FLL Diver once bubbled...
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
It's not very internal if it has a class A IP addy
Is this photo real?
- Thread starter Marvintpa
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
It's not very internal if it has a class A IP addy
hcs3
Guest
photo shop
for starters, that is coral decoration in a home aquarium, not a real coral. real gorgonians have polyps - closed or open, you will see them. this gorg has no polyps whatsoever.
actually, that is 3 different images. 1 of the fish, 1 of the fake coral, and 1 of the blue water/surface background.
though i have never heard of this contest before, the judges should be ashamed of themselves.
for starters, that is coral decoration in a home aquarium, not a real coral. real gorgonians have polyps - closed or open, you will see them. this gorg has no polyps whatsoever.
actually, that is 3 different images. 1 of the fish, 1 of the fake coral, and 1 of the blue water/surface background.
though i have never heard of this contest before, the judges should be ashamed of themselves.
vicky
Guest
You are correct. There are no polyps in the photo, because it is not a Gorgonian... It is a "Millepora Alcicornis" also known as "Fire coral" (if you had the [bad] luck to touch one, you'll know why it is called so).
As for the photo- fake or not I can't say. I don't know how you can be so decisive that it is composed of three different photos.. IMHO it is an original work, and a rather amazing one and I hope it won a prize. It's a "WOW" photo. The hawkfishes are really small so one can see in this photo the cunning and expertise needed to take this shot from so close. Don't see any problem or suspiciousness in the background waves. All I see is a piece of "Fresnel Window" effect, like can be seen in many UW photos.
I only hope that the photographer didn't do any reef damage in order to take this photo. I've seen photographers lying on corals, stumping anything beneath their fins just in order to take a lousy photo- It is not worth it...
hcs3
Guest
interesting how you can nail down the species of this coral, when the best and brightest taxonomists are unable to nail down species on most corals, even when holding the dead coral skeleton in their hand - let alone from a photograph. in fact, taxonomists will not even attempt an ID beyond genus (and sometimes even family) without the dead coral on hand.
but i'll play along.
millepora sp do not come in shades of orange. 90% are brown or white, with green and purple making up the remainder (though rare). millepora species have a exoskeleon dotted with pores of which two types of polyps reside. five to nine dactylopores surround a larger gastropore. the dactylozooids protrude from the skeleton, giving it a fuzzy appearance. clearly, these are not visible in this photo. if it truly is a "millepora" look-a-like, it is clearly a fake one meant for the faux marine aquarium thanks to the lake of dactylozooids and the wonderful (but fake) orange color.
but i'll play along.
millepora sp do not come in shades of orange. 90% are brown or white, with green and purple making up the remainder (though rare). millepora species have a exoskeleon dotted with pores of which two types of polyps reside. five to nine dactylopores surround a larger gastropore. the dactylozooids protrude from the skeleton, giving it a fuzzy appearance. clearly, these are not visible in this photo. if it truly is a "millepora" look-a-like, it is clearly a fake one meant for the faux marine aquarium thanks to the lake of dactylozooids and the wonderful (but fake) orange color.
You got coral ID by the short polyps! Glad to have such a knowledgeable person on the board... btw, whats a dactylopore and the same for gastropore. Pics if you got em... I love to learn!
AND... if you have any pics of fire coral that are "OK" to put in my PP presentations for my OW class, that would be AWESOME!!!
AND... if you have any pics of fire coral that are "OK" to put in my PP presentations for my OW class, that would be AWESOME!!!
hcs3
Guest
dactylopores are small opening in the skeletons of calcareous hydrozoans that contain the dactylozooids.
dactylozooids are small, hair-like nematocystic extentions of the said hydrozoan polyp. they are used for prey capture.
gastropores are defined virutally the same as dactylopores - small openings of a calcareous hydrozoan which contain the gastrozooids.
and before you ask
gastrozooids are the short, fuzzy nematocystic extensions of the feeding polyps.
nematocysts are basically what stings they are a cell organelle that contain a sac and a harpoon-like structure. can be for defensive or feeding purposes.
uhm, no pics handy but i'm sure if you search google you should be able to find some.
HTH
dactylozooids are small, hair-like nematocystic extentions of the said hydrozoan polyp. they are used for prey capture.
gastropores are defined virutally the same as dactylopores - small openings of a calcareous hydrozoan which contain the gastrozooids.
and before you ask
gastrozooids are the short, fuzzy nematocystic extensions of the feeding polyps.
nematocysts are basically what stings
they are a cell organelle that contain a sac and a harpoon-like structure. can be for defensive or feeding purposes.uhm, no pics handy but i'm sure if you search google you should be able to find some.
HTH
clive francis
Guest
there are two choices for this photo:
1. It is real, but they over did the auto levels and colours in photo shop, which do give the false look to a photo.
or
2. It is a composite
of the 2 i think the first is likely to have happened.
the composite would take for ever to do something like that.
even in macro mode some of the sponge detail should have come out, as if the ish is close enough to casr a shadow then it is close enough to see!
thats my 2p worth any way
1. It is real, but they over did the auto levels and colours in photo shop, which do give the false look to a photo.
or
2. It is a composite
of the 2 i think the first is likely to have happened.
the composite would take for ever to do something like that.
even in macro mode some of the sponge detail should have come out, as if the ish is close enough to casr a shadow then it is close enough to see!
thats my 2p worth any way
This board has been a huge help in assiting me with some importan decisons which is why I exercise caution when saying anything negative. However, I am very skilled in Photoshop and use it for my profession daily. This photo has been "enhanced".
PhotoTJ
Contributor
- Messages
- 3,312
- Reaction score
- 17
- # of dives
- I just don't log dives
...the phrase, "Not a chance in Hell!", comes to mind. The shot in question screams of 'bad photoshop job'. Look at the edges, they are alway the telltale.
Shut up and Dive!
Shut up and Dive!
gbundersea
Registered
- Messages
- 66
- Reaction score
- 1
Here's what the judges just sent:
_______________________
Greg,
Here is our decision, please forward to your discussion group. -
After reading all of the real vs fake comments on various discussion groups, discussing with the judges and other photographers, reviewing similar images in photo books and getting a very detailed response from the entrant, the Ford Seahorses have decided that the Long-Nose Hawkfish Grand Champ entry is indeed authentic.
The image was shot in the Red Sea with a housed 60mm lens. Single strobe. Hawkfish was about 4.5-5 inches long making the reproduction ratio about 1:4. Shutter Speed was 1/15 or 1/30. Small aperture. Depth was between 9-12 feet.
The photographer has been making 1-2 trips per year to Red Sea for the past 15 years and concentrates on Hawkfish images. We have no reason to believe that there was any altering of the image other than what occurs naturally when scanning and reproducing a slide.
Thanks for all your concerns and input.
_______________________
Here's my take on this: NO WAY! The film speed, exact aperture, and exact shutter speed weren't given. However, a 1/15 or 1/30 shutter speed with a 60mm lens underwater? I think not! I can handhold my Nikon 8008 on land and get a good image at 1/15 or 1/30, but it takes a steady hand. Underwater, in a housing, at a depth of 9-12', fighting surge, maintaining position, etc? Impossible, unless the camera were planted on the bottom. It could be that the camera was indeed firmly planted, but that makes composition all the more difficult. Also, look at the fish - it is PERFECTLY sharp everywhere! At those slow shutter speeds, in those conditions, there would be some hint of motion blur, especially at the mouth and/or gills. There is NONE WHATSOEVER! While the coral/sponge is blurred due to depth of field, there's no evidence of motion. Sorry, there should be - this is a very delicate structure, supposedly in only 9-12' of water, with waves on the surface overhead! In addition, let's talk about those waves again. Not only are they too much in focus compared to the sponge/coral, their appearance is all the more unbelieveable if they were shot at 1/15 or 1/30. At those speeds, the motion blur of something as chaotic and fast-moving as waves would be obvious.
I think the details given actually add a lot of weight to the argument that the image is a fake. This is in addition to the many other suspicious elements already discussed.
In my opinion, nothing short of a firsthand inspection of the original slide, in the presence of a film photography expert, would convince me that this is real.
Oh, and did I mention that it's not a good picture anyway? Do a Google image search on longnose hawkfish and you'll get pages upon pages of better ones.
What a shame...
_______________________
Greg,
Here is our decision, please forward to your discussion group. -
After reading all of the real vs fake comments on various discussion groups, discussing with the judges and other photographers, reviewing similar images in photo books and getting a very detailed response from the entrant, the Ford Seahorses have decided that the Long-Nose Hawkfish Grand Champ entry is indeed authentic.
The image was shot in the Red Sea with a housed 60mm lens. Single strobe. Hawkfish was about 4.5-5 inches long making the reproduction ratio about 1:4. Shutter Speed was 1/15 or 1/30. Small aperture. Depth was between 9-12 feet.
The photographer has been making 1-2 trips per year to Red Sea for the past 15 years and concentrates on Hawkfish images. We have no reason to believe that there was any altering of the image other than what occurs naturally when scanning and reproducing a slide.
Thanks for all your concerns and input.
_______________________
Here's my take on this: NO WAY! The film speed, exact aperture, and exact shutter speed weren't given. However, a 1/15 or 1/30 shutter speed with a 60mm lens underwater? I think not! I can handhold my Nikon 8008 on land and get a good image at 1/15 or 1/30, but it takes a steady hand. Underwater, in a housing, at a depth of 9-12', fighting surge, maintaining position, etc? Impossible, unless the camera were planted on the bottom. It could be that the camera was indeed firmly planted, but that makes composition all the more difficult. Also, look at the fish - it is PERFECTLY sharp everywhere! At those slow shutter speeds, in those conditions, there would be some hint of motion blur, especially at the mouth and/or gills. There is NONE WHATSOEVER! While the coral/sponge is blurred due to depth of field, there's no evidence of motion. Sorry, there should be - this is a very delicate structure, supposedly in only 9-12' of water, with waves on the surface overhead! In addition, let's talk about those waves again. Not only are they too much in focus compared to the sponge/coral, their appearance is all the more unbelieveable if they were shot at 1/15 or 1/30. At those speeds, the motion blur of something as chaotic and fast-moving as waves would be obvious.
I think the details given actually add a lot of weight to the argument that the image is a fake. This is in addition to the many other suspicious elements already discussed.
In my opinion, nothing short of a firsthand inspection of the original slide, in the presence of a film photography expert, would convince me that this is real.
Oh, and did I mention that it's not a good picture anyway? Do a Google image search on longnose hawkfish and you'll get pages upon pages of better ones.
What a shame...
Similar threads
