Cool Phot!

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Alan Browne, Mar 18, 2005.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Mar 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Walt Hanks Guest

    It is a beautiful image, and I don't care if there was some manipulation,
    but since he claimed there wasn't ...

    Download the image, enlarge to 700%, and look between the attacking bird's
    legs and body. Now tell me if there was any manipulation.

    Walt
     
    Walt Hanks, Mar 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    jimkramer Guest

    Hi Walt,

    What are supposed to see other than JPEG artifacts at 700%?

    Jim
     
    jimkramer, Mar 18, 2005
    #3
  4. Alan Browne

    Walt Hanks Guest

    There is a 2 or 3 pixel wide smooth area in the background along the body
    and leg that does not appear elsewhere in the image. If they are artifacts,
    then they are awfully regular ones. I just finished reading the discussion
    on photonet and others saw it too. However, unlike the "experts" on
    photonet, I don't feel it indicates that the image was a cut and paste. I
    saw no ghosting at all.

    So, what do you think those pixels indicate?

    BTW, I'll say it again, this is an incredible image. I don't care if it was
    manipulated. But I am open to learning new things, so I look forward to
    your replies.

    Walt
     
    Walt Hanks, Mar 18, 2005
    #4
  5. Alan Browne

    jimkramer Guest

    That particular section of the bird I would think that what we are looking
    at are sharpening artifacts. You can see other areas of continuous color in
    the bird's wing that give it texture. Around the bird's claws you can see
    some awful sharpening effects at 700%.

    Unless I looked at a full size original and saw something very different, I
    would say that those are JPEG and sharpening artifacts. JPEG is all about
    fooling the eye at 100% not at 700%.

    Jim
     
    jimkramer, Mar 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Alan Browne

    Walt Hanks Guest

    Thanks Jim.

    Walt
     
    Walt Hanks, Mar 19, 2005
    #6
  7. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Hard to tell. It is possible he got a good corresepondence of line
    ferequency to sensor pix' in that area.

    There certainly *is* evidence of over sharpening. (Halo edges).

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 19, 2005
    #7
  8. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Further to my other comments, it is difficult at this image size to
    really see what has or hasn't happened to the original digital image
    that is 5 times larger (assuming no crop).

    Recall also that there was a fightin' birds-of-prey image-link posted
    here a few months ago as well. (By Cody or me, IIRC, I can't remember
    who posted the link).

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 19, 2005
    #8

  9. From both the size of the image and the heavy sharpening, it would be
    difficult to make a case for manipulation based on pixel mismatching. The
    areas surrounding the upper bird seem consistent with both jpeg and
    sharpening artifacts, and the background tones remain even and not
    "patchy".

    Neither bird is displaying characteristics of flight - the feathers
    on both are too rumpled. The lighting matches, and there's even a shadow on
    the lower bird corresponding to the position of the upper. It would be hard
    to find and manipulate two images to match this well.

    The behavior is appropriate, and there are more images from the
    sequence on his website. I can't see anything to indicate this isn't
    genuine.


    - Al.
     
    Al Denelsbeck, Mar 19, 2005
    #9
  10. Brian C. Baird, Mar 19, 2005
    #10
  11. Alan Browne

    chrlz Guest

    I'll confess to saying "Wow!", then "wait a minute..", and then
    studying it for a few minutes - that attacking bird does look odd in an
    indefinable, and there are a few odd patches.. but then I looked at his
    gallery, and I think I accept it as genuine now!

    But personally I like this similar shot better:

    http://miguel-lasa.smugmug.com/gallery/378321/1/16541799

    Nice catch! And here's *my* favorite nature shot..:

    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/100best/wallpaper11.html

    I love this image - it invokes so many questions - did the photographer
    intervene in any way? how did it get there? will it survive?
     
    chrlz, Mar 19, 2005
    #11
  12. Alan Browne

    Walt Hanks Guest

    I guess part of the issue then is how you define manipulation. To me,
    "heavy sharpening" would constitute manipulation. But I agree that this is
    all there is evidence of. It is a magnificent image.

    Walt
     
    Walt Hanks, Mar 19, 2005
    #12
  13. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Read the text ... just another day at the hunt...
     
    Alan Browne, Mar 19, 2005
    #13
  14. Alan Browne

    chrlz Guest

    Actually, I know all about the image and it's circumstances - I was
    trying to be poetic and dramatic... (O;
     
    chrlz, Mar 20, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.