"Fake" photo in National Geographic.

Email me. I can scan both the original photo spread and the retraction for you.

--
http://www.istockphoto.com/blaneyphoto
http://www.modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=11729

And as far as I can tell, there are no links available anywhere. I've tried google and the Nat geo Adventure site.
So I guess I'm the first to report it???

--
http://www.istockphoto.com/blaneyphoto
http://www.modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=11729

Nothing too new........I've read that NG published manipulated photos in February 1982 and April 1982 with stories about the Pyramids (a cover photo?), and Poland
.
quoted from "faking images in Photojournalism" 1988 p41-42
pulbished in Media Development
.

..."National Geographic magazine, long known for its reputation of photojournalism excellence, used the Scitex computer digitizer on two recent occasions. On a cover story of Egypt, pyramids were squeezed together to fit the cover's vertical format. A picture story on Poland contained a cover photograph that combined an expression on a man's face in one frame with a complete view of his hat in another picture. Both cover images were altered without a hint of possible detection and without a note to readers that such manipulation was performed."....
--
RickSJC

I should should have credited the author in the post above:
Paul Martin Lester, California State University, Fullerton
--
RickSJC

There are more and bigger ripples generated from the little than the giant whale leaping out of the water... that editor of the National Geo should not be in charge of photo authentication any longer for being so ignorant about this photo unless it is OK to pass on "digitized" image in their magazine. You would think Nat Geo only use authenticated photo - this image, even to an amateur like myself, can spot it within seconds.

Paul

It was a very slick whale, it did not disturb the waters at all. Stealthy, now the navy may ask congress for money to study how it to can not disturb the waters like the whale.

I agree. The whale has discovered the perfect drag coefficient and also, it's a really small whale too !
--
It's an L of a life, this photography lark

http://gordon-walker.fotopic.net/

--
Fabian

fabgo said:

hxxp: delivery.gettyimages.com/xc/200273308-001.jpg

Click to expand...

Oh well... don't know why that doesn't show up.

--
Fabian

Well I do not have a degree in Photography, but I do have one in Art. So let us see. Look at the shadow of the whale and the shadows on the swimmer and now look at the clouds, please tell me where the sun is. As mentioned earlier the proportions in relationship to the perspective is so far off I do not know how anyone could not have known this is a composite.
--
Gary S P



Mother Nature is my religion
http://www.garysworld.net

It only takes a second for the photographer's brain to go "Na-a-a-hh" it's just not right! It takes a little longer to really discern what's wrong, but ...geez...

I'll amend an earlier post about the possible inexperience of our younger generations (one of whom was likely in charge of making this selection). Critical thinking is a skill from a bygone age; nor is it emphasized in our schools. Whatever is on the TV, the Net or in a movie is "reality". The ability to recognize a falsehood from our own observation and shout "liar" is in decline.

Zidar's post about homogenized everything is frighteningly accurate. With digital images so easily dropped into a computer, photographs that lie will become more and more prevalent.

Bummer, dude.
--
jrbehm

As someone pointed out, the water around the whale's body is way too smooth, and the whale is way out of scale.

1. Never fall in love with your own theories. Love is blind.
2. Never confuse your facts with your assumptions, and know your prejudices.

3. The Chavalier de Lamarck was plain wrong...wishing it so does NOT make it so.

4. Always prove competing theories with all the data you have. Don't cherry pick data that proves the theory you're in love with.

5. Nobody is a reliable source until he proves it by a track record. Even then, any individual datum he gives you could be mistaken, so every event requires at least two independent sources before you bet your (or anyone's) life on it.

6. Always learn the motivation behind any human source. He's giving you data for his benefit, not yours.

7. Corollary of #4: Follow the money. Ever notice how studies funded by PETA always conclude milk is good for you, but studies by the National Dairy institute always conclude that milk is good for you?

8. It's always socially unacceptable to be the first one with with bad news (also known as the Cassandra Syndrome). But someone has to do it.

9. Corollary to #8: It's always socially unacceptable to be the first one to stop clapping when the boss says something wrong. But someone has to do it.

10. It's bad enought to be mistaken, but it's criminal to be wrong. Being mistaken is telling the boss you were in error; being wrong is failing to do so.

--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'

I thought I was wrong once,but I was mistaken.

There are several other examples of fake photos published in NG. Check this out for an example:

http://www.naturephoto.hu/home/index_eng.html

My first reaction to this was "We covered that a year ago, why resurrect it now?", then I read on and learned the issue is of real concern to those nature photographers who are the genuine artical. Given the rather cavalier treatment of the Hungarian naturalists and their evidence as they tried to prove to National Geographic Magazine that the cover photo from 2003 was fakery, it became evident that there is need for concern regarding NGM's devotion to accuracy. This is a shame. Is sensationalism replacing the natural truths for which we've always looked to NGM?

My post from a year ago seems especially pointed, in light of the articles attached to the post above this one. Western cultures and humanity are losing touch with the real world and replacing it with one fabricated in studios.
--
jrbehm
http://homepage.mac.com/jrbehm/Scenic/

It's a BABY whale!!

Albert Einstein:

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.

Alfred North Whitehead:

There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil.

George Bernard Shaw:

New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths.

Mark Twain:

Truth is mighty and will prevail. There is nothing the matter with this, except that it ain't so.

and even a photographer:

Richard Avedon:

There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.

When it gets down to it, what is the purpose of that photograph? What is the purpose of National Geographic? Is it to purvey the "truth" and display entirely accurate photographs? Or is the magazine's purpose to teach us about the natural world, to get us to respect nature as we observe her and know how to enjoy nature without destroying her? Just rhetorical questions, since I am not advocating that manipulated photos such as that serve any of these purposes, but the quotes make me reserve judgment when the criticism gets heated about the use of manipulated photos. In my view, we need to discern our own "truths" by getting out there to swim with the whales, whether or not we get close to one.

I'd also be curious to know how much money this photographer makes from stock sales. If this picture produced, say, $10,000 a year, how many of us would stay away from photoshopping similar compositions? And if it is stock, once you put it up there, it is up to the buyer, not you as photographer, as to whether and how they will use it. Perhaps it is time for a stock agency that makes photographers submit a sworn statement that the photos he submits for sale are "accurate" or something like that. But, I'm afraid the ship has sailed. We've all been using photoshop and digital cameras for years. The movie industry is about to reach a point where human actors won't be required. Television shows which depict how the dinosuars lived are all the rage. "UN" reality sells, and as long as it does, we'd better get used to images like this on the covers of our beloved magazines (as long as those last.)

Just my $.02

The picture without the whale would have been nice on its own.

nblaney said:

This image recently appeared in the Feb. 2006 issue of National
Geographic Adventure magazine. It struck me as a little "hard to
believe..." but I figured hey, its Nat. Geo, so it must be real.

Well, don't you know that they printed a retraction in this months
issue in response to letters they recieved questioning the
authenticity of the photo.

"Early in the selection process we were assured by the photographer
and his agency that the photo was real. While Hawaii is a place
where magical things happen, further technical analysis proved -
and the photographer eventually admitted - that the image was a
digital composite."
--
http://www.istockphoto.com/blaneyphoto
http://www.modelmayhem.com/member.php?id=11729

Click to expand...

--
'87.6% of all statistics are made up on the spot'

ShutterBugin
http://www.exposureproductions.smugmug.com

...from Nikolausz? Or are you just responding to the thread's year-old inception?

I was going to say something about the appeasers having no sense of right and wrong with regard to deception by a magazine that purports to represent the natural world, but realized you just don't get it and probably never will, so I won't bother.
--
jrbehm
http://homepage.mac.com/jrbehm/Scenic/