www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Gee, do you suppose I should have mentioned the sharpening?
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Gee, do you suppose I should have mentioned the sharpening?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum and Community Announcements
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17874
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:30 pm    Post subject: Gee, do you suppose I should have mentioned the sharpening? Reply with quote

Recent discussions of what is common practice, and what needs to be disclosed, reminded me of a humorous incident from a few years back...

I received the November 2000 issue of Reader's Digest.

Turning it over, I was delighted to see that the rear cover held a photograph featuring a beautiful Lepidopteran, sitting on a hiker's boot in lovely wild terrain.

Substituting inferior local scenery and workmanship, the picture looked something like this:



It was accompanied by a moving and thoughtful caption -- something about the "rugged power of the Rio Grande" contrasting with "an ephemeral butterfly" "poised for a fleeting moment".

On closer study, I cracked up laughing. Then I sent an email:

Quote:
Dear Reader's Digest:

The "Rio Grande" photograph is lovely, and your words
on the back cover of the November issue are moving and sensitive.
Thanks for publishing them!

But I thought I should let you know that both the picture and your
write-up are also pretty amusing to readers with a certain background.

The key is to recognize that the "butterfly" in the photograph is
actually a moth -- specifically, a Polyphemus moth (Antheraea
polyphemus
), one of our largest and showiest native silkmoths.

Now it's not that big a mistake to call a moth a butterfly, but you
have to appreciate that Polyphemus moths simply do not fly during the
day unless disturbed, and then their goal is to find a new dark
hiding place where they can fold their wings.

The odds of finding one on a hiker's boots, with its wings spread,
in full sunshine, for long enough to take a picture, are only
slightly higher than that the Rio Grande would suddenly freeze over
at the same moment.

So the picture is fake ... uh, posed. Instead of an "ephemeral
butterfly" "poised for a fleeting moment", most likely what we really
have is a thoroughly dead moth, wings tastefully spread, probably
pinned or glued to the hiker's boot so that a stray breeze will not
dislodge it while the photographer carefully frames and exposes his
picture.

It's lovely. It's hilarious. Thank you!

Fortunately, the folks at Reader's Digest thought it was pretty hilarious too. They chatted with me, and with the photographer, and then in a high spirit of good humor they published my whole letter, a reproduction of the image, and a reply from the photographer explaining that it was a "mystery" how the moth came to be on the hiker's boot, and that this was "art, not science". I could not possibly agree more! Very Happy

--Rik

Disclosure: The image posted above is actually a 4-frame (2x2) stitched panorama, overlaid by a carefully masked image of my legs, boots, and a pinned moth, with the pin cloned out of the moth and numerous contrails cloned out of the sky. Neither the river, the sky, the boots, nor the moth, ever actually looked quite like this. Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mike B in OKlahoma



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 1048
Location: Oklahoma City

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

God bless Google!

Here's the cover, plus an "analysis" of the photo....

http://www.hotairamerica.com/rd-backcover.htm

(Editor's note 10/31/2012. The preceding link is broken. Try http://web.archive.org/web/20070416100956/http://www.hotairamerica.com/rd-backcover.htm instead.)

Thanks for pointing this out, Rik. It is amusing to see us get all worked up over USM (or whatever), and others publish whoppers like this. Of course, he DID publish his whopper on the cover of Reader's Digest.....Hey, where's my insect collection?!
_________________
Mike Broderick
Oklahoma City, OK, USA

Constructive critiques of my pictures, and reposts in this forum for purposes of critique are welcome

"I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul....My mandate includes weird bugs."
--Calvin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Epidic



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 137
Location: Maine

PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It must have been the "emotional" truth. A good catch.

My favorie past time is catching "false" moons in photos. You would be surprised how many full moons appear where they can't. I even saw one at the Pentax photo salon in Tokyo majestically floating above a seascape. It was big and clear. The photograpger just shouldn't have used an image of an overcast night in which to place it. Other impossibilities are full moons over a horizon where the sun is setting and very large full moons - the angular size of the moon is constant and does not change with the distance to the horizon.
_________________
Will
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Danny
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 725
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL, good on you Rik. Nice to see someone actually doing something about it. Now what was that about disclosure Very Happy Cool Wink Could you see National Geographic having this shot Shocked . The guy would be put out in the cold for a very long time Wink

All the best Rik, interesting reading thanks M8t.

Danny.
_________________
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17874
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nzmacro wrote:
Nice to see someone actually doing something about it.

Umm, yeah. There was some more follow-up that was both amusing and confusing, as well.

As background, you need to know that I've been a member of the Lepidopterists' Society since 1968 or so, and I included that fact as part of my signature in my letter to Reader's Digest.

Well... A couple of months after Reader's Digest published my letter, I got praised by the editor of the Lepidopterists' Society newsletter, for having kept Reader's Digest honest about moths versus butterflies. Confused

Then in the following issue of the Lep Soc newsletter, I got chastised for inappropriate precision, by somebody who had not seen either the original Reader's Digest cover, or RD's publication of my letter, but was only responding to the third party (or was it fourth?) praise in the Lep Soc newsletter. Confused Exclamation Fortunately, an email to that person cleared up that bit of confusion, and they joined in the amusement.

What I never did figure out, though, was the bit of misdirection provided by the Lep Soc newsletter editor:
Quote:
The difference...is that a butterfly is not a moth!
I've had many different species of butterflies visit my toes
on many occasions...and even the toe of a hiking boot, but
never a moth...

In my experience, there is no problem at all with the concept of a (generic) day-flying moth seeking salt on a convenient boot.
We have here, for example, a day-flying moth working over the handle of a trekking pole:


The problem was only in the details. The particular moth featured by Reader's Digest does not behave as shown, and that tipped me off that the "ephemeral butterfly" "poised for a fleeting moment" was actually a dried corpse, fastened rigidly to a boot!

I took away two lessons from the experience.
1. If you fake something, be prepared to get caught.
2. If you speak up, expect to be misunderstood.

Neither lesson has ever disappointed me. Laughing

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Danny
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 725
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Totally agree. Full disclosure of things like that tend to keep us out of trouble Very Happy Wink

Interesting events Rik.

Danny.
_________________
Worry about the image that comes out of the box, rather than the box itself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beetleman



Joined: 04 Aug 2006
Posts: 3578
Location: Southern New Hampshire USA

PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I do remember reading about a National Geographic cover coming under fire years ago (I woud have to guess before digital) where the Egyptian pyramids were moved closer to each other so two of them could fit on the cover together and someone caught it, not sure what happened.
Found it Wink http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/geo.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/fake.shtml
_________________
Take Nothing but Pictures--Leave Nothing but Footprints.
Doug Breda
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17874
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2007 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remember another flap involving a herd of zebras, many of whom looked too much like each other. I can't find the reference to that, however.

On the other hand, I did run into this interesting policy statement a couple of days ago:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/photo-ethics.html.

What I find interesting is that Clark makes a sharp distinction between animals and everything else. "Any images with digitally placed animals will be labeled as such". On the other hand, "blurred components can be replaced with sharper images of the same thing" without comment.

This sounds completely different from opinions expressed in this forum, for example that all stacking has to be declared.

I wonder if there's some underlying principle that's the same in both cases?

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum and Community Announcements All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group