It's probably not a Photoshop paint job. There's two points that indicate (but by no means prove) that it's a genuine photo.
1: Open it up in photoshop and convert it to black and white (Image > Adjust > Desaturate). Not only are the panels different colors, they have different light/dark levels. Can this be faked? Certainly, but it's a level of complexity that most cheap photoshop jobs overlook.
2: The panels reflect more than a single color. Just like chrome acts like a mirror to all the colors around it, clearcoat acts like an inefficient mirror, and reflects green hues from the grass and bluer hues from the sky. A cheap photoshop job just sets the brush mode to "color" and paints right over the top of it all, which eliminates all hues but the one being painted. Again, this can be faked, but the additional colors make the fake a little less likely.

In conclusion: If it's a photoshop job, it's not the quick and dirty type that you make it out to be. My vote says that this creation can be attributed to misguided human error, rather than a photoshop prankster.

↓↑report

Dude, Dave... I'm pretty sure he was kidding.

↓↑report

"2: The panels reflect more than a single color. Just like chrome acts like a mirror to all the colors around it, clearcoat acts like an inefficient mirror, and reflects green hues from the grass and bluer hues from the sky. A cheap photoshop job just sets the brush mode to "color" and paints right over the top of it all, which eliminates all hues but the one being painted. Again, this can be faked, but the additional colors make the fake a little less likely."

I actually don't see colored reflections on this picture. In fact, look at the blue sky reflected on the red fender- the blueness does NOT continue on to the brown door right next to it. Also it looks like there is red on the borders between some of the colors, especially behind the rear wheel where it should be pink, there is a hint of red.
I'm still not positive either way though, if you can point out some places where there are colored reflections not on the red part(which is probably the true color of the car if it is in fact a photoshop.)

↓↑report

The easiest color variation to pick out is in the red fender (as you said, probably the original paint color, but it illustrates the point I was making) Near the top of the fender the color code is 247, 59, 74, while the lower portion of the red area is 168, 31, 25. Notice that not only the value (light/dark), but the ratio (R:G:B) has changed.
The same thing happens on the purple front bumper. 169, 117, 191 near the top and 70, 21, 103 further down.
Zoom in to about 300% and you'll notice more little spots of color all over it; more than can really be accounted for as simple artifacts in the .jpg compression. If you want to see a slightly clearer image, click the link and get the picture from there. It still has several compression artifacts but the larger image removes some of the distortion.

↓↑report

If you convert to LAB color mode, and only view the lightness color channel you'll see that the entire car has very similar tone of lights and darks except for the door. In my personal opinion, this points towards photoshopping, because it's very unusual for the average skilled photoshop user to adjust the levels of each individual panel.

Other things point towards photoshopping as well. The red reflection/color bleeding into the hood vent. The lack of grass reflecting in the color as slightly green.

And in all honesty, the easiest thing to point out is the fact that there is a purple blade of grass on the front bumper ~6 inches from the front wheel.

All in all though, I believe it's a very well done photoshop job. But there is a slight possibility this is just a very poor quality picture, as JPEG artefacts can pop up as color noise very easily.

↓↑report

Not being preachy, just seems odd to name something like this after that condition.

↓↑report

Either your troll-fu is weak, grasshopper, or you're a tool.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/harlequin

↓↑report

Please use google again buddy, Harlequin Ichthyosis is the full name. Use google images if you want to be quick about it, grasshopper.

↓↑report

While I appreciate your comment, which refers to a disease first reported by a Charlestonian (The first report is from the diary of Oliver Hart, of Charleston, South Carolina who described these features in 1750), you are mistaken. The disease was named because of the varied coloration, which is the common connotation of the adjective "harlequin". You might as well have suggested the car was named after a Batman villain, and you would have been equally mistaken.

Troll.

↓↑report

A harlequin is a brightly colored fool character, like a court jester or the joker in a deck of cards.

This other thing you are confusing this is a disease named after the original item, just like the VW Golf was and this Ferrari is.

The error here is your own, Phillip.

↓↑report

Thanks LS2/LS7 for clarifying that, hence why I asked the question in the 1st place.

↓↑report