ALL of them had orange front lenses. So were Litronics not availble on early cars (IIRC pre 01)?


Well, I'm not going to say I'm 100% right Kev. My comments are based on my car...2001 with litronics (clear indicators at the front) with amber lenses at the rear - though I've added the rear clear lenses.
It definately hadn't been modded by the previous owner

I really don't know if what the situation is with the earlier versions...I'm not that much of an anorak 

The front bumper is definately not appropiate for a S reg; which is not to say that it hasn't been upgraded with a 2003 bumper...even then it still doesn't look right :?

Jackie x


----------

