Opinions Please.

  • Thread starter Thread starter CT
  • Start date Start date
CT

CT

TPer Emeritus
Suspended / Banned
Messages
26,617
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been asked for an opinion on this shot which won 3rd place in a photographic competition, and in particular on the claims of the photographer as to how it was taken, which can be viewed just under the photo.

http://www.bsoup.org/Focus_on/2007_Final/FOF_2007_3.php

Your thoughts folks? :D
 
Hi CT,

I like it! Great idea, really well composed maybe let down a slight touch with the image quality, could be just me though.
Merry Christmas!
T.
 
CT said:
I've been asked for an opinion on this shot which won 3rd place in a photographic competition, and in particular on the claims of the photographer as to how it was taken, which can be viewed just under the photo.

http://www.bsoup.org/Focus_on/2007_Final/FOF_2007_3.php

Your thoughts folks? :D
Click to expand...

Pretty damned good if its genuine, though I am not a good enough tog to say whether it is or not, However, as a fisherman the fish doen't look as though its behaviour is "quite right" there is an un-natural kink in the rod just above his hat and the rod looks too long for a fly rod ( though that may be an illusion
 
It didn't set off any alarm bells for me, the edge of the water line certainly looks like the real thing. The technique sounds reasonable as well.

The two things that do stand out are the slight kink in the rod near the blokes head, that might be caused by a drop of water on the lens/housing tho.

I can't decide if I should be able to see the line out of the water, I think part of the reason it's so visible under is the lighting and I suspect it's probably magnified as well and is further away than it appears so out of water probably isn't visible expect faintly on a 100% crop.

If it's a fake it's a darn good one...
 
Cracking shot and looking at some underwater photos my son who is a commercial diver and does a lot of photos of rigs etc underwater I'd say it looks ok. Only thing that bothers me is the kink the the fly rod just left of the fishermans head. As a flyfisherman for yrs I've bever seen a rod shaped like that.
 
Blimey, I didn't notice that weird bend in the rod! I must admit that has me a bit skeptical. Still though it's a great image.
 
apart from the kink that everyone else has noticed,
I would have expected the fishes upper lip to be distorted somewhat as he pulled against the hook

also, to get above and below water in shot, let alone in focus at the same time is difficult, especially as the lens has to be half under water and half in the air

so my vote is for a hoax, darn good one, but hoax nevertheless

imho ymmv
 
Yeah, I've been looking at this in photoshop, there's a weird funky outline to the rod if you zoom in to look close.
The trout may have swallowed the fly (perhaps she'll die) or be deep down in the throat but normally you would see it caught up in the upper or lower lip or even in the scissors as we say.
T.
 
mmcp42 said:
also, to get above and below water in shot, let alone in focus at the same time is difficult, especially as the lens has to be half under water and half in the air
Click to expand...

10.5mm @ f/22 - more DoF than you can shake a stick at - it's just a matter of waiting for the right moment and pressing the button.
 
I agree with mmcp: it's a hoax. It's technically impossible to get good focus underwater, at 1 foot subject distance, and out of the water, at 20 feet subject distance, in one and the same shot.

The rod's kink confirms (bad) editing.
 
Apart from the above, if the trout is pulling away then I'm surprised the fisherman is holding the rod with just his left hand.

The fish photo is probably real, as is the one of the fisherman. But i'd imagine the two have been joined.
 
I can see why alarm bells are ringing on this one. The kink in the rod is probably caused by water on the housing so doesn't bother me. The first thing that jumps out at me is the leader (line) going from the water surface to the hook, if you look at the rod it is obviously under some strain due to the weight of the fish being played yet the line is curved, I would expect a straight line between the hook and rod tip, or at least to the main fly line.

Secondly, if he were genuinely fishing for trout on the Test I would expect the leader to be much finer (although this may be due to the flash) as Test trout are notoriously difficult to capture.

Thirdly, unless it is a very sparse nymph type 'fly' on the end of the leader it looks like a bare hook, I would like to see the original at full size to have a closer look at the fly.

If it is a genuine shot then all credit to the photographer, but in my opinion it is a composite image.
 
Well I'm still undecided tbh, despite very strong suspicions, but I'm no fisherman.

The kink in the rod is strange and a few people have picked up on that. It would be an easy fix though, and pretty sloppy processing compared to the rest of the image, if indeed it is a montage.

I find the plasticky appearance of the mud along the bank very suspect, and it has to be said that that black line between the mud and the grass would be an ideal and convenient place to do a cut and shut job. ;)

I'd have thought the bit of line from the fishes mouth which is underwater would have been straighter and tauter at this point and surely the surface water would have been churned up considerably with this fish fighting the line?

I've got no issues if it is a montage, I just think the only thing wrong with manipulating an image to this extent is not being up front about it, but I'm still far from sure anyway. :D
 
Here's a thought... if I were attempting to shoot this I'd be hosing the shots like there was no tomorrow. Surely the tog has other frames similar to this one from a burst or missed attempts. If there's only one shot then the alarm bells would be ringing very loudly...
 
Apart from the above,taking a closer look in PS its gotta be a hoax the rod is the same Px length all the way through and there are no eyes to the rod, fly line is quite thick apart from the "trace" and would also be visable along the rod length
 
Kink aside - would a fisheye fit in an underwater housing without losing loads of the image to the inside of the housing?

The fish just doesn't look distorted enough to me for a fisheye that close - my 2p says its a damn good, creative, well executed bit of PS work
 
CT said:
I'd have thought the bit of line from the fishes mouth which is underwater would have been straighter and tauter at this point and surely the surface water would have been churned up considerably with this fish fighting the line?
Click to expand...

Remember this was supposedly taken with a fisheye, so the curve in the line looks right. However this is definately a photoshop.

It's good but...

1, there's a light source near the bank on the left under the water, there's shouldn't be in one spot looking at the light.

2. The fish is going OOF slightly towards the tail, so it's impossible that the fisherman could still be in focus ;)
 
The line is bent, but lets not forget that this is a fisheye lens, which distorts things.
The rod is bent, due to a splash of water on the housing.
The photo has probably been cropped, a lot, which gets rid of the sides of the housing.

Ignoring all that, looks like its been shopped. The more and more I look at it, the less real it looks.
 
Just had another look but in photoshop, zooming in and following the leader line FROM the trouts mouth why can we see any above the water, even light line would have some glint off it. Also pixelwise there seems to be a messy bit around the edges of the rod just above his hand. Begiining to think it's a fake now but well done.
 
humour_1_tony_baskeyfield.jpg


Hes not to shabby with his photoshop skills either is Mr Baskeyfield
 
As far as focus issues goes, forget it. 10.5mm @ f/22 focused at 1ft gives focus from .5ft to infinity. The fish underwater doesn't look OOF to me, just murky in the distance which makes sense.

I really don't think this shot is as impossible to capture as you all think. Technically it's fairly simple and just needs a bit of careful planning, patience and luck.
 
Its the join between the two halves that clinches it for me ..its just not right, there should be a clear divide between the two at the waters surface and its not present at all, I can understand editing away splashes and whatnot to clear it up but why remove the water line as that would only aid to clarify its authenticity.

Also I find the perspectives of both halves don't quite fall true.

Also ... shouldn't their be a riverbank underwater onto which the ground above is sitting... looks like the rivers wider underwater.
 
Also look at the grass line where it reaches the water. The center part looks un sharp but either side looks OK. I'm not sure if the perspective is right for a lens of that focal length.

On a practical side you wouldn't need an underwater housing just a small glass tank with an open top. This could be 2/3 submerged and you'll get a similar effect. Not sure if you could use the normal viewfinder, would need a Zig or similar.

The bend in the rod though is what bothers me. Looks like a composite. Bloody good one though, ignoring the rod problem.

Also checking the file info. It's been through Photoshop. It shows as being processed with Camera RAW 4.3. But there is no camera data as there should be.

This makes me very suspicious
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Its the join between the two halves that clinches it for me ..its just not right, there should be a clear divide between the two at the waters surface and its not present at all, I can understand editing away splashes and whatnot to clear it up but why remove the water line as that would only aid to clarify its authenticity.

Also I find the perspectives of both halves don't quite fall true.

Also ... shouldn't their be a riverbank underwater onto which the ground above is sitting... looks like the rivers wider underwater.
Click to expand...


Sorry but I disagree, I'm with pxl8 on this one.

The clear divide isn't there because water is lapping at the camera housing and the surface tension is causing the distortion at the join.

The perspectives of the two halves are bound to be different when shot at 10.5mm and the differences between the camera-subject distances.

As for the riverbank, unless he had another flash to light it I wouldn't expect to see it. The sun won't light it at all if your exposing for the sky and there's no way the flash would either given it's proximity to the fish.
 
ok, knowing sod all about fishing or underwater photography, I am making my observations based on common sense. Bendy rods and odd waterlines can very easily be accounted for by the fact that one asusmes it was shot within a camera housing and therefore it also hints at the assumption that the water would be moving across the housing viewer [I looked at a few in that shop under waterloo bridge and they seem to indicate, though I could be wrong' the glass doesn't 'blob' the water, but create a 'film' across the glass, which would more than easily cause minor distortions] BUT... my understanding is that even a smallish fish would need more than that very light looking hold on the rod in his right hand, though again, its feasible its a very small fish, taking perspective into account. No idea how small trout get. Another point that stands out is where the line enters the fishes mouth, it actually seems to stop, and there is almost what appears to be a cloned in spot...

so...imo... probably a fake, or a very very lucky capture :dunno:
 
:shrug:

At first look my instinct was 'fake' but I can't really justify that hunch withoiut looking at the whole image at 100%.

If it's a comp entry then he should be able to provide the original RAW file to prove it's authenticity. I'd be a bit miffed if somebody asked me for such evidence but also chuffed as I'd have pulled off a shot that everybody thinks is impossible!
 
I can only sit here and laugh at some of the guessing going on in this thread :D


Technically the shot is possible, but a few things aren't quite right IMO.
If shot with a 10mm lens at 1 metre, the fish would look a lot smaller in the frame,
unless heavily cropped. This can be effected by the water though,
which makes objects look closer than they actually are when below the surface.

My main concern is the three light sources don't show below the water.
With the two flash and the sky, the fish should have quite a few catch lights, also
with the quite bright sky shown, I'd expect to see light rays in the water.
 
Matt. Shouldn't we see the flash light bouncing off the waters ceiling too.. :thinking:

Kev M said:
The perspectives of the two halves are bound to be different when shot at 10.5mm and the differences between the camera-subject distances.
Click to expand...

I meant the lines of perspective going away from the camera ...if you could draw them on..they should point in the same direction kinda thing

The waters ceiling seems to go downward, yet you can just see the bottoms of some trees ...perhaps :D ...so unless hes fishing of a steep hill ...
 
Matt said:
My main concern is the three light sources don't show below the water.
With the two flash and the sky, the fish should have quite a few catch lights, also
with the quite bright sky shown, I'd expect to see light rays in the water.
Click to expand...

The water is very murky, same as using a diffuser so the lighting would be very soft. I wouldn't expect any shafts of light visible, the ev level under the water would be a lot lower than above so only the light from the flash would be recorded.
 
Matt said:
If shot with a 10mm lens at 1 metre, the fish would look a lot smaller in the frame,
Click to expand...

The blurb says the visibility was about 1mtr not that the fish was a meter away, you can see reeds/weed on the river bottom behind the fish. Tbh there's simply no way to tell from that shot there's quite a lot of jpg/compression artifacts, you'd need to see the original.
 
I am going for real. If that is fake there is some exceptional photoshop work going on, too good to have left mistakes like kinks in rods etc, also if you had spent so long faking it then you would have surely been tempted to improve the tones and colours etc.

I think it has had a quick auto levels maybe, but I really cant see anything else.
 
I am going to go for fake, tbh I don't know a great deal about photography but a little about fly fishing, so, the fly does not look a recognizable pattern not even a buzzer, almost all the trout I have caught have been hooked in the scissors and the fisherman's stance looks all wrong. Just my 2 euros worth. Regards Jim
 
The blurb says:

This shot was taken on the River Test, helped along by a friend of mine Will Mason who expertly caught and played the Trout within inches of my camera. The visibiity was about 1m. When the fish had been caught I waded into the river with mask and snorkel and kept my feet in the same place so not to disturb the muddy river bank. Shot with a 10.5mm fisheye with two YS90 flashguns ISO 400 F22 @ 125sec
Click to expand...

....but, if you add a comma, it reads totally different:

This shot was taken on the River Test, helped along by a friend of mine Will Mason who expertly caught and played the Trout within inches of my camera. The visibiity was about 1m. When the fish had been caught, I waded into the river with mask and snorkel and kept my feet in the same place so not to disturb the muddy river bank. Shot with a 10.5mm fisheye with two YS90 flashguns ISO 400 F22 @ 125sec
Click to expand...

I think he has admitted it is a fake :lol:
 
My first impressions were that it was a fake. The bend in the rod could be caused by a water droplet and left/put there as a double bluff (ie. if it is fake it's a bloody good one and therefore he wouldn't be sloppy enough to leave a mistake so therefore it must be genuine, but it actually isn't [is that a double bluff or a triple!!??:bang:]).

You don't get a genuine shot like that by chance, it takes planning which he has said that he did. This means that there are probably failed attempts too. Ask to see the original file out of curiosity and then ask if there were any other less successful attempts.

My gut feeling now is that if it isn't a complete fake then there has definitely been some serious PP.

If it is genuine, my only other question is why did it only come 3rd!!!!!! (Scratch that. I just looked at the 1st and 2nd!!!).
 
The fish could be VERY close though. If the assumption that 10.5mm at f22 gives 0.5ft to infinity then surely the difference in refractive index of the water compared to open air means that the fish can be even closer than that. Water has the effect of "pulling" things towards you and from taking pictures of my marine reef tank at home I can tell you it's NOT easy to judge the actual focus point when going air>water (ok, so I have to consider glass as well). So, if the fish is THAT close then I'd say there must be a MASSIVE bow wave in front of it (being a fly fisherman myself).

For me the final point is that the detail in the eye of the fish (at the least murky point) just doesn't tally with that in the "above water" part of the shot.

If I'm wrong (and I'm happy to accept I am) then it's one hell of a capture!!!
 
I think this is a tricky one to call. I would definatly want to see other images that were taken, as said he may have shot in burst mode so will have others. If not would want to see the original raw, I think all the issues that have been bought up like the kink in the rod for example could easily have been caused by the lens used.
 
IMHO chaps and chappetts, I think the shot is legit. The kink everyone is going on about could, and most probably is, caused by difraction due to an uneven layer of water running down the housing. after all, we have all seen what happens to a window when lots of water runs down it?!

Otherwise I kinda like the shot :D
 
I think he entered the water just before the fisherman let the fish back in after landing it. Got the shot of the fish as it recovered from being out of the water. (a couple of seconds).
Then shopped it.
The line would distort the fishes lip more than shown if it was putting up a fight.
Just my thoughts....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top