PsD Winner
These shallow images are mainly famous for not being very well thought out. The picture shows Photoshop's multiply layers effect.
Original is here (choose Viewers' Choice from the select.) Thanks to jc!
Photoshopaholics
Subscribe
Posts
Comments
Begun This Clone Tool Has
Search
Blog Archive
-
►
2009
(244)
-
►
December
(17)
- Playboy: The War On Tara
- Lost: Unexplained Logical Discrepancy Shocker
- YSL: Craptacular Noodly Appendage
- Azzaro: Stumpy's Last Gig
- Microsoft: The Ironing Is Delicious
- Kenwood: The Right To Bare Arms
- Takko: Mmmm mmmmmm mmm mmm no.
- E! Online: Kardashians Polio Chic
- Janet Reger: Regrettable Hand Job
- JCPenney: You Broke The Baroqueometer
- Playboy Poland: THE BELLS!
- Life & Style: Kardashian Diet Secret Revealed
- Elle: Shoulder Woulda Coulda
- All About Steve: BUT I USED FEATHER!
- Graphis: Undetectable Comping
- PES Soccer: World Keepy Uppy Champion
- Adam Lambert: For Your What?
-
►
November
(19)
- Axelrod: Aquaplaning!
- Wgate: Demi Moore, Demi Anja Rubik
- Vizio: Your Experience May Vary
- Swedish Taxi: Hard To Handle
- Georg Jensen: Breast Not To Talk About It
- Hardwired: That's Some Jawline
- Ana Maria: The Lady With The Bezier Shoulder
- Leave It To Lamas: No Mas!
- The Spy Next Door: Pull The Other One
- Express: Things That Make You Go Hmm
- New York Lottery: In Dog We Trust
- Morning Musume: Arms Reduction
- Armani Exchange: Going Out On A Limb
- Austrian Newspaper: The Clone Arranger
- Campari: Incampariable
- OSS117: Those Legs Will Take You A Long Way, Lady
- Digital Photoshop Disaster Of The Year, 2009
- Wella: No More LSD For You
- Boots: Huh?
-
►
October
(22)
- Victoria's Secret: Mostly Invisible Handbag
- Everybody's Fine: No They're Not
- Solidea: Detachable Pelvis
- Gap: Wristful Thinking
- Victoria's Secret: Sexy! Convenient!
- T3 Magazine: Trying To Titillate
- Some Dentist: Learn How To Smile Again Again
- Brothers & Sisters: Footloose!
- Victoria's Secret: The Awful, Awful Secret
- buycostumes.com: Bring Out The What?
- JVC: Gonks Love Headphones
- Ralph Lauren: The Hits Keep On Coming
- The Star: Back Handed
- Blick: Stunning Photographic Proof
-
►
December
(17)
Monday, December 15, 2008
National Geographic: Here's Your Prize Cheaty McCheaterson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
125 comments:
wow. way to go National Geographic
phirst!!!!
That's just brilliant. Kudos to Mcheatos.
And it's on National Geographic's website? No way! so stupid it makes me want to cry.
Oh Christ, this is wonderful.
Wow, that was just bad. I am glad the photo made it to this site so that it can receive the proper exposure it deserves.
Maybe it's an actual photo taken from a screen? Or maybe my definition of the word reflection is wrong..
Wait, hold on. I just want to confirm. Someone took a picture of the sky, and then photoshopped in a horizon and some people to make it look like they were reflected, but for some reason, they went through all this work to forget that the clouds weren't at all reflected?
Reflection's seem to be the bane of poor photoshop'ers. And I can't access the National Geographic version, so I'm hoping they've re-thought their decision already.
Wow, this is insanely bad.
Nope, it's still there.
I think it's funny that the caption clearly says "Reflections show the clouds on the water", so not only is the photoshopper an idiot, but the comment writer is as well.
it's there under "Viewer's Choice" in the drop down... Which means a whole bunch of people, not just 2, are stupid... Not like that's a surprise or anything.
Photo and Caption are by the same guy. And it *is* still up. I couldn't see it because I had Flash turned off.
Here's what a google search for the photographer 'Shibnath Basu' turned up
http://www.usefilm.com/photographer.asp?ID=375799
I'm shocked an amazed that this was not caught by NatGeo of all people.
BTW, photoshopping for this content is straight up against their rules entirely:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/photo-contest/rules
I particularly like the way the clouds are immune to the rippling effect of water....
The water isn't actually water but a liquid that doesn't bend the light. And it's see-through and the diameter of the world in depth. Makes sense right?
Should we buy him this book for Christmas ?
http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Photography-Field-Guide/dp/079225676X/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
It is fantastic that NatGeo has lowered their standards so far that I don't want to shoot for them any longer..
the shot of the eagles fighting over the fish looks horrible as well...just not believable
It seems as though the commenter on his site had something to say about it as well...
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1443590.html
I actually find it stressful to look at. It messes with your mind trying to figure out why it just doesn't work in reality.
I'm so glad I grew up seeing clouds in water so I can see what's wrong, and that I know photoshop and how they did it.
So wrong...
It must be getting to the point where National Geographic start thinking about recruiting a full-time photo editor. That bike courier they have doing it between collections obviously isn't able to give it his full attention.
The horse picture is also obviously photoshopped. They're superimposed on the background and each other. See how there is not any sort of evidence of shadowing from the horse in front on the horse in the back, even though they are supposed to be very close to each other.
It's magical
On the gallery of his images there are other wonderful photoshop denials, such as http://www.usefilm.com/image/1474528.html
"USED A LITTLE VESLINE IN U.V.FILTER"
Yeah, sure you did.
Wow, it's still listed there as a winner. I sent them a link to this site, so they can understand why it doesn't work under their own rules.
this os REALLY sad, especially considering people pay money to enter sone natgeo contests!
well done... natgeo.
The final picture on the site of the Eagles is also laughable. Just shameful.
this makes me sad. Oh how stupid people can be. I think we should band together and fool the masses with some tricky optical illusions that seem to defy physics, all made on photoshop. wwoooooo.
April: RE: Eagles fighting over fish: Yep, that's a definite 'shop. Firstly, light sources, secondly, background, thirdly, 'fish' looks more like a v. distant eagle, fourthly, one of the eagles has a missing foot.
Sigh. And as for this? Yeah, it is truly a mindfuck. The peoples' 'reflections' are the worst though. X_X
A very pretty picture, if you're not keen on that physics thing ...
I disagree with the suggestion the horse photo is photoshopped. It appears that it was taken with a long lens and the paint (brown and white) horse is far enough behind the bay (dark brown horse) that it isn't shadowed by the bay horse's head. The distance between them has been foreshortened by the use of a telephoto lens. You have probably seen a similar effect in sports photos such as pro football photos shot with a 600MM lens.
horrible, horrible.
spottheblogger maybe right, but the photographshopperer [TM] has no credibility, none of his work can be taken seriously.
I absolutely love this:
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1472563.html
" IT'S A SLOW SHUTTER SPEED PHOTO", maybe but it's lousey use of Gaussian blur.
wrong caption that's all. should have been "India's famous tightrope-walking sky fishermen"
Well holy crap. Even NatGeo is doing photoshop on thier photos? Ick. And I thought they'd be the ones safe...Arent these 'astounding' images supposed to be that way because they arent man made? Isnt that the point? Nature? Natural?
I have to slap my head very hard for this. Out of all of them, I have to say this is the worst and probably most embarassing and as well as the most dissapointing one. :(
what really gets me is how beautiful the runner up "places" photo is.
spottheblogger, could it be that there is a lighting effect that is applied to the image? Look at the horses head, which is a brilliant white and then towards its body, the white starts to lose contrast.
Or am I mistaken? I don't know how that effect could happen with filters or lighting, but I could be wrong.
Tien, I'm confused about your description of the horse's head. In the photo in question (English Edition Winners, Nature Honorable Mention - the 2nd to last photo) there are 2 horses. The horse closer to the camera is bay (dark brown). The horse in the back is a pinto (dark brown and white), but the part of his face that we can see is brown, except for the white we can see on the tip of his nose.
The lighting is the same for both horses, look at the shadows under the strands of mane on both their necks. The loss of detail on the white coat is where the horse's body changes shape from the narrower neck to the wider shoulder. This change causes the shoulder to more brightly reflect the sun to the camera.
There is also a bit of vignette effect in the photo which causes the bay horse's body to be darker further from his head. This could be natural vignetting from the lens or applied in photoshop - in either case it's not changing what was seen so I don't think it would be against the contest rules.
Wow. That is pretty pathetic on Nat G's part.
Not to mention, the horizon is awfully tilted:(
It says on his site that this picture was taken with a film camera.
Couldn't he just taken a picture of the sky, then expose the frame again with a shot of the fishers?
The photo is also at
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1443590.html
and people have left comments there, the one from James NomadRip probably sums up best our opinion of his fake photo.
Laws of reflection, unknown beasts...
purplecow --
Exposures are additive, so exposing a photo of people on top of a cloud image (or vice versa) would have completely washed out the people, rather than caused them to show up as black shapes. The only way to do that is to physically block light from the sky, or fake it after taking the photo :-)
tho from the way the water reflects, it should have been obvious it couldn't be real :/
Maybe they have just different clouds there in India...? ;-)
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1442728.html
KAZIRANGHA NATIONAL PARK. PHOTO TAKEN ANOTHER ELEPHANT. - ahem ...
Si nos ponemos deberíamos de acusar a todos los ganadores de todos los premios fotográficos en los que se permita en categoría digital
Hace 1 o 2 años, la diputación de pontevedra tuvo que declarar desierto un concurso, ya que todos los participantes habían empleado photoshop
Not being that much familiar how Photoshop works, but having taken photos for about a quarter of century, the first thing that comes into my mind when seeing the eagles image is that it has been shot with the lens vertically up, in low evening sun. This would also explain the odd position of the eagle at lower right (it would be in fact horizontal) and the note that the fish was caught by an eagle (and not smashed into the lens).
Ah, the photographer has tinkered with Photoshop before, it seems: http://www.usefilm.com/photographer.asp?P=1&ID=375799&PF=0
Still - can't blame him for trying, but NG should have spotted this eye-crime.
From the same source, another of his "photos with no photoshop":
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1464431.html
This one is just clumsy... or lazy... I can't make up my mind!
There are many more where these came from.
As for the eagles photo, take a look at this. It's a picture by another photographer at the same site, spotted in the comments on Neatorama. So, not fake.
Obviously reflections are difficult for this guy: http://www.usefilm.com/image/1463933.html
That's a pretty gray sky for such a sunny day. Of course it could be a storm moving in. But what the hell is that black mass in the river that totally smokes the reflection?
hahah! it's so lame!!!
I do not know if you know much about photography and monsons; maybe you know everything about Photoshop, but I can assure you that sometimes there are reflections even with a dull and grey sky. Especially if a monson has just passed; before a typhoon or a after monson sky is generally all white or all grey or black and reflections still are there.
If you want a clear example you may give a look here: http://www.paoloamero.com/black/011.htm
The pic was taken immediately before a typhoon in Vietnam and as you can see reflections are evident even if sky is far from being sunny.
This other one was taken during a bright day with dark sky and reflections are still there:
http://www.paoloamero.com/black/2.htm
I hope that this was an oversight. Like maybe a layer was not visible that really should have been? I hope.
Miranetti, thanks for the info.
But what I'm referring to is the black mass in the water that takes out a portion of the building and part of the left rear tower. Unless there is something huge and black floating on the surface of the water, I'd say it is part of a mask that was accidently left on when the image was saved out of Photoshop.
@Evelyn
That would just make it a composite photo. Just as offensive, given the nature of the contest (a contest of nature).
Steve, in that tower shot I think there was a bridge which was photoshopped out in the non-reflection, but overlooked in the reflection.
@Steve
Yes I understand what you mean now: if it is a part of a mask i do not see any reason for it to be in that exact position, though. Unless the author has badly worked to erase an object that was bothering him (a person, perhaps) and then forgot to fill the hole that had remained there. Bu they way, this author seems to like tilted photos.
Uh, seems at national Geographic they love "strange"pics like this other one:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/08/photo-contest/steinmetz-text
So you people notice anything wrong or strange in this photo? Or is it me missing some hidden message?:D
I just emailed National Geographic. This photo is insulting to the photographers that lost. I looked over Mr. Basu's other works and besides the fact that he has a passion for altering his photos, his non-altered photos are mediocre at best. I thought National Geographic was better than this.
@ Marinetti, that photo of the camels has been going around for a little while now. I don't believe it is shopped other than some color correcting at most. The photographer, George Steinmetz, is known for taking ariel photos. Even strikingly similar shadows have slight differences, so I don't think there is cloning going on here. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that photo is genuine. The angle of the sun gave the camel-shaped shadows and the effect that looks so fake.
Tirzha, we all should throw some shoes to Mr National Geographic. And export democracy to that eccentric organization.
Lame.
I emailed National Geographic about this "photoshoppograph" and received the following reply:
Thank you for your email. This image was previously brought to our attention and we have asked the photographer to send us the original negative. The magazine will address the issue if the photographer can not prove that it was not manipulated.
Thanks for your interest.
Sincerely,
C.L. Stroud
Editorial Services
National Geographic Society
"But what I'm referring to is the black mass in the water that takes out a portion of the building and part of the left rear tower."
Looks like a woman in a burqa facing away from the camera. You can see a hand.
See? That's a magnificent example of a rich, multi-level, cooperative screw-up (the author, the NG staff, the Viewer's Choice).
As opposed to recently dull stuff like 'Prison Break', Leopard, Terminator or Jessica Alba's head.
yt@marinetti
The camel photo is a bit of a cool optical illusion. If you look hard enough you'll realize the photographer is so perpindicular to the camels that they have become 2D objects. Their shadows are cast onto each other, which explains the weird overlaps.
Also, it looks like most of these Viewer's Choice photos are faked. The first one with the kids in the snow-white hallway? The dolphins in the waves? The reindeer with the grayscaled sky? I'm sorry but that is not regular color correction.
this is absurd, why does national geographic even need evidence of a negative to catch this one?
Going back to the horses, is there a reason the upper back end of the white horse just disappears? Seems like a good argument that it is photoshopped as well.
NG has gone downhill in recent years. This is another example of why I let my subscription expire.
I agree Val - I miss the good old days when it was all about geography and nations.
Kathy said: "Looks like a woman in a burqa facing away from the camera. You can see a hand."
Wow. I think you're right. Good catch.
I haven't read all comments, but, since this picture seems being a film rather than digital thing, I think photoshop has nothing to do with it. I suppose it's a double exposure or some kind of sandwich, in which case it's not any more a PS-disaster. Therefore I don't think it's a great picture, and the author is still doing some kind of lie by saying it's the reflection of the clouds in the water.
They can't tell it's fake from inspection? I haven't had an optics class in a few years but I seem to recall something about the angle of reflection being equal to the angle of incidence. That's a pretty odd reflection.
I have a feeling the "photographer" is going to have difficulty producing the negative.
Has nobody else noticed what appears to be a pair of legs sticking out the bottom of the boat on the right, as opposed to a reflection of the head shown above the water (obviously this is in addition to the glaring flaws already pointed out)
i found this on national geographic recently, and if you look closely (which i just did, again) it's not very clear but they actually are not duplicated images. there are some very small differences - look at the angle of the pole the boater is holding, at the number of passengers, where they are facing, how they are sitting. they are different, it's just extremely hard to see.
kake
Francois, a film image can easily be scanned onto a computer, manipulated, then reprinted as a new photgraph. Once scanned, it becomes just as maleable as one taken with a digital camera.
At last: the photo has been eliminated from the NG website.
spottheblogger, you are right, it's just vignette. I thought someone had mentioned the horse photo being photoshopped, but other than the vignetting, I couldn't tell of anything. However, it just seems a bit too obvious the vignette - similar to this http://tutorialtown.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/pun484-photoshop-spot-light-effect-trick-tutorial8.jpg
or this
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00O/00ODLr-41381184.jpg
I guess I prefer vignettes to be a bit more subtle like this
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1201/900007984_103da29f5b.jpg
Someone mentioned the photo had been taken down, but it's still up there for me.
Why does NG need a negative to prove that the picture was photoshopped, instead of defying the laws of physics by not reflecting?
the photoshopper (i can't bring myself to call him a 'photographer') was too lazy to even erase the sky overlay on top of the horizon - curious how the coastline is lighter colored on the parts where the sky supposedly reflects.
I stand corrected - I received a reply from the eagle photographer (not the NG one) confirming it was not stolen after all.
In respone to the post Shot made about the "photogrpahers" image at http://www.usefilm.com/image/1474528.html about vaseline on uv filter. Let me tell you hun (the photographer ... not Shot)I've done that vaseline trick myself manytimes before and it has never come out looking like that. this man is fooling himself and others are totally buying into it.
You know NG used to stand for quality ... oh how the mighty fall.
am i the only one here who actually thinks it's a sweet affect. I almost wish he did it on purpose.
Kathleen said...
"I stand corrected - I received a reply from the eagle photographer (not the NG one) confirming it was not stolen after all."
Kathleen,
If it wasn't stolen, then what is the explanation?
wow... wow...
so nice pic. i'm being speakless.. :)
greeting
enrichco
I used the "contact us" link at the bottom of the page to remark on the obvious defects in reflections. Be interesting if I get a reply.
Current Resident - the photog said he was shooting with the NG photog at the same time and they both got extremely simlar shots.
Aw. Looking at his gallery, the guy could be a decent street photographer / news photographer if he wasn't trying to be an artist at the same time. Or he should just be honest about his techniques.
Someone mentioned the eagles fighting photo. It looks like HDR... I'm not familiar enough with action shots and HDR to be able to decide if that is in fact possible. And if it is HDR it would fall under color correction and exposure manipulation.
This makes me wonder. Anyone know if National Geographic contests from the days of film would have allowed prints from sandwiched negatives or negatives that have been heavily retouched (by hand as part of such contests?
well.. it seems the photo is no more in the NG site..
Oh. As to those horses. There's a distinct difference between the manipulation of contrast and exposure and manipulating content. There is and there never was, anything like a “straight print.” The basic act of shooting and printing is manipulation.
Burning and dodging is exposure manipulation, which when done by hand was literally allowing more light to touch the paper in some areas then in other areas.
The use of contrast filters is contrast manipulation. Building the print up with timed amounts of light onto the paper; you would first do one exposure at a certain time and contrast filter, then do a subsequent exposure at a different time and contrast filter. All the time, you’d be waving your hands around, waving tiny little cards glued to wires or waving cardboard with holes cut out in order to disrupt the light and affect the exposure levels and contrast of the final print. Whew.
All this is a hell of a lot easier and quicker in Photoshop but it doesn’t qualify as Content manipulation. Exposure and contrast manipulation can be effective or ineffective depending on the end result desired. Those horses are effective enough (and probably shot with a longer lens as is much animal photography.)
Nat Geo (and many other contests) clearly define the difference between the two concepts and tend to exclude the dreaded "Content Manipulation". The water reflection cloud boat people image sorta fell through the cracks.
RE: The camel photo
Angles causing 2D effect and weirdness is all well and good. But please explain how it is that some camels have the bright divot-y areas cutting of their heads and legs if there wasn't some clone stamping going on?
Hi All,
Just Look at the following link and I am sure you will not find the photoshop disaster shot again.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/photo-contest/2008-winners?startgallery=1
I think NG took the right decision.
Its the win of the Honest Photographers and bad day for the nasty ones.
PP
Yes, National Geographic (where I work) took down the photo this morning and posted a statement on homepage of their website:
http://ngm.typepad.com/ngmcom_feedback/2008/12/photo-contest-c.html
I just got an email from Nat Geo about the removal of the image.
Justice! :D
Just got this email in response to my complaint to N Geographic:
"The International Photography Contest from National Geographic has sparked unparalleled interest from photographers around the world, with some 220,000 submissions this year worldwide. The rules of the competition clearly state that no altered images can be submitted. It has come to our attention that one of the Viewers’ Choice Award winners of the English-language competition might be an altered image. When we asked our panel of photography experts to review it, they believed it to be questionable. To give the photographer the benefit of the doubt, we asked him to send us the source negative, which we have not yet received. For now, we will remove the image from the Web site until the matter is resolved.
Sincerely,
Julie Crain
National Geographic Society"
Quite right, too. How did they not notice it straight away?
@partha
Nasty photographers?
THe indian photographer sent an image to a contest; let's say that the photo doesnt match the contest rules but this doesnt mean the guy is nasty, but he just decided to evidently discard the rules; the jury of the contest gives a prize to the photo which diesnt match the rules of the contest making itself a big mistake: i dont see why this indian guy should be called a nasty photographer; the mistake is in the jury which gave him an award, not in the photographer, at least in my opinion.
By the way: this photo has quite a fascinating appeal, though heavily retouched.
They did some retouching, but something similar can be real:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNF_P281Uu4&eurl=http://www.wherethehellismatt.com/?fbid=E8NugYf_stJ
Marinetti - in my book, cheating is pretty nasty.
This is way beyond embarrassing for National Geographic. And it's so easy to notice the fake too.
To Felix, there is no such thing as a natural phenomena where a river is so transparent the sky can be seen THROUGH it. The earth is round, there's not even another side! The one in where in the world is Matt, the water reflect the sky.
LOL ..Maybe he could have done Better if he had not missed his Fifth Standard Class in School , where he missed Lessons on How Reflections Work. LOL ...
So Long Mr.Basu... You Almost Cheated NatGeo , but Forgot that PSDians were on watch everywhere..
i think they removed the original image.
Hi Marinetti,
I said nasty because of the following reasons..
He is a senior photographer and Teacher of PhotographyKnow the rule of the contest very well still he misguided the NG selectors and the viewers. In his caption he clearly mentioned that " The picture shows the reflection of clouds on water. He knows it well that he had done all the things using PS and violates the rule of NG contest. He falsifies and hide the real thing thats why I call his activity as nasty.
You know this type of activities from a senior photographer make me and all Indian photographer shameful, a similar type of case happens in Asian Geographic months ago where another Indian photographer cheated the Organisers by sending his shot by the name of his wife and the same photograph won an award a months ago........
this type of activities completely dishonour my country's name and we must protest for that.
Hope I can give the clarification.
Regards.
Partha
Fake reflections.
I have a question about these 2 pics
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1457166.html
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1450633.html
I just don't believe they're real, it looks for me as if silhuettes were cut out ant then pasted onto the background. Also in the first picture I see a black thick line at the bottom - much darker than the rest of the composition. But maybe I'm wrong.
Asia Wu, I don't see any reason to doubt those pics.
National Geographic actually removed the fake shot from their site.
I wrote them about it and got this reply:
Dear Geoff:
Thank you for contacting the National Geographic Society.
The International Photography Contest from National Geographic has sparked unparalleled interest from photographers around the world, with some 220,000 submissions this year worldwide. The rules of the competition clearly state that no altered images can be submitted. It has come to our attention that one of the Viewers’ Choice Award winners of the English-language competition might be an altered image. When we asked our panel of photography experts to review it, they believed it to be questionable. To give the photographer the benefit of the doubt, we asked him to send us the source negative, which we have not yet received. For now, we will remove the image from the Web site until the matter is resolved.
Best wishes,
Lisa T. Walker
National Geographic Society
"To give the photographer the benefit of the doubt, we asked him to send us the source negative, which we have not yet received."
Don't hold your breath, Nat Geo.
Maybe this blog can feature a Photographer of the week, starting with Mr. Basu! Every day a new photo from him can be put on the chopping block!
Geoff, total form letter. I got the same thing, but from a different person.
The International Photography Contest from National Geographic has sparked unparalleled interest from photographers around the world, with some 220,000 submissions this year worldwide. The rules of the competition clearly state that no altered images can be submitted. It has come to our attention that one of the Viewers’ Choice Award winners of the English-language competition might be an altered image. When we asked our panel of photography experts to review it, they believed it to be questionable. To give the photographer the benefit of the doubt, we asked him to send us the source negative, which we have not yet received. For now, we will remove the image from the Web site until the matter is resolved.
Sincerely,
Julie Crain
National Geographic Society
(Side note: my word verification is "twasers," which just made me laugh.)
diopsideanddiamonds said...
RE: The camel photo
Angles causing 2D effect and weirdness is all well and good. But please explain how it is that some camels have the bright divot-y areas cutting of their heads and legs if there wasn't some clone stamping going on?
Can you explain what you mean by "bright divot-y areas"? Do you mean, for instance, the shadow five from the left and two from the bottom? If so, there is nothing dodgy going on there. The shot is taken from above. The sun angle is very low and from the bottom of the picture. So the shadow from the "lower" camel falls low enough that it passes between the legs of the "upper" camel and is cast beyond it, while the upper camel is still in sunlight and shows up bright against the shadowed background. Honestly I think the picture is 100% genuine, and very good. It would almost be harder to fake it like this to recreate the effect of the low sun angle.
I am so glad justice prevailed with this photo.
And I agree with Partha that any photographer so clearly lying about the art, drags the names through the dirt of other reputable photographers. It cheapens the art when people lie. There is nothing wrong with using photoshop but when you alter the actual content of an image it can no longer be called photography and must be classified as digital art.
The fact that this guy is a blatant LIAR is shameful and he should not be called a photographer at all.
what a shame
Haven't you heard of the reverse reflection filter? Its made by the same company that produces a filter that allows you to shoot through the lens cap.
omg i can't believe that THEY cheated!
I remember sawing this at local news lol.
Then again... if it wasn't trying to pass off as a legitimate photo... It does look nice as a photomanip artsy piece. Too artifficial for NG, though.
this is just such a sham!!! And I every time I thought where the hell is this place???
There's no such place in India.
Nat Geo should kick his ass
Lol, that's funny
Futbol en vivo
Post a Comment