I also somewhat suspected a paste-up job but didn't want to say that.
Chuck Norcutt
On 7/27/2012 1:03 PM, Piers Hemy wrote:
> Yes, there is something odd about that image, Chuck. It appears that DoF did
> not cover the distance between the front and rear tree trunks, but was
> sufficient to cover the leopard's body - I fear that would be a 500/2 lens!
> But look again at the exceedingly well-defined sharp edge around the
> leopard, do you not begin to suspect a paste-up? Now look again at the bark
> of the tree - does it look in proportion to the leopard? Does it even look
> tropical? I think I can see moss on the bark at the left hand side of the
> image!
> http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/ngt071812/s_n05_nleopard.jpg
>
> While I agree with you that there is blurring in the image, I think the
> strange DoF could also be explained by this being two images made into one.
> In either case, it's certainly against the spirit of the rules, but possibly
> not against the letter "Only minor burning, dodging and/or color correction
> is acceptable, as is cropping. High dynamic range images (HDR) and stitched
> panoramas are NOT acceptable. Any changes to the original Photograph not
> itemized here are unacceptable and will render the Photograph ineligible for
> a prize."
> http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/traveler-magazine/photo-contest/
> 2012/rules/ but since the rules require jpg submissions, there's no
> enforcement possible - perhaps we should be congratulating the
> Photoshoppery?
>
> Piers
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 26 July 2012 13:04
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] National Geo Photo Contest
>
> I'm not a critical of them as Ken. I liked most of them. However, #5 (the
> leaping leopard) looks like a poor PhotoShop job to me. The very limited
> depth of field is strange but feasible (assuming something like a 400mm at
> f/2.8 and 50 meters distance). But take a look at the tree trunk at far
> right... it's sharper but farther away than the one to its immediate left.
> Looks to me as though the photographer did a blurring job to get the shallow
> depth of field look but forgot part of the image.
> Ugh!
>
> Dr. Focus
> --snip
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
