National Geographic Taken for a Ride

[Dan Henderson]

Nat Geo has a feature they call "Your Shot," where readers can submit interesting photographs for publication. In the February issue they printed a photograph of a close up picture of a dog with his attention fixed on the photographer, and six Blue Angels jets streaking through the background.

In the June issue just out, they report that several readers questioned the authenticity of the picture. After some investigation the magazine decided it was a composite; the rules specify "unmodified camera images."

The picture shows the dog in sharp focus, with a tree and house in the background somewhat out of focus as if a large aperture had been used. Then the jets, which are obviously farther away than the house or tree, appear to be in fairly sharp focus. The article revealing the fake says that the editor who reviews these submissions looks at 300 pictures a day. She's going to be working a lot of overtime to catch the faked photographs possible in today's digital world.

 

[keithwms]

:rolleyes:

Well, here is a link to it... they came down pretty harshly on Mr. Lascelles, and for good reason:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/your-shot/manipulation

Now, this was a very poor attempt at a composite, there are signs of low-quality manipulation everywhere... even if the focus issue were missed. I am left with the conclusion that Mr. Lascelles did it for a laugh at nat geo's expense, just to make a point. If that's not the case then he really needs some workshops

(Interesting side note: if this were a film double exposure then the shot would be acceptable, I presume; that's the way I read the rules. So maybe we should flood them with such...)

But all that aside, it's too bad that nat geo seems more interested in spurious contrivances rather than photographs which actually say something about a subject. I mean, who really gives a flip about dogs and jets anyway! Even if it were real, it really belongs on the refrigerator.... not in one of the most prestigious photomagazines in circulation.

 

[Rick A]

Deception in photography is nothing new. So long as there are places to display photos, there will be people who will do deceitful things to appear superior. IMO, these types of people dont get off displaying the photo, their delight is in knowing they have duped someone. Its shameful, and pitiful, not to mention how it shines a light on the rest of the legitimate followers of rules. Now that one has been found out to be a faker, all others will be suspect.

 

[wclark5179]

Interesting information:

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

 

[johnnywalker]

:rolleyes:

I mean, who really gives a flip about dogs ......

Heresy!!

 

[JBrunner]

Photographically, it was over for Nat Geo some time ago.

 

[John Koehrer]

Dogs are far more honest than humans. You would never find a dog submitting a PS image like that.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

From I understand this has happen a fair amount.

Jeff

 

[el wacho]

dogs submitting PS'ed images? i never would have thought...

 

[Worker 11811]

Require the photographer to submit camera negatives on demand. The problem will subside 99% if not disappear all together, virtually overnight.

 

[redrockcoulee]

Dogs are far more honest than humans. You would never find a dog submitting a PS image like that.

BS For a treat a dog will lie about almost anything Especially lie about not getting a treat in the first place

 

[ic-racer]

I agree with the criticism. If I wanted to see computer graphics, I'd look in a "computer graphics" magazine....