| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2009 10:13:11 AM · #1 |
I got a kick out of this shot:
Linky
Good for a chuckle! |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 10:24:58 AM · #2 |
| those varmints are sassy. My wife and I were at Moraine Lake last year and while we climbing to the top one ran over her shoes. He ran up the trail a little bit, stopped and then turned around as if to say "get out of my way slow pokes" before running away |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 10:51:38 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 10:54:54 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 11:02:04 AM · #5 |
| That's a lovely shot -- never could have happened in the days prior to auto focus. |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 11:30:05 AM · #6 |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 11:47:11 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Definitely photoshopped. |
You're joking, right? |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 11:47:40 AM · #8 |
| naw... I'm gullible--I think it's real! |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 01:01:16 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by eyewave:
Definitely photoshopped. |
You're joking, right? |
Not really. The blur of everything but the squirrel is evenly distributed - from the rocks over the couple to the horizon, while the squirrel is tack sharp. Methinks that wouldn't occur usually; the rocks in the foreground should show more detail than the mountains in the bg; the effect in the shot is received when a blur is laid over the entire shot. Also looks like there are artefacts around the squirrel's fur. Judging by the shallow DOF of the overall image, the "edges" of the squirrel would have been OOF too. In addition, rarely amateur cameras set to autofocus would focus on the foreground in such a shot.
Not 100% sure, though. |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 01:43:28 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by eyewave:
Definitely photoshopped. |
You're joking, right? |
Not really. The blur of everything but the squirrel is evenly distributed - from the rocks over the couple to the horizon, while the squirrel is tack sharp. Methinks that wouldn't occur usually; the rocks in the foreground should show more detail than the mountains in the bg; the effect in the shot is received when a blur is laid over the entire shot. Also looks like there are artefacts around the squirrel's fur. Judging by the shallow DOF of the overall image, the "edges" of the squirrel would have been OOF too. In addition, rarely amateur cameras set to autofocus would focus on the foreground in such a shot.
Not 100% sure, though. |
Well, if it's faked, they fooled National Geographic with it... As for the focus shift, that squirrel's head is right smack in the middle of the frame, so of course the focus grabbed there. Looks fine to me...
R. |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 03:07:12 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by eyewave:
Definitely photoshopped. |
You're joking, right? |
Not really. The blur of everything but the squirrel is evenly distributed - from the rocks over the couple to the horizon, while the squirrel is tack sharp. Methinks that wouldn't occur usually; the rocks in the foreground should show more detail than the mountains in the bg; the effect in the shot is received when a blur is laid over the entire shot. Also looks like there are artefacts around the squirrel's fur. Judging by the shallow DOF of the overall image, the "edges" of the squirrel would have been OOF too. In addition, rarely amateur cameras set to autofocus would focus on the foreground in such a shot.
Not 100% sure, though. |
Well, if it's faked, they fooled National Geographic with it... As for the focus shift, that squirrel's head is right smack in the middle of the frame, so of course the focus grabbed there. Looks fine to me...
R. |
If the camera was set to the center focal point. But who would do that when shooting themselves in front of a landscape and NOT sitting in the center? |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 03:14:16 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by eyewave:
Originally posted by KarenNfld:
Originally posted by eyewave:
Definitely photoshopped. |
You're joking, right? |
Not really. The blur of everything but the squirrel is evenly distributed - from the rocks over the couple to the horizon, while the squirrel is tack sharp. Methinks that wouldn't occur usually; the rocks in the foreground should show more detail than the mountains in the bg; the effect in the shot is received when a blur is laid over the entire shot. Also looks like there are artefacts around the squirrel's fur. Judging by the shallow DOF of the overall image, the "edges" of the squirrel would have been OOF too. In addition, rarely amateur cameras set to autofocus would focus on the foreground in such a shot.
Not 100% sure, though. |
Well, if it's faked, they fooled National Geographic with it... As for the focus shift, that squirrel's head is right smack in the middle of the frame, so of course the focus grabbed there. Looks fine to me...
R. |
If the camera was set to the center focal point. But who would do that when shooting themselves in front of a landscape and NOT sitting in the center? |
With a P & S camera you usually have no control over the focus point. The camera will pick the subject based on contrast and distance from the lens. Ground squirrel popped up at the right moment, click. |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 03:31:15 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
If the camera was set to the center focal point. But who would do that when shooting themselves in front of a landscape and NOT sitting in the center? |
You don't have a choice, usually. And anyway they are far enough from the camera that they are IN the landscape. It would have worked fine if Mr. Squirrel hadn't paid his inquisitive business.
Sometimes it seems to me like we are so skeptical of images in here that we lose all sense of magic...
R.
Message edited by author 2009-08-12 15:31:31. |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 03:36:05 PM · #14 |
hahaha! Nice!
Sometimes the flash give the impression of a fake background, maybe the stones (close to the squirrel) are weird because of that.
Anyway, i had doubts about the focus too, but the important thing is the humor at this shot, and i believe it's real.
Message edited by author 2009-08-12 15:41:33. |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 03:55:42 PM · #15 |
| The looks on their faces make me think it is real!! |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 05:19:13 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
... Also looks like there are artefacts around the squirrel's fur... |
always makes me laugh when someone calls out the "artefacts" on a picture on the web...if I remember correctly, images compressed for things such as the web usually will get the jaggies or other compression artifacts.
and if the camera was still trying to focus (like if you were using a remote) then it would have focused on the squirrel and not the tourist...if you used a self timer, it would have focused on the people when you started the timer.
Why can't we just accept that real surprises like this DO still happen.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2009 05:55:48 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
...if you used a self timer, it would have focused on the people when you started the timer. |
They said they were using a timer, not a remote - so the camera must have refocussed on the squirrel when the timer finished. Although on my camera it auto-focuses before starting the timer.
My guess is he used a remote. |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 05:59:36 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by sabphoto:
if you used a self timer, it would have focused on the people when you started the timer. |
Not always- One of the few things I hate about my wifes Nikon P&S is that if you use the self time it always focuses right before taking the picture, not when you hit the button to start the self timer- frustrating but workable. We use our K100s on MF and the IR remote for our self portraits now. |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 06:05:46 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by vxpra:
Originally posted by sabphoto:
if you used a self timer, it would have focused on the people when you started the timer. |
Not always- One of the few things I hate about my wifes Nikon P&S is that if you use the self time it always focuses right before taking the picture, not when you hit the button to start the self timer- frustrating but workable. We use our K100s on MF and the IR remote for our self portraits now. |
Ditto with my old Nikon P&S: it focused just before snapping, not when timer was turned on.
But the thing of it is, these people SAID in the story that the squirrel heard the cam focusing and popped up to inspect. Why on earth are ANY of us assuming they are lying? Gawdamighty!
R. |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 06:14:59 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But the thing of it is, these people SAID in the story that the squirrel heard the cam focusing and popped up to inspect. Why on earth are ANY of us assuming they are lying? Gawdamighty! |
lol! - I just noticed the comments on the linked article has a bunch of people debating if it's 'shopped. It's a squirrel conspiracy. |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 09:21:16 PM · #21 |
I don't give a hoot one way or t'other......it's cute!
|
|
|
|
08/12/2009 09:56:17 PM · #22 |
| No comments on the name of the lake??? |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 10:11:27 PM · #23 |
For the record, DailyMail is NOTORIOUS for crappy shop jobs, so you should consider that. If you don't believe me, check this out:
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAD photoshopping article
photo direct link.
There are LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of these things with them. |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 10:21:33 PM · #24 |
| mmmmm...varmint on a stick...Hilarious! |
|
|
|
08/12/2009 10:36:18 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Covert_Oddity:
No comments on the name of the lake??? |
The name of the lake is correct.
//www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/ab/banff/natcul/natcul4m_e.asp
Message edited by author 2009-08-12 22:38:37. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 10:43:14 PM EDT.
