I think it is very, very unlikely that the photo is faked. If that is the case, however, that makes it an interesting photo not just because of the subject matter, but because it is capable of making most people think it is fake even though it is not.
As far as the comments about the flash go, there is evidence for a flash. First of all, the tapetum lucidum is highly reflective (check out this photo of cats: http://bp1.blogger.com/_N9wtKAb3vvc/RdYLsh3L3VI/AAAAAAAAAA8/...), or do a search and you'll turn up some freaky examples (e.g. http://farm1.static.flickr.com/191/484118524_dce1f8c203.jpg)
Secondly, if you look under the arm of the woman in the foreground, you can see a reflection from a flash there as well, probably from a piece of metal.
The photo's been looked at by a lot of people but I have yet to see a criticism that enters the realm of the scientific. The best criticisms revolve around questioning whether or not it was a wolf, which I think is a much better line of criticism, since there is no way to be sure (but it does seem unlikely).
When I retold the story later, people laughed in my face. I guess I don't need to link to Snopes.
I'm just saying, one or two embellishments along the way can make all the difference in credibility...
- Extreme brightness and blown highlights.
- Very flat image due to the fact that the flash is in-line with axis of lens, very few shadows, and what shadows you see is very hard.
That picture is very, very much an ambient light picture - there would be the tell-tale "zombie" skin tone from a point and shoot at that range, and the people would be lit up like lanterns, washing the relatively dark background into unrecognizability.
It would take a skilled photographer with an off-camera flash to pull off that shot without destroying the background, no way that was done with an ordinary point and shoot.
It could just be a camera with a crappy little flash that isn't showing up very much (it is outdoors, after all).
edit: From a reddit comment:
> Notice the focal length. The camera was set to its maximum zoom, and probably has an underpowered flash. Other than specular reflections off a piece of plastic (purse?) under the woman's arm and from the creature's eyes, there wouldn't be any visible effect from the flash.
- The wolf is huge, much larger than anything known to stalk the woods of BC (both of us are from BC).
- The amount of fur suggests that it's wildly out of its natural habitat - not one of the common wolf species, and probably something more Arctic than temperate.
- From his personal experience, wolf eyes reflect green, not yellow. Furthermore, you will only ever get the shine if you shine a light at it - like a flash - but the flash on the camera in question could not reach that far. In fact, the flash on that camera was not fired, which as a photographer I can corroborate. There is no way a flash was used in the making of this picture.
- There's some weird clipping in the wolf, and a fairly distinct lack of shadow, but neither of us are Photoshop experts, so that's neither here nor there.
IMHO the lack of flash is, to me at least, pretty damning. The claim is that the flash was what scared the wolf off - but as someone who takes a lot of photographs, there is no way that a flash was used in that shot, especially one from a point and shoot camera.