Reading mode: Light Dark

Is this photoshopped?

Go to last post
S

Solarcoaster

Well-known member
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
Accidentally posted this in Pro Digital first, meant to post it here.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/04/challengeofchallenges#comments

I looked at the image with my own eyes and came to the conclusion that there is no way a water drop could be that size coming from a fish that size. My conclusion was predictably trashed by the sheep who came into the comment thread without a critical eye and with their trite congratulations already planned out, but I don't care about them.

The problem with the drop is that it is too big in proportion to the size of the fish, and only a really thick liquid could make such a large drop. Also suspicious is that there are no other water droplets or any trace of water anywhere else in the image.

The fish, along with the water drop, looks very flat, and could have been easily cut and pasted into the beak, and then erased at the pixel level to expose end of the bottom half of the beak. The big problem is that the beak's break through the side of the fish is extremely clean, there's no torn scaled or anything, it just looks unnatural. The whole thing looks "fish" to me.

I don't know for sure that it was photoshopped, but I'd say there's an over 50% chance, and it very easily COULD have been. What do you think?
 
Solarcoaster said:
Accidentally posted this in Pro Digital first, meant to post it here.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/04/challengeofchallenges#comments

I looked at the image with my own eyes and came to the conclusion that there is no way a water drop could be that size coming from a fish that size. My conclusion was predictably trashed by the sheep who came into the comment thread without a critical eye and with their trite congratulations already planned out, but I don't care about them.

The problem with the drop is that it is too big in proportion to the size of the fish, and only a really thick liquid could make such a large drop. Also suspicious is that there are no other water droplets or any trace of water anywhere else in the image.

The fish, along with the water drop, looks very flat, and could have been easily cut and pasted into the beak, and then erased at the pixel level to expose end of the bottom half of the beak. The big problem is that the beak's break through the side of the fish is extremely clean, there's no torn scaled or anything, it just looks unnatural. The whole thing looks "fish" to me.

I don't know for sure that it was photoshopped, but I'd say there's an over 50% chance, and it very easily COULD have been. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Based on this site, the image is somewhat questionable:
http://errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/b8f4723/

http://errorlevelanalysis.com/

Mike
 
Solarcoaster said:
...

I looked at the image with my own eyes and came to the conclusion that there is no way a water drop could be that size coming from a fish that size. ...

The problem with the drop is that it is too big in proportion to the size of the fish, and only a really thick liquid could make such a large drop. ...
Click to expand...
Actually that appears to be a very tiny fish. The water drop appears large compared to the fish, but it is only about the size of the birds eye, which seems reasonable for a drop of water.

The size of a drop has little to do with the size of the object doing the dropping. It depends mostly on the properties of the water and the surface letting go of the drop.
--
JerryG

My galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/jerryg1
 
Solarcoaster said:
Also suspicious is that there are no other water droplets or any trace of water anywhere else in the image.
Click to expand...
LOOK at the bird! It's wings are dry, which is not surprising at all. But the rest of it is covered with small drops of water. The bird of course is covered with feathers that have no tendency at all to absorb or attract water, while the fish is covered with scales and "fish slime". The ultimate conclusion is that the water dripping from each is quite within the range of normal. If you doubt it, spend some time looking at other pictures of birds and fish immediately after they are removed from water.
 
Once again, someone who thinks something's fake because they don't understand what they're looking at.

There's nothing wrong with the photo, it's a small bird with a very small fish so the water drop looks larger than it is.
 
Solarcoaster said:
Accidentally posted this in Pro Digital first, meant to post it here.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/04/challengeofchallenges#comments

I looked at the image with my own eyes and came to the conclusion that there is no way a water drop could be that size coming from a fish that size.
Click to expand...
For plain water the drop looks large, but if it would contain fish-"slime" it could easily be that size.
Solarcoaster said:
My conclusion was predictably trashed by the sheep who came into the comment thread without a critical eye and with their trite congratulations already planned out, but I don't care about them.
Click to expand...
You don't care about sheep?
Solarcoaster said:
The problem with the drop is that it is too big in proportion to the size of the fish, and only a really thick liquid could make such a large drop. Also suspicious is that there are no other water droplets or any trace of water anywhere else in the image.
Click to expand...
Water runs easily off the feathers of a bird all that is needed for it to completely disappear is a shake by the bird. Why is it suspicious? There is water in the beak around the fish.
Solarcoaster said:
The fish, along with the water drop, looks very flat, and could have been easily cut and pasted into the beak, and then erased at the pixel level to expose end of the bottom half of the beak. The big problem is that the beak's break through the side of the fish is extremely clean, there's no torn scaled or anything, it just looks unnatural. The whole thing looks "fish" to me.
Click to expand...
It is natural that it looks fish, there is a fish. There is a clearly visible loose scale. A quick sharp beak could easily make a hole like that.
Solarcoaster said:
I don't know for sure that it was photoshopped, but I'd say there's an over 50% chance, and it very easily COULD have been. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Does not matter for me. So, what if it was photoshopped? Was there a rule against it in the challenge? If there was we have to take the photographer's world for what he did or did not do. Period.

Why are you so concerned?

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member

It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt
 
As somebody who has photographed water shore birds (egrets catching minnows, frogs and tadpoles) for the GA Dept. of Natural Resources magazine, the photo looks completely normal to me. As water runs off the fish which is angled down, the first few drops of water will be pretty large from the build up.
JD
 
The following is a larger image that was posted in response to a challenge comment regarding whether or not the bird was hand held or not :



The droplet seems a reasonable size to me ( compared to the small branch or twig ) for a droplet which is just about to bifurcate ( break off ).

The image has been normally processed with Photoshop, of course, but not faked , IMO.

Very nice capture, I'd say.

--
StephenG
 
It makes no difference to me whether it has been retouched or not and I do not see why anyone else should care; unless the image was submitted to a challenge as being straight out of camera, with no post processing at all and the person questioning the image feels that the photographer has violated the challenge rules.

I understand what Mike is referring to, but I personally do not think that what he has posted can be taken as fact that the image has been retouched. In my opinion, it looks entirely believeable to me, given the size of the bird, the size of the very small fish (minnow?) and the size of the water droplet. I also disagree that the lighting suggests different light sources for the bird and the minnow...again, it looks believeable

to me. If the image has been retouched, it was done by someone who is quite capable at doing so, IMO.

I will NOT get into an argument over this, as this is just my opinion and I do not claim to be an expert.

Regards and best wishes for a happy and prosperous new year to all.....Allen
 
Solarcoaster said:
Accidentally posted this in Pro Digital first, meant to post it here.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/04/challengeofchallenges#comments

I looked at the image with my own eyes and came to the conclusion that there is no way a water drop could be that size coming from a fish that size.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is then on you to come up with validation of that conclusion. Nothing wrong with looking at something with a critical eye, but be prepared to explain in detail how you come to such a conclusion. If you cannot, then your credibility takes a hit - the next time you "conclude" that an image is faked, don't expect much support.
 
And from your post, I conclude that you literally did not read anything in my original post after the quoted text. Either that or you chose to blatantly ignore it. I did explain in detail how I came to such a conclusion, and I did not make a categorical statement that the image is fake. I posted the image here just to get some other opinions of experienced "choppers" on the relative likelihood that this image was photoshopped.
Mark B. said:
Solarcoaster said:
Accidentally posted this in Pro Digital first, meant to post it here.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/04/challengeofchallenges#comments

I looked at the image with my own eyes and came to the conclusion that there is no way a water drop could be that size coming from a fish that size.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is then on you to come up with validation of that conclusion. Nothing wrong with looking at something with a critical eye, but be prepared to explain in detail how you come to such a conclusion. If you cannot, then your credibility takes a hit - the next time you "conclude" that an image is faked, don't expect much support.
Click to expand...
 
I have no problem with retouching, I do it all the time. But hypothetically adding elements to an image from source files does not fall under the scope of retouching. It is one thing if you are presenting the image as fine art, but quite another if you are presenting it as an authentic capture of a naturally occurring, unstaged moment.
Allen Gerdes said:
It makes no difference to me whether it has been retouched or not and I do not see why anyone else should care; unless the image was submitted to a challenge as being straight out of camera, with no post processing at all and the person questioning the image feels that the photographer has violated the challenge rules.

I understand what Mike is referring to, but I personally do not think that what he has posted can be taken as fact that the image has been retouched. In my opinion, it looks entirely believeable to me, given the size of the bird, the size of the very small fish (minnow?) and the size of the water droplet. I also disagree that the lighting suggests different light sources for the bird and the minnow...again, it looks believeable

to me. If the image has been retouched, it was done by someone who is quite capable at doing so, IMO.

I will NOT get into an argument over this, as this is just my opinion and I do not claim to be an expert.

Regards and best wishes for a happy and prosperous new year to all.....Allen
Click to expand...
 
It seems unlikely to me that the bird would spear the fish with open beak in the water. I have seen Blue Heron take a fish up to the beach and spear it, but it's beak was closed and the solid ground created a backing for the fish to be speared.
 
looks fake to me because:

no reflections in water
no sun light sparkle
bird is sitting somewhere. so the water would have fallen off awhile ago.

but going to his site - doesn't look like he plays with his images.

--
Mike
 
The Kingfisher plunges into the water like a spear at quite a high rate of speed so that does not seem improbable to me.
leroyvanhee said:
It seems unlikely to me that the bird would spear the fish with open beak in the water. I have seen Blue Heron take a fish up to the beach and spear it, but it's beak was closed and the solid ground created a backing for the fish to be speared.
Click to expand...
 
This is the problem that I have....you have not said that the person did present this image as an authentic, unretouched image and it seems to me that you only suspect that elements have been combined. If they did present it as such, and in fact had combined images, then I would agree with you. I just simply do not understand what has caused you to question the validity of the image, as it looks very believeable to me. Is it because this image beat out one of yours in a challenge?

Where did you get your definition of retouching? I contend that artistically altering or combining elements from two or more images into one is indeed retouching. How else can it be done except through retouching (manipulation) of the image? I do however feel that perhaps retouching may have more than one definition, one of which would include artistic or constructive manipulation.

Of course, this is only my opinion, for what that is worth. This is my last post on this matter.

REgards...Allen
 
I've seen Egrets spear frogs many times, plus as mentioned before Kingfishers often spear fish, that photo looks normal in every way, maybe colors retouched in Photoshop, but there is nothing at all unusual with this photo.
JD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top