Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: National Geographic's comment on that questionable picture

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: National Geographic's comment on that questionable picture

 
 
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2008
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:27:21 -0500, "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>The picture can still be seen here:
>
>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?!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:51:13 +0000, Kulvinder Singh Matharu
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:27:21 -0500, "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>wrote:
>
>>The picture can still be seen here:
>>
>>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?"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008
John A. wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:51:13 +0000, Kulvinder Singh Matharu
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:27:21 -0500, "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The picture can still be seen here:
>>>
>>> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2008
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:10:25 GMT, John A.
<(E-Mail Removed)> 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?!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Douglas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2008

"Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:27:21 -0500, "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>The picture can still be seen here:
>>
>>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


For as long as Digital cameras have existed there has been manipulation of
images. I always thought it should be illegal in competitions but
increasingly, it is becoming accepted in the mainstream that digital images
are "ALL" manipulated in some way or another.

Douglas


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2008
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Floyd L. Davidson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 11:26:53 -0900, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>wrote in <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>
>>>"Douglas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>For as long as Digital cameras have existed there has been manipulation of
>>>>images. I always thought it should be illegal in competitions but
>>>>increasingly, it is becoming accepted in the mainstream that digital images
>>>>are "ALL" manipulated in some way or another.
>>>
>>>Film images are manipulated in exactly the same way.
>>>Nothing new...

>>
>><quibble> What's new is the automatic in-camera manipulation, such
>>things as correcting lens aberrations, distortion and vignetting.
>></quibble>


> A false point of exactly no significance. It is not
> relevant to anything in the previous discussion.


Unless it raises the possibility of doing in-camera manipulation of
the image of a kind which would be forbidden in some photographic
competitions.

--
Chris Malcolm



 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-27-2008
John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 11:26:53 -0900, (E-Mail Removed) (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>"Douglas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>>For as long as Digital cameras have existed there has been manipulation of
>>>images. I always thought it should be illegal in competitions but
>>>increasingly, it is becoming accepted in the mainstream that digital images
>>>are "ALL" manipulated in some way or another.


>>Film images are manipulated in exactly the same way.
>>Nothing new...


> <quibble> What's new is the automatic in-camera manipulation, such
> things as correcting lens aberrations, distortion and vignetting.
> </quibble>


Really? That's new? What about the dark halo effect in image
orthicon tubes, groomed in well-dosaged amounts for sharpening
purposes --- to the point that newer systems, like vidicon,
were deemed not usable for TV until special 'detail correction'
circuity was developed?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
problem in running a basic code in python 3.3.0 that includes HTML file Satabdi Mukherjee Python 1 04-04-2013 07:48 PM
Re: Civil Law (Sale of Residential Property) Act 2003... a questionable piece of legislation Nemesis Computer Support 0 07-15-2004 08:49 AM
Questionable compiler warning Thomas Heinz C++ 12 07-09-2004 01:56 AM
questionable cast Rouben Rostamian C Programming 6 01-19-2004 11:27 PM
questionable file Lu Tze Computer Security 1 07-20-2003 07:12 AM



Advertisments