A reader, using a fake name (“Gustav Glöck”) and email address, submitted this photo. He or she wrote …

Original pink Glock Prototype, picture taken in a plant somewhere….

It is a photoshop. I have no doubts about that. See if you spot the problems with the photo that gave away that it has been ‘shopped.


  • lurpy

    I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

  • Zachary marrs
    • I thought it was amusing the lengths someone went to in order to troll me (us). That photo does not appear to be have been uploaded anywhere else.

      • Alucard

        How do we then that you didn’t just make the whole story up then,personally if I was to troll like that I’d post to bunch of other websites not just one.

        • I can’t tell if you are joking or not. Am I being accused of trolling that I was being trolled 😉

          … or are you the original troll trolling me again?!?! 😉

          • Ethan

            I think we should troll this troll accusing you of trolling for being trolled.

          • Hay-ay

            Nah, bloggers are journalists and have “rules” and stuff. 😉

          • Ethan

            Journalists have as many “rules” as Somalia has fat white people. Pitching “Journalism” as some kind of altruistic, civil-service profession was a brilliant marketing ploy developed in the 70’s and 80’s.

            “No really, this multi-billion dollar for-profit media corporation is just in business to keep YOU (yes you John Q Citizen) informed because we care about YOU. No really, honest, we swear, that’s the real reason.”

            There’s just people telling other people about what they saw, or what they want you to believe they saw. “Journalism” is just an attempt to obtain rubber-stamp credibility.

            (sorry, that was way more serious that your original post, lol)

          • Nicks87

            No offense directed towards any TFB writers (IMO you guys do a decent job) but I think journalistic integrity has mostly vanished in todays world.

          • Ethan

            TFB are simply good people telling other good people what they know. I’m sure they care about the truth, and about helping people be informed, but as an organization they are a private company that provides information in exchange for website traffic which generated Ad revenue.

            They are not “Journalists” and I mean that as a pure compliment. I love you guys!

  • WFA

    When walking through the ‘valley of shadows,’ remember, a shadow is cast by a Light.

    Austin O’Malley

  • Abe Cortina

    The shadow of his hand and pistol frame aren’t proportional to the distance at which they appear.

    • Marty Ewer

      Yes, the shadows are completely wrong.

  • tonyXcom

    The blow highlights and the harsh shadow indicate a photo taken with a camera mounted flash. Also, it is very difficult to change the color on something with so many shades. Even the color of the frames in the rack would be very difficult. I am gonna have to say this is legit. For anyone that thinks this is photoshoped and actually know how to use it, make one of your Glocks this pink and see how difficult it is. I’ll even let you use an FDE frame.

    • tonyxcom


    • Anonymous

      I have to concur…it could be faked, but it would require a ridiculous level of skill and work to make the image we’re seeing.

      The lame submission name and lack of detail makes me think that it’s probably exactly that: someone happened to be in Smyrna and saw something that wasn’t supposed to be released yet, and decided to snap a photo and leak it.

      10 to 1 we see this in the next three or four months as another distributor exclusive item.

      • I am afraid they are definitely fake. And requires only a little skill. I am not Photoshop expert but I could produce far better shadows. Also changing the color is not hard.

        • M.M.D.C.

          The lack of distortion in the shadow is due to the flash being closely in line with the perspective of the camera/viewer. Camera mounted flashes do this. If the light source were a window beside the shooter the shadow would appear distorted. Like this classic perspectival illusion:

        • STF Yoo

          Do it. Show us your photoshop skills.

          • sianmink

            SHOW ME YOUR MOVES

          • STF Yoo

            I didn’t claim that “I could produce far better shadows.”

        • Gockel

          And you are just running your mouth.

    • You are right. The shadows are 100% fake.

      • Not pledge drive week

        Steve, I find your responses to readers’ comments rather off putting and condescending. I read TFB because it was once a blog full of cool gun news and info–not people tripping over themselves to be the first to put down a new firearm or jump into a pissing match.

      • tonyXcom

        Lets assume for a minute that this was originally a photo of someone holding FDE or black frames – ironically, nobody would have a problem with the shadows.

        I understand why everyone is getting so hung up on the shadows and the perspective/distortion or lack thereof. But I can assure you, the shadows are correct when the source of light and the camera’s “eye” are so close together. If the light source were a ceiling fixture or light cast through a window you would get the shadow distortion everyone is expecting.

        Further, the bright spots (blown highlights) on the frame in the hand also indicate a light source very close to the subject, ie a camera mounted flash. The direction of the shadows indicate a flash under the the lens as previously mentioned. Imagine a small point and shoot camera with a built in flash being held in your right hand. Rotate the camera to portrait and you now have the flash under the lens.

        So if you want to prove this is fake, stop getting hung up on the shadows. You will want to figure out how someone was able to replace the color on an FDE frame to such a bright pink so accurately, at least IMO, and retain the blown highlights. (Anyone who uses PS knows it would be impossible if the frame were black.)

      • HSR47

        With my phone, an iPhone 5, taking a landscape photo while holding the phone in my right hand results in the flash being below the camera lens.

        Whether or not the pink is a practical effect (i.e. pink molded-in, or applied as a coating), the shadows in evidence, especially on/around the hand-held frame, are legitimate: I just used my phone to take some photos of one of my FDE Glock pistols, and I got precisely the same shadow pattern on/around the frame as is shown in the photo.

        As far as shadows elsewhere in the frame, and the apparent lack of similar distortion, there are two things to keep in mind:

        First, the bottom-lit shadow effect that looks so unnatural to the eye is exaggerated by the small distance between the cameraphone and the hand-held frame — As the distance increases between phone and subject, the difference in position between camera lens and flash will cause less of a distortion. In other words, imagine the camera lens, flash, and foreground subject as three points on a triangle: The further away the subject is, the more the legs between the subject and the flash/lens approximate a straight line.

        Second, it’s important to understand that light radiates based on the inverse square law, and that a typical cellphone camera flash isn’t a particularly bright light source compared to typical room lighting.

        When you put both together, it explains why more distant objects in the photo do not show the same degree of top-edge shadow that the hand-held frame does.

    • M.M.D.C.

      I’m not seeing it either. The one thing that does seem odd is that the shadow is cast slightly above the subject, but that would happen if the shooter was holding his phone camera upside down, orienting the flash under his (and our) line of vision.

      Other than that I can’t seem to find anything obviously wrong with it. With all those pink frames in the rack, it seems beyond the skills of the average troll/photoshopper.

  • rjackparis

    The original glock didn’t have a accessory rail. Nor changeable back straps.
    Or finger groves. Looks like someone is just dying a bunch of gen 4 frames.

    • Andrew

      It says, “original pink Glock.” Not “pink gen 1 Glock.” #readingisfun

  • guy

    There’s that company that makes 22lr glock clones, and they make a pink one…

  • Casey

    There’s definitely some blurring going on in the hand, along the index finger. Sloppy smudges. But I have to agree with TonyXcom. the colors all look legit.

  • CKersey

    I have worked in Photoshop since it’s conception. I would challenge someone to publish a Shopped photo for comparison. It’s not totally impossible, but the article photo is legit. Not saying the contributor’s name of the photo is, but it IS plausible that these have been Cerecoated?

  • anon

    i have seen a few shops in my day. You can tell by the pixels.

  • Don Ward

    So THAT’S what the infamous porcelain Glocks look like before firing in the kiln. No wonder why they cost more than what John McClane makes in a month.

  • Trent

    I am a professional that uses Photoshop on a daily basis. I specialize in photo manipulation. It appears to be a real photo to me.

    IF it was shopped, it would have been easier to change from blue to pink rather than FDE to pink. I spent 2 minutes attempting to change it back to blue….even with another hour of work, it would have been a tough conversion. I still say it is real.

    Maybe it is a third-party Cerakoting a series of firearms for a female training facility? That is a growing market…

    • Jake

      If you’re still having troubles with Potoshop, call Steve.

    • J.T.

      What tool were you using in photoshop? It has been a while since I have done anything in it but it seems like it would be pretty easy to get any color you wanted with the color replacement tool.

  • the Glock Smith

    Well, all of those Glock frames are NOT Photoshop’d.
    I have a pretty extensive background in digital imaging, photography and Adobe cert’s – it’s gonna be pretty hard to create those smooth tones in that pink / purple / magenta hues. I’ll ask a buddy of mine that works at the Smyrna plant and see what’s up with this photo.
    That ain’t a PS’d image from what I see in this post. It’s possible to “look into” the original image and see if it has been PS’d.

    This might be a limited run for a distributor maybe. You never know.
    Gonna look odd w/ the black slide though.

  • Landbarger

    The shadows would make sense if this image is of a frame being held in front of another photo (it’d also make the illumination differences between the foreground and background more believable)…that just seems like an odd scenario.

  • iksnilol

    Doesn’t look photoshopped to me. I am not a professional with photoshop but I am pretty good with it and use it almost daily.

    The only thing that is suspicious is the angle of the shadow… and that is all it is, the angle it was taken at.

  • ClintTorres

    I’d have to concur with the other photoshop users here. The pink does not look ‘shopped.

    If you look at the frames in the rack where the defocussed pink and red blur into each other, the subtle gradations are nice and smooth. No funky or jagged edges with other colors mixed in. If you look at the picture that was altered to make the frames look light blue, you don’t see any red (from the rack) color mixing in there.

    If it is ‘shopped, it has been done with a lot of skill and attention to detail. There doesn’t seem to be any dead giveaways that this was manipulated.

  • BC

    Nothing wrong with a pink Glock. It is still just as deadly, right? Let’s not get our panties up in a wad stud muffins.

    • Katie A

      I don’t think I fall into the “stud muffin” category or at least I hope not…Anyway personally speaking a pink Glock wouldn’t thrill me.

  • Andrew Hobby

    Shadows are completely flat against a 3d background. Photoshopper has taken mask of forefront image, and set to a secondary layer and created a “shadow” out of the mask.

    Colorization of the Glock frame is simply another mask, with color correction applied.

  • IXLR8

    So you are saying it is impossible to paint a Glock pink? 😉

    C’mon, youu can make one any color you like….

  • Risky

    Good guess, but the frames in the photo are gen 4 and you can see the metal metal frame inserts the airsoft versions lack.

  • Tim

    The flash on my phone is just below the lens in portrait mode, so the shadows in the photo are where I would expect them to be. As others have pointed out, changing colors and doing it convincingly like this is not easy. If this is a Photoshop, it’s a masterful job. Would Steve kindly point out the obvious problems with the photo?

  • Barney Samson

    Why are there no shadows where the arrows are indicating?

    • Anonymous

      Because of the position of the flash in relation to the edges of the bins, and the distance from the bin to the wall.

      • Barney Samson

        Ain’t buying it.

    • HSR47

      It’s all about angles and distance.

      The photo shows evidence of a flash below the camera lens — just what you would get with an iPhone 4/5 held in the right hand with the home button towards the palm, while taking a landscape photo.

      The degree of flash-caused shadow is due to the distance between the camera lens and the flash, and this distance remains constant. A 1/4″ offset is highly apparent at 10 to 14 inches, but is much less apparent at ~6 feet.

      Second, a typical phone does not have a particularly powerful flash, and light radiates based on the inverse square law. In other words, the amount of light hitting a given object depends on how close it is to the light source.

      Put the two together, and it becomes apparent that the maximum size of the top shadow should be relatively constant (in this case, roughly 1/4 inch–the distance between the center of the camera lens and the center of the flash), while increased distance should cause softer shadows (which are easier for the room’s main lighting to overcome/overwhelm). This is exactly what is present in the photograph.

      Remember: The typical LED-based smartphone camera flash isn’t particularly bright — certainly under 50 lumens at peak output. A 100W incandescent bulb puts out over 1,500 lumens, while a T12 48″ fluorescent bulb puts out over 2,500 lumens. Once you apply the inverse square law, it should become obvious that overhead lighting in the room has far more effect than the cellphone’s flash on objects several feet away from the phone.

  • Jas

    I would say it is a fake. The shadow is above the frame so the flash must have been below the camera. Eh? Also the frame has a very distinct shadow but the frames on the right have no shadow at all.
    Then there is the reflection of the flash on the frames on the right. That reflection is on the same spot on every frame while, because of the different position of the flash in relation to each frame, the spot should be in different places on each frame.
    And then, what is that little triangle shaped piece of pink on top of the frame above the trigger guard?

  • Gustav Glöck

    The pic isn’t a fake “ain’t nobody got time 4 dat”, I just wanted to share this with you because I enjoyed reading tfb and thought you might appreciate it. My bad..(fake name and adress was to keep my job)