While the image is undeniably striking, a closer look reveals some inconsistencies: the lighting sources clash, and the patch of grass in the foreground feels out of place, almost as if it’s there to conceal something. It’s a well-crafted composition, but the seams show for those who know where to look. Still, kudos to the photographer for pulling off such a bold visual analogy.
deleted by creator
So in the end, you provided a smidgen of idiocy, lapped up by you-know-who, and couldn’t actually substantiate any cause of worth. Good job matey.
I already explained my position clearly and calmly. I critiqued an image, not a person, not a reputation, not a career.
You escalated, deleted, returned days later, then deleted again. That pattern speaks for itself.
I’m glad my inbox allowed me to read your deleted message. I wouldn’t have wanted to miss it.
If critique unsettles you to this extent, the issue is not my words, but your projection. I have nothing to add, and nothing to retract.
I’m blocking you now. My time is too valuable to be spent on this exchange. Take care of yourself. It looks like you need it.
deleted by creator
Look at their Instagram feed I shared, and understand their public reputation at stake, duderino.
They try to pass off AI slop as their own, and how do you think that winds up impacting their careers? Same deal with popular devs trying to sneak malware in to their releases. It’s public suicide, dude.
But go ahead… show me any real evidence from reputable sources that this is AI slop…
Il est également intéressant que vous disiez cela en tant que personne affichant un avatar IA.
Tombez-vous dans cette zone critique dans laquelle le voleur pense que tout le monde pense automatiquement de la même manière que lui… ?
First, I don’t see what entitles you to use such a tone. Did I disrespect you? Given the time you took to delete your first response and stew over the next two, it seems I struck a nerve. Are you okay ?
Of course, I looked at the photographer’s Instagram feed. I saw his high-level commitment to wildlife photography. I analyzed the image he posted because I found it intriguing, because I enjoy the exercise, and because (by sharing it publicly) he invited critique. That’s my right.
My ability to spot inconsistencies comes from years of practice and a trained eye. What can I do about that?
That said, I never mentioned AI (and yes, my little profile rodent is rather cute, isn’t it?). I simply pointed out that the image appeared manipulated. Photoshop has been around since the ’90s, after all.
So, put your anger aside and let me appreciate and critique the work shared with the public in peace.
What ‘anger’ are you talking about, mate?
You said and implied something obnoxious towards the original photographer, and I corrected you.
It is to THEM that you owe any sort of apology, my friend… Now, are you capable of that, matey?
I guess that remains to be seen, eh…?
I stand by my technical observations, which were about the image, not the photographer. If you perceive critique as an attack, that’s your prerogative, but it’s not my problem. Have a nice day.
If you perceive critique as an attack, that’s your prerogative
No… absolutely NOT.
I’m sorry for reacting so negatively, and of COURSE I tend to drift in that direction.I just… don’t GET you’re personal theory about how one of the most respected naturist photogs of our era is somehow manufacturing their material.
Don’t you understand how insane and explosive that sounds, matey…??
The butterfly looks so weird in the photo, almost like it was pasted in later. It looks like a butterfly just sitting still, but then cut out and pasted into the air. Wings folded, legs in seating position. Might just be a coincidence though, maybe it just flapped its wings like that and had its legs out to land.
If it’s not photoshopped, it’s really an amazing shot.
Agree!
That’s why I included the watermarked photo, the name of that famous animal photographer, and their Instagram stream.
Not to mention, in this day and age, I feel like it’s RIGHT to be suspicious, gerryflap. So please keep that healthy suspicion alive. ^^
I decided to go through his insta. I couldn’t find the specific photo, maybe he hasn’t posted it yet. But none of his other photos that I saw on his insta look this sus. So he was probably just unlucky with the timing making the shot look photoshopped. I can’t imagine someone with such a portfolio risking an egregious Photoshop like this. Animals can be a bit derpy sometimes, I’ve shot quite a few bird pictures recently and I’ve definitely noticed this.
It’s just that you can’t really trust anything anymore nowadays. If it looks fake, that’s often because it is. Even after seeing his insta I cannot help being a bit sceptical, but based on his portfolio there’s really just no way a rational person would fake this.
Yes, those were pretty much my thoughts, hence the reason I included his info.
Btw, I strongly disagree that the butterfly looks faked. Countless times I’ve seen insects flying near larger animals’ faces, sometimes rather comically. Butterflies are unpredictable fliers, and alpha predators aren’t driven like house cats, who are far more prone to take a swing or nip.
EDIT: The broader point is that sometimes things don’t -need- to be directly, 100% true, such as staged and scripted TV. As long as it can be representational, amusing and maybe even insightful, it can be ‘true’ in representational and allegorical ways.
Things don’t need to be true to be insightful, but many viewers will feel disrespected if they get served something fictional that is presented as something real. I have no issues with a photoshopped or AI generated image of it’s clearly marked as such, they can be gorgeous and insightful all the same. But when something looks (partially) fictional but is presented as a real thing, it feels incredibly deceiving. Capturing a one in a million moment has great value, but photoshopping or using AI to mimic such a moment makes it all worthless.
The butterfly was probably just being goofy, and the light weird. But if it was photoshopped into the picture then the picture would absolutely not have the same value to me and presumably many other viewers. A large part of this photo’s allure is the fact that the photographer got such a rare moment perfectly framed. If it turns out to be faked then that would be a major deception.
Another Rabbit Hole is “how much editing is too much” ofc. Personally I obviously don’t mind colour adjustments, sharpening, some retouches etc. Even moving the butterfly ever so slightly around to get it perfectly aligned with the eyes would be kinda okay. But if it’s significantly moved, enlarged, or just straight up pasted in it would be an unacceptable deception imo.
Yeah, I don’t disagree with any of that. Guess I’m just more chill about it. As in, there are some areas of my life that require great attention to detail, and many not worth that level of effort.
Also, when you have a public figure like this, then: 1) the fact that they have professional reputation at stake and 2) the fact that thousands (or more) of eyes are on their work is generally a powerful reinforcing effect upon not ‘cheating.’ And in life, since I don’t have the luxury of looking at everything through a microscope, I have to trust that process, much of the time.
Is/am Cheeta
FTFY
It’s a leopard, or maybe a jaguar. Cheetah have a black line running from their eye down their cheeks…
Asim Cheema…
Just tried to be stupid-funny and failed ;)
Right so. This one is probably a leopard (Panthera pardus), based on Cheema’s body of photos. Not sure if he’s been to the Americas yet, altho I could be totally whiffing on that.
⭐ Fun fact ⭐ The Carnivoran order is comprised of two lines-- the cat-forms (“Feliformia”) and dog-forms (“Caniformia”). Panthers are the “big cats” of the feliform line. They include leopards, tigers, lions, jaguars and snow leopards.
So for example, when someone says “black panther” or (more rarely) “white panther,” it could potentially refer to any of FIVE different species of big cats, based on their melanistic or leucistic coat coloration.
Is/am Cheeta
FTFYc/confidentlyincorrect material will always be welcome across the fediverse. Thank you for your contribution.
It was just a bad joke with the author’s name, not an actual correction/contribution :)
I appreciate the education tho!
Ah, NP mate, I might have overreacted myself, with all due apologies.
I dearly love animals…
