Okay, Y’all - True or False?

[LyndeeLoo]

The photographer in this link claims he dug a hole and filled it with water in order to capture the images contained within this article. I am calling his claims baloney as I think he flipped the images in Photoshop. What do you all think?

https://petapixel.com/2020/06/11/photographer-digs-pool-in-forest-for-mirrored-wildlife-photos/

 

[Mike Buckley]

The characteristic that I find interesting is that the brightness of the reflections matches the brightness of the orginals, which doesn't happen unless the reflection is brightened during post-processing. As for whether the reflection was captured, I don't know (and don't care).

 

[Clix Pix]

The images definitely seem to be manipulated in some way to me -- they just do not look realistic! The one where the animal has his mouth supposedly on or in the water -- shouldn't there be some ripples and indications of water movement?

 

[Palouse]

Don't know. Besides it's a style that does not appeal to me. Everything is too perfect, to sterile, too not natural appearing.

 

[LyndeeLoo]

Everything is too perfect, to sterile, too not natural appearing.

Exactly my thought - they’re too perfect...

 

[Growltiger]

Thay may or may not be fake. But the problem is that they look fake.
Wildlife photography should show you what you could see if you were lucky enough to be where you could see the same thing. Nowhere in the world could you go and see these. And the artificial light is horrible.

But people will buy these photos.

 

[Mike Buckley]

But people will buy these photos.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he makes more money renting hide equipment than selling photos.

 

[Mike Buckley]

shouldn't there be some ripples and indications of water movement?

One of the images does display movement in the water.

 

[bsinc1962]

I want to know how he kept the water from seeping into the ground when he was filling it.

 

[BrianDW]

The camera is looking slightly down on the animals, perhaps 20° or so. The reflections should show the animal from looking up at 20°. With 3D objects, these images should not be identical.

 

[menbrial]

The light its not right , the light is fake , I do a lot of wildlife photo ...those are all fakes

 

[Terri French]

Seems fake to me.

 

[480sparky]

100% fake.

The perspective on both halves are identical. How is the squirrel drinking and not causing ripples? Or the wolf breathing on the water's surface?

 

[gchappel]

I actually like several of the images. Do they look real, no. Did I enjoy looking at them, yes.
I actually have an action that makes reflections, it even adds ripples and motion if I want.
Could these be fake? Sure
Could this photographer be so good that his images look fake? Yes, another possibility. I don’t know.
Do I care if they are fake, not really. I enjoyed seeing many of these.
Now, if he is proclaiming them as real, and they are just images flipped in photoshop, we should all have an issue. By talking about building the large pond he is implying these are real. I hope he is not lying. If they are fake, just don’t say anything and tell the truth or don’t say anything if asked.
As many are judging this work harshly, can we prove he is guilty?
How should he prove these are actual images, and should he have to prove anything?
Is it wildlife photography, which should be realistic, or is it art, where anything goes?
Just do not lie about what it is.
Gary

 

[Mike Buckley]

The photographer in this link claims he dug a hole and filled it with water in order to capture the images contained within this article. I am calling his claims baloney as I think he flipped the images in Photoshop.

Let's break that down into two issues:

1. Did he dig the hole and fill it with water?
2. Did he capture the reflections in his camera?

My point is that they are two separate issues. As an example, he could have created the pond to attract the animals to it and he could have created the reflections by flipping the images during post-processing.

 

[Growltiger]

Let's break that down into two issues:

1. Did he dig the hole and fill it with water?
2. Did he capture the reflections in his camera?

My point is that they are two separate issues. As an example, he could have created the pond to attract the animals to it and he could have created the reflections by flipping the images during post-processing.

Or he could have dug the pond, filled it with water, added lights, then added stuffed animals or just photoshopped some animal photos in.

 

[Mike Buckley]

I've never figured out angles of reflection but I wonder about the image of the squirrel. Closely look at the background and its reflection and you'll see that they aren't the same. Should they be the same? I really don't know.

 

[Baywing]

Seems like a pretty big pond. For sure, he has changed the plants, logs and flowers that adorn the edges of the photos. Something doesn't look right at the transition of the land to the water. If I dug a hole in a forest area, there wouldn't be anything growing, ie, there would be soil visible. There appears to be an inch or so of earth above the water level, so I would expect bare earth, not vegetation. On shot there appears to be ferns in the darkness behind the subject. He says the area was dry, ferns only grow in the damp. If there were ferns, there would be water when he dug the hole. Lining the hole with plastic would keep the water in but again, you'd see some tell tale signs of it's presence. Interesting shots but I'll question if he really went to the extreme measures he claims.

 

[Mike Buckley]

there appears to be ferns in the darkness behind the subject. He says the area was dry, ferns only grow in the damp. If there were ferns, there would be water when he dug the hole.

I don't know anything about plants but I see none in the background that I would call ferns. The photographer didn't say it's always dry in the area; he said he dug the hole during two months that were dry. He also didn't say when he took the photos.

 

[480sparky]

I've never figured out angles of reflection but I wonder about the image of the squirrel. Closely look at the background and its reflection and you'll see that they aren't the same. Should they be the same? I really don't know.

Reflections cannot be the same. It's a different perspective. BrianDW has it right... if you are looking down at something at a 20° angle, you are looking up at in at a 20° angle in the reflection.