Is this photo real?

[Rick Murchison]

I've been trying to give the photo the benefit of the doubt... trying to find some rational explanation for the several things I find implausible about it... but I keep coming up short.
I judge it heavily manipulated.
Rick

 

[Former FLL Now MSP Diver]

When you go here and click on the picture so that it goes full screen, the waves don't look very in focus to me.

I would think they would check for manipulation, especially since they have an "open" category that does allow digital manipulation.

Marc

 

[ReyeR]

Look at the where parts of the dorsal fin crosses the blue of the water.... no detail in the transparency.

Convicing transparency is one of the hardest things to 'matt' in retouch and special effects.

 

[mdr231]

The picture does have a "fake" look to it the way a hyper-real painting does. But I gave it a very magnified examination in Photoshop and if it is a fake, artifacts of the fakery are very difficult to find. If the photographer did add the water as a separate element, he/she did a great job. Only part that does really seem odd, is the apparent sharpness in the water (which others have pointed out). Could just be some odd reflections??
I go with "give it the benefit of the doubt."

Michael

 

[Steve_S]

<sigh>

Someone got snookered. I agree with gbundersea and others that this image is a composite and not the real thing.

It's got that photoshop look in the places others have mentioned and most importantly, we may see more of this kind of "prop" shot "composite" fakery.

BTW, that thin black line on all the edges of the sponge comes from the print world amd is sometimes referred to as a trap. In this case, it's used to disguise the point at which the sponge meets the blue water. In this case it's 2 or more images composited together in PS which this black line outline is hidding since you can't get a "clean" composite without it.

Maybe I'm wrong. Show me a sponge of the identical family with a natural black outline on all sides.?

<sad>

 

[bwerb]

one could say this photo is a little fishy...ut:

 

[wreckchick]

It's the thin white line around parts of the fish that give it away for me. It's photoshopped almost for sure.

Rachel

 

[Aggie Diver]

I agree, especially on the black outline around the coral. This isn't a real photo. Someone definitely knows their way around Photoshop, but this should have been seen by the judges.

AD

 

[gbundersea]

I emailed the URL of this thread to the dive club. I think this issue was definitely worth mentioning, and does bear a second look. It really ticks me off when manipulated photos are mingled with pure, undoctored images. That's why there are "open" categories, and this contest had one. I'll post the details of any response I receive.

The original poster on this thread said it couldn't be a digital image, because the contest rules specify 35mm slides. Yet, this also applies to the open category, which are obviously digitally manipulated. You can get a 35mm slide made from a digital image for about $2.00, so this could easily have been done.

This is just my opinion, but besides the fakery, which to me is blatant, I don't think this is an image worthy of a grand prize even if it were real. Yes, it's a detailed shot of a pretty fish, but that's all it is. It isn't composed particularly well, and doesn't move me, or capture my imagination in any way. It's just a fish face.

While not perfect, the saltwater images of the diver and jellyfish, diver surrounded by dense school of fish, and the freshwater winner (cenote shot) are all far superior photographs.

 

[Big-t-2538]

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

purple fringing?