Is this photo real?

[Dee]

I guess my expectation that everyone plays by the rules is really naive and misplaced. The evidence is just too overwhelming to ignore, even to some of our novice eyes.

Thanks for contacting Seahorse. I was wondering just what could or should be done about this. Please keep us posted on what you hear.

 

[Walter]

I'm certainly no expert, but it still looks real to me.

The waves are not in focus.

There is no dark line that I can see. I can see that the surfaces of the sponge not facing the strobe is not as bright as the surface facing the strobe. As the surface turns to reflect less of the strobe light, it gets darker. This is as I would expect.

I have no idea to what "transparency" you are referring. I certainly don't notice a lack of detail in the dorsal fin.

The "thin white line around parts of the fish" seems to be a reflection of the strobe off the sponge onto the far side of the fish.

Like I said, I'm no expert, but it still looks real to me.

 

[gbundersea]

Here is what I received from the club:
__________________

Greg,
I was one of the judges and from memory the slide had no appearance of being digital. However, some PhotoShop whizzes are quite good. Here is a response from one of the other judges who also scanned the image for the website. Please add to your scuba thread as I am not a member.

It is possible that the image could be a composite of more than one image but there is no smoking gun in my opinion. There are alternative explanations for the "artifacts" mentioned. In the end, a skillfully made composite image should be undetectable to even a digital imaging expert.

Here's some food for thought... Although the judges viewed projected film, every image presented on the website has been digitally altered by the mere fact that I have scanned them and applied unsharp masking (a digital sharpening filter.) This is to provide the images with a sense of the "pop" that they have when projected. Because the images loose so much in computer screen presentation it is necessary to make this compensation, otherwise, they would never approach the brilliance of projection. In the process of sharpening, digital artifacts (some halos) are created. However, the public is so accustomed to seeing these artifacts in high quality publication such as National Geographic, that it has become subconsciously accepted. Pick up a Nat Geo and look at the photos. They apply what I call the STMF filter (sharpen the M... F... out of the image). I have adopted this philosophy and it has served me well professionally.
__________________

I still think the image is a fake, and not a very good photograph besides.

 

[jonnythan]

Walter once bubbled...
I'm certainly no expert, but it still looks real to me.

The waves are not in focus.

But they're not as out of focus as the coral. With the coral as out of focus as it is, anything that far behind the coral would necessarily be a complete blur. Think about a film where there's a close up shot... you would *never* see that kind of detail in something that far away when something *right behind* the subject is already out of focus.

There is no dark line that I can see. I can see that the surfaces of the sponge not facing the strobe is not as bright as the surface facing the strobe. As the surface turns to reflect less of the strobe light, it gets darker. This is as I would expect. [/B]

Then why isn't the fish surrounded in the same dark line, since it too is a curved surface?

I have no idea to what "transparency" you are referring. I certainly don't notice a lack of detail in the dorsal fin. [/B]

Look at all the blue areas between the dorsal fin bones (they're bones, right?), and you'll notice that they're all completely solid blue with exactly 0 color variation. Now look at the areas where there's coral behind the transparent dorsal fin, and it's very textured.

To me, it looks like a real photo was taken, then the background was carefully removed, and blur filters were used on the coral.

 

[gbundersea]

As for the waves, it just seems to me that, while not in perfect focus, they are far too clear for a macro like this.

In addition, I just thought about this: Looking at the photo, those waves are extremely close overhead, meaning this delicate sponge is growing right up in the surf zone. Hmmm... Also, the normal depth range for the longnose hawkfish is given as 10m and deeper, and some say 30m and deeper. I've been surveying Caribbean fish for many years, and know firsthand that you indeed find things where they shouldn't be according to the book. However, given the other questions about this image, I just think the setting is yet another oddity among many.

 

[digitaldiver]

It is amazing to me that the judges and association members seemed ambivalent to our suggestion that their winner is a fake.

It also amuses me that the images are scanned and digitized before the judges see them, but digital images are forbidden from competition.

Some day this sort of bias against digital will be an amusing memory. Now it is a headshaker.

 

[gbundersea]

digitaldiver once bubbled...
It is amazing to me that the judges and association members seemed ambivalent to our suggestion that their winner is a fake.

It also amuses me that the images are scanned and digitized before the judges see them, but digital images are forbidden from competition.

Some day this sort of bias against digital will be an amusing memory. Now it is a headshaker.

He did say that the judges viewed projected film. In a followup email to me, he also pointed out that in one of Howard Hall's books there is a macro shot in which the surface is visible in the background, and fairly clear.

However, I fail to see how they could not suspect something, actually many things, about this image. Note that the other judge actually admits it could be a well-done composite, but that there was no smoking gun. Had I been a judge, I would have insisted on seeing the original slide. Wait! - Actually, no I wouldn't, since I never would have considered this photograph a winner anyway. Never mind!

 

[digitaldiver]

Ooopps. I read too fast the first time.

 

[Former FLL Now MSP Diver]

I bet the employees who's dive club's website this is would be simply amazed at the discussion going on about the photos posted on their internal website.

Marc

 

[cmdasia]

For me I would go for fake - for the simple reason that for the life of me I cannot figure what lens was used for the shot taking into account how small and jitterish hawkfish are. The longer focal length required to photograph the Hawkfish (say 105) and a small f stop (for the blue background) could not have produced the shot.