National Geographic's comment on that questionable picture

The picture can still be seen he

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

Their comment:

"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."

Yes, lets see the "original negative" that bends the laws of optical
physics. Photo editors? Or drunken old slobs?

RichA wrote:
The picture can still be seen he

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

Their comment:

"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 say the least...


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:27:21 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:

The picture can still be seen he

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...our-prize.html
[snip]
Yes, lets see the "original negative" that bends the laws of optical
physics. Photo editors? Or drunken old slobs?

Yes, I saw this a few days ago too. It's so obviously a highly
manipulated image. Shame on the "photographer" and also shame on
NatGeo.

For photographic competitions (and forgetting that this image is
obviously manipulated) I thought that the judges (esp NatGeo!) would
demand access to negatives or RAW files so that they can see during
their reviews of the competition entries if it's simple curve/levels
adjustments or copy/paste adjustments.

National Geographic. I'm not going to look at your magazine photos
the same way again. You broke my dreams and the laws of physics
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:51:13 +0000, Kulvinder Singh Matharu
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:27:21 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:

The picture can still be seen he

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...our-prize.html
[snip]
Yes, lets see the "original negative" that bends the laws of optical
physics. Photo editors? Or drunken old slobs?

Yes, I saw this a few days ago too. It's so obviously a highly
manipulated image.

Oh, I don't know. Is slapping together two layers and adding some
transparency really enough effort to merit the image being called
"highly manipulated?"

John A. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:51:13 +0000, Kulvinder Singh Matharu
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:27:21 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:

The picture can still be seen he

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...our-prize.html
[snip]
Yes, lets see the "original negative" that bends the laws of optical
physics. Photo editors? Or drunken old slobs?
Yes, I saw this a few days ago too. It's so obviously a highly
manipulated image.

Oh, I don't know. Is slapping together two layers and adding some
transparency really enough effort to merit the image being called
"highly manipulated?"

Good point! How could that have been missed by NG??

--
john mcwilliams

John A. wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:51:13 +0000, Kulvinder Singh Matharu
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:27:21 -0500, "RichA"
wrote:

The picture can still be seen he

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.c...our-prize.html
[snip]
Yes, lets see the "original negative" that bends the laws of optical
physics. Photo editors? Or drunken old slobs?
Yes, I saw this a few days ago too. It's so obviously a highly
manipulated image.

Oh, I don't know. Is slapping together two layers and adding some
transparency really enough effort to merit the image being called
"highly manipulated?"

It's not the degree of manipulation from a PS POV, but because NG
presents the world as seen. Not shoddy layered images that make
absolutely no sense.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"RichA" wrote in message
...
The picture can still be seen he

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

Their comment:

"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."

Yes, lets see the "original negative" that bends the laws of optical
physics. Photo editors? Or drunken old slobs?




MC Esher could draw it and get it right: -

http://www.allandidier.com/school/Le...REE_WORLDS.jpg

although even this can be manipulated

http://im-possible.info/images/art/r...ree-worlds.jpg

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
The picture can still be seen he

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

Their comment:

"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."

Yes, lets see the "original negative" that bends the laws of optical
physics. Photo editors? Or drunken old slobs?




MC Esher could draw it and get it right: -

http://www.allandidier.com/school/Le...REE_WORLDS.jpg

although even this can be manipulated

http://im-possible.info/images/art/r...ree-worlds.jpg


Great job, even if you did mess with the work of a true genius. Have you
ever read "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter? These three
apparently different true geniuses had more in common than one is likely
to realize.
Allen

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:10:25 GMT, John A.
wrote:

[snip]
Oh, I don't know. Is slapping together two layers and adding some
transparency really enough effort to merit the image being called
"highly manipulated?"

True

Really, I was thinking of it in terms of the percentage and type of
changes made to the image as opposed to the amount of time taken to
make the changes!

I'm actually disappointed with NatGeo's screening/reviews more than
anything else

Hopefully NatGeo have realised that they need more robust review
processes and enforcement.
--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu

Website : www.metalvortex.com
Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/

Brain! Brain! What is brain?!

R. Mark Clayton wrote:


Yes, lets see the "original negative" that bends the laws of optical
physics. Photo editors? Or drunken old slobs?




That image could be theoretically real.

It is a photo of the sky reflected in a pool. But the actual
clouds are clearly not reflected, as they display no symmetry.

Could this be a single shot image?

SURE!

if the sky in front of the camera had do clouds,
and that behind it did, a piece of partially reflective glass
in front of the lens could reflect the clouds in front of
the background.

Of course, the lack of response from the submitter says that
it was a post-camera overlay job.

Doug McDonald