Nat Geo contest winner - with horrid Photoshopping
 

Technically, this is not digital because he took it with 35mm film, but
I can't believe that none of the judges at National Geographic caught
this disaster.

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...our-prize.html

Nat Geo contest winner - with horrid Photoshopping
 

Cynicor wrote:
Technically, this is not digital because he took it with 35mm film, but
I can't believe that none of the judges at National Geographic caught
this disaster.

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...our-prize.html

It was in the *viewer's choice* category.

Nat Geo contest winner - with horrid Photoshopping
 

Paul Furman wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
Technically, this is not digital because he took it with 35mm film,
but I can't believe that none of the judges at National Geographic
caught this disaster.

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...our-prize.html


It was in the *viewer's choice* category.

Fair enough. It shouldn't have been accepted into the contest in the
first place, in my opinion.

The photo itself is on the shooter's page:
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1443590.html

For some reason, every time someone makes obviously fake photo-art and
calls it a photograph, or uses eight-sided snowflakes, or a number of
other things that seem to bug only me, you get the predictable comments
like this one from his page: "i dont know why people talking abt rule.is
there any rule for art? if there have some rules than i will say
photography is not a art." It's part of the "stop pointing out this
sucks, you hater" rule.

Nat Geo contest winner - with horrid Photoshopping
 

"Cynicor" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
Technically, this is not digital because he took it with 35mm film, but
I can't believe that none of the judges at National Geographic caught
this disaster.

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...our-prize.html


It was in the *viewer's choice* category.

Fair enough. It shouldn't have been accepted into the contest in the first
place, in my opinion.

The photo itself is on the shooter's page:
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1443590.html

For some reason, every time someone makes obviously fake photo-art and
calls it a photograph, or uses eight-sided snowflakes, or a number of
other things that seem to bug only me, you get the predictable comments
like this one from his page: "i dont know why people talking abt rule.is
there any rule for art? if there have some rules than i will say
photography is not a art." It's part of the "stop pointing out this sucks,
you hater" rule.



It is a really crap piece of photoshopping and should be a pretty poorly
placed entry in any photographic competition.

It could be described as a manipulated photograph, but whatever descriptor
is applied in front, it is still a photograph.

Roy G

Nat Geo contest winner - with horrid Photoshopping
 

Roy G wrote:
"Cynicor" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
Technically, this is not digital because he took it with 35mm film, but
I can't believe that none of the judges at National Geographic caught
this disaster.

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...our-prize.html

It was in the *viewer's choice* category.
Fair enough. It shouldn't have been accepted into the contest in the first
place, in my opinion.

The photo itself is on the shooter's page:
http://www.usefilm.com/image/1443590.html

For some reason, every time someone makes obviously fake photo-art and
calls it a photograph, or uses eight-sided snowflakes, or a number of
other things that seem to bug only me, you get the predictable comments
like this one from his page: "i dont know why people talking abt rule.is
there any rule for art? if there have some rules than i will say
photography is not a art." It's part of the "stop pointing out this sucks,
you hater" rule.



It is a really crap piece of photoshopping and should be a pretty poorly
placed entry in any photographic competition.

It could be described as a manipulated photograph, but whatever descriptor
is applied in front, it is still a photograph.

Depends on the competition. I believe the rules in this one said "no
manipulation," which I usually think of as meaning "light
sharpening/contrast/saturation OK" but not "take the photo and then
paste in the sky and then paste it in again as a wrong-facing
reflection." On the other hand, he did leave the crooked horizon....

Nat Geo contest winner - with horrid Photoshopping
 

Roy G wrote:
Cynicor wrote:

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...our-prize.html

it is still a photograph.

It's two photographs faked together to look like *a* photograph.


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Nat Geo contest winner - with horrid Photoshopping
 

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:56:00 -0500, Cynicor wrote:
: Technically, this is not digital because he took it with 35mm film, but
: I can't believe that none of the judges at National Geographic caught
: this disaster.
:
: http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...our-prize.html

Well, it would certainly appear that the "photographer" has no conceptual
understanding of the geometry of reflections. I suppose we may conclude that
the judges don't either. :^|

Bob

Nat Geo contest winner - with horrid Photoshopping
 

In article ,
Robert Coe wrote:

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...ic-heres-your-
prize.html

It was a viewers choice award, not a National Geographic judges award.
When National Geographic asked the photographer to send the original, he
withdrew his photo. Case closed.

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net

Nat Geo contest winner - with horrid Photoshopping
 

"Stephen Henning" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Robert Coe wrote:

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...ic-heres-your-
prize.html

It was a viewers choice award, not a National Geographic judges award.
When National Geographic asked the photographer to send the original, he
withdrew his photo. Case closed.

Reminds me of when "now next to dead" Time magazine gave all these awards to
absolute crap done with cellphones. There is no artistry or technical
quality involved with people just happening to be at the right place and
right time. So why an award? It's like calling people who were in a
bombing "heroes" when all they did was be there, unknowingly.

Nat Geo contest winner - with horrid Photoshopping
 

On 2008-12-19, Stephen Henning wrote:
In article ,
Robert Coe wrote:

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...al-geographic-
heres-your-prize.html

It was a viewers choice award, not a National Geographic judges award.
When National Geographic asked the photographer to send the original, he
withdrew his photo. Case closed.


I think NG withdrew the photo pending receipt of his negs. But the
effect is the same.

If only the liars around here were so easy to get rid of.

--
savvo orig. invib. man