Is this photo real?

[Marvintpa]

This photo won as Salt Water Grand Champion in the recent Ford Seahorses Photo Contest.
I don't have alot of experience in salt water, but does this photo look real (as in, not retouched)?
The reason I ask is when I look at the coral behind the fish there is virtually no detail in it (like it is out of focus), but then looking into the background towards the top, what looks like water at the surface is not as out of focus as it perhaps could be, to my untrained eye.

http://www.fordseahorses.org/_photo_contest/_fsupc03/high/SGC.jpg

Does coral anywhere actually look like that? Completely devoid of detail?
Nice shot though, isn't it?

And just in case you are wondering, it can't be a digital image, since only 35mm slides were allowed in the contest.

 

[scuberd]

it almost looks like an aquarium shot to me, the blue background like that.

But, I'm just starting out with the photo thing and I don't really know squat yet.

 

[Walter]

Marco shots have a narrow field that is in focus. Anything outside that field will not show detail. This looks like a legitimate shot to me.

 

[Diversauras]

The depth of field can be very narrow in macro shots and cause the background (and foreground sometimes) to be out of focus, or as in this case, soft. It may also be digital which could add a look we aren't used to yet.

 

[Dee]

First....the contest this comes from is very well known, has been around for years, and it's tightly controlled.

As others have already mentioned, the very narrow depth of field (the part that's in focus) accounts for the lack of detail in the rope sponge behind the Hawkfish.

The only thing that's distracting to me is the dark edges of the sponge...almost as if it's been outlined with a dark pen. There's a term for that that escapes me right now and I've been seeing it in digital photos. Not to say this could be a digital, but because I've been looking at alot of digitals lately.

 

[Diversauras]

Dee once bubbled... The only thing that's distracting to me is the dark edges of the sponge...almost as if it's been outlined with a dark pen. There's a term for that that escapes me right now and I've been seeing it in digital photos. Not to say this could be a digital, but because I've been looking at alot of digitals lately. [/B]

Isn't that called artifacts?

 

[Dee]

Diversauras once bubbled...
Isn't that called artifacts?

You could be right, that sounds familiar.

 

[jonnythan]

Walter once bubbled...
Marco shots have a narrow field that is in focus. Anything outside that field will not show detail. This looks like a legitimate shot to me.

Then why does the surface of the water in the background look more or less in focus? And surely, if we can see ripples on the surface, the rest of the background wouldn't be a completely unvarying blue.

This photo has been retouched.

 

[gbundersea]

To me, this picture looks very faked. This is just my opinion, of course, but here's what I base it on:

1. As Dee mentioned, the edges of the sponge appear artificially "sharp." It's as if they were edited in, or something behind it was edited out.

2. I think the edges of the fish look the same way. Notice that in many places where the edge of the fish crosses the sponge, there is a light-colored line present.

3. Beneath the fish's jaw, against the blue, there is also a light line, seemingly from illumination. However, based on the placement of the strobe and resultant shadows, this should be in a deep shadow area. Why then is it bright?

4. Perhaps the biggest thing I noticed (as did jonnythan): Several comments were made about the very shallow depth of field in a macro photograph, which is very true. Given that fact, notice that the waves on the surface, which one would assume are in the far distance, are almost in perfect focus. This simply is not going to happen.

Also, the picture has a very artificial look to it overall. I indeed think this was nothing more than an exercise in Photoshop. What a pity that it won a photo contest.

 

[The Chairman]

shallow depth of field or not... it is impossible for BOTH the foreground (the fish) and the farground (the waves) to be in better focus than the midground (the coral). It would be progressive one way or the other; that is either best/good/poor or poor/good/best. I saw that before I read the other reponses. It has been crafted either on the PC or in the darkroom.