Re: National Geographic's comment on that questionable picture

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 23, 2008.

  1. On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:27:21 -0500, "RichA" <>
    wrote:

    >The picture can still be seen here:
    >
    >http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2008/12/national-geographic-heres-your-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?!
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 23, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    John A. Guest

    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 here:
    >>
    >>http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2008/12/national-geographic-heres-your-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., Dec 24, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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 here:
    >>>
    >>> http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2008/12/national-geographic-heres-your-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 McWilliams, Dec 24, 2008
    #3
  4. 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?!
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, Dec 24, 2008
    #4
  5. Kulvinder Singh Matharu

    Douglas Guest

    "Kulvinder Singh Matharu" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:27:21 -0500, "RichA" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>The picture can still be seen here:
    >>
    >>http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2008/12/national-geographic-heres-your-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
    Douglas, Dec 25, 2008
    #5
  6. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Floyd L. Davidson <> wrote:
    > John Navas <> wrote:
    >>On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 11:26:53 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
    >>wrote in <>:
    >>
    >>>"Douglas" <> 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
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 27, 2008
    #6
  7. John Navas <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 11:26:53 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson)
    >>"Douglas" <> 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 27, 2008
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nemesis
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    466
    Nemesis
    Jul 15, 2004
  2. Lu Tze

    questionable file

    Lu Tze, Jul 20, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    808
    Jim Watt
    Jul 20, 2003
  3. National Geographic Society

    , Aug 6, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    725
    Rob Morley
    Aug 15, 2007
  4. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=

    National Geographic Threw Away All Credibility When They Released This Book!!

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Aug 13, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    130
    Views:
    1,992
    Pudentame
    Aug 24, 2007
  5. Seagull

    Questionable file

    Seagull, Aug 9, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    557
    Seagull
    Aug 11, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page