4 ms·
"Fake" is a little strong. As he says at the end of the article, you couldn't capture an image like that with a single photograph. He strove for accuracy, but
by bmm6o 11y ago
"Fake" is a little strong. As he says at the end of the article, you couldn't capture an image like that with a single photograph. He strove for accuracy, but who knows how close he got - the article doesn't go into that. His clients thought it was realistic enough and evocative enough to give him $1m.
- prewett 11y agoThe image purports to show a mass of hidden iceberg underneath the water. What it show instead is two above-water icebergs, one of which was flipped upside-down. That is totally fake in my book. If it happens to be accurate (and like you say, we have no information about that), it might correctly illustrate the idea, but the photograph is still fake.
- aaron695 11y agoOther than being fake in every photographic sense it's also scientifically fake. Obviously icebergs don't have that much under the water and they look significantly different in the underwater section. I couldn't see it getting much faker.
- nkurz 11y agoObviously icebergs don't have that much under the water What do you mean, and in what sense is this obvious?
- bmm6o 11y ago> Obviously icebergs don't have that much under the water The popular notion that 90% is underwater is approximately correct: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=iipHowMuchOfAnIcebergIsBelowTheWater http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=iipHowMuchOfAnIcebergIs.... Or are you claiming that the picture in question doesn't represent a 10/90 split?