# Manipulated?



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

deleted by me


----------



## JLudwig (Feb 16, 2004)

I think this is a much bigger problem than some folks believe... I've also seen some perfect Rasbora formations that were suspect to me, also the colors of some plants (usually "ultra-super-rare" Ludwigia species from SE Asia) have their colors toyed with quite a bit... Done properly the color adjust is extremely hard to catch...

Jeff


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

I'm not entirely convinced that that picture is a fake. As I understand that picture dates from 1990. At that time image editing was pretty primitive.

Enlarging an image does not necessarily show much of the manipulation. I've often been surprised how fake a real picture looks when enlarged and zooming on the edges of the objects. 

But even if Amano did some or a lot of manipulation or still does to this day. How does that change anything?

I wish all of us could see Amano's tanks in person. I suspect that many of us will be humbled a great deal just as I am when I look at Luis' and Jeff's tanks in person.

--Nikolay


----------



## turbomkt (Mar 31, 2004)

Sometimes what you think is PS'd is just a really good picture. Try this challenge:
http://www.alias.com/eng/etc/fakeorfoto/quiz.html

Oh, and if you get all of them right you get the bonus round.


----------



## niko (Jan 28, 2004)

Hey nice!

I got 9 out of 10 the first time :-D

--Nikolay


----------



## Edward (May 25, 2004)

Nice test, 

I failed the tablespoon. Look at the spoon scratches, they are real, not a fake. But the fork behind is a fake. This looks to me as a combination of fake and real on one picture.
The easiest was the face and the chess.

Edward


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

7 out of 10 first try, so maybe I'm not so good at spotting these things.  

TW


----------



## Its me (Oct 21, 2004)

8 out of 10


----------



## Gomer (Feb 2, 2004)

Excellent, a superior performance--ten out of ten answers were correct.


The Bonus Challenge Results

You got 3 out of 4 answers correct.


----------



## turbomkt (Mar 31, 2004)

Bottom line...what you deem as fake may not be. Personally, I can see how the picture in question is possible (i.e. no reflections of the fish).

So...without seeing the setup of the shot and/or talking to the photographer (Amano himself?), it's (IMO) useless to argue fake or real.

Is it a growing trend to manipulate pictures? Sure is. In some cases you get more accurate colors. In others blemishes are removed. And then there are the times when the pictures are just plain fake. And yes, it is possible to manipulate pictures when using regular film, either through multiple exposures or combining pictures or adjusting exposure times for only portions of a picture.

I'm going to push the I believe button on this beautiful aquascape.


----------



## turbomkt (Mar 31, 2004)

Forgot to mention...manipulation could be as simple as sharpening a picture. That alone would give some of the artifacts in question.

Also, the hairgrass makes more sense to me when not taken out of context. When viewing the whole picture I can believe the way it looks.


----------



## TWood (Dec 9, 2004)

I dunno. I dug out my copy of Book 3 Nature Aquarium World and looked at the print version. The hairgrass is shown in a side view. 

But there's something wonky about the print version as well. Just under the nose of the second pair of Discus to the right, there's an Otto hanging onto a transparent surface that diagonally bisects the tank, as if there's a sheet of glass or a mirror in the tank. But that Otto isn't in the digital version. Weird.

TW


----------



## Sir_BlackhOle (Jan 25, 2004)

9 out of 10!


----------



## locus (Dec 7, 2004)

Just a quick word on judging if an image has been touched up - there is absolutely no point in closely examining the borders of elements in a low resolution scan with obvious signs of image degradation due to the "lossy" nature of JPEG compression.

I for one am confident that Amano relies more on his skills with the lens & lighting than anything else.

It would be interesting to have access to some of his large format slide film originals... that would certainly put any dispute to rest.


----------



## janlo (Dec 7, 2004)

speaking of amano, but on another subject, i have his 2nd book next to me and on the page 89, theres a 56 liters tank with 17 angels in it... im maybe not an expert on fish, but isnt a 56 l tank too big for 17 angels??


----------



## bharada (Apr 17, 2004)

> Excellent, a superior performance--ten out of ten answers were correct.


CG is getting better, but it still has a look to it. 

When I first saw pictures of Amano's tanks I always wondered if they were actually artist renditions because they looked to hyper-realistic, but the man is a professional photographer and does have all the equipment needed to create the perfect shot.


----------



## Raul-7 (Feb 4, 2004)

Isn't that Enrico's tank?


----------



## tsunami (Jan 24, 2004)

The discus floating over glosso fields or whatever is one of Amano's all time classics.  

Carlos


----------



## turbomkt (Mar 31, 2004)

janlo said:


> speaking of amano, but on another subject, i have his 2nd book next to me and on the page 89, theres a 56 liters tank with 17 angels in it... im maybe not an expert on fish, but isnt a 56 l tank too big for 17 angels??


Not if they were put in there just for the picture?


----------



## janlo (Dec 7, 2004)

yes, but still...


----------



## david lim (Mar 30, 2004)

janlo said:


> but isnt a 56 l tank too big for 17 angels??


Did you mean too small? The answer is "yes." but like turbomkt says amano has tons of resources on hand to make the perfect pictures. I don't believe he raises 17 angels in ~15 gallons of water. I'd feel sorry for the angels  .


----------



## skinns (Apr 8, 2004)

> Just a quick word on judging if an image has been touched up - there is absolutely no point in closely examining the borders of elements in a low resolution scan with obvious signs of image degradation due to the "lossy" nature of JPEG compression.


Locus is right. Your examining a the edges of colors, shapes, and shadows from a file format (JPG) that was designed to specifically take neighboring pixels and create or dissolve what pixels are needed when compression was ordered to maintain quality.

The messy edges, the colors that bleed from the outer Discus are what mathematics does when calculating pixels with one another.

"Evidence of Manipulation" - Kind of belittling ...


----------



## janlo (Dec 7, 2004)

david lim said:


> janlo said:
> 
> 
> > but isnt a 56 l tank too big for 17 angels??
> ...


yes i meant too small sorry


----------

