21–30 of 30 posts
I never saw that image before, and it's obviously fake. You just can't see through that much seawater.
And the bottom of such a huge iceberg can't possible be as well lit as if the sun was hitting it from below. (And of course it looks like that because it's an above water shot, flipped.)
Doh. I was imagining him actually flipping an iceberg upside-down for some reason.
icebergs turn over quite often, as the seawater eats away at the bottom until they become top-heavy. When they do you get that really strange brilliant blue color which comes from dense glacial ice which has had all the air bubbles forced out.
like this: http://www.alexcornell.com/antarctica/ and this: http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~tonyt/Tonys_site/My_Albums/Pag...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen the image several times, and I'd always assumed it was a painting, using photo-realist techniques.
Yeah, I thought it was someone that does the background painting for movies. The physics of taking that photograph just didn't seem possible.
Just... embarrassing. Why can I skim an article on The Verge or nautil.us and find typos every damn time?
"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.
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.
"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.
Other 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.
What do you mean, and in what sense is this obvious?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It started selling way before digital photography, that could explain a lot of it.
Just found another article which describes other popular stock photos that continue to sell and most of them are older, pre-digital photos as well. >The record for a single sale, he says, was about $35,000. “It still brings in some hefty money,” he says. [1] [1] http://www.pdnonline.com/features/Stock-Photos-That-Ke-1294....
http://bintphotobooks.blogspot.de/2010/12/shelf-life-for-sto...
"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.
Other 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.
The popular notion that 90% is underwater is approximately correct: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=iipHowMuchOfAnIcebergIs.... Or are you claiming that the picture in question doesn't represent a 10/90 split?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I thought it was someone that does the background painting for movies. The physics of taking that photograph just didn't seem possible.
It would be a real challenge to actually photograph the entire underwater part of an iceberg. It's probably never been done. If you could find one in clear water, and set off some enormous set of flashes underwater, it just might be possible. That would be a good project for National Geographic.
icebergs turn over quite often, as the seawater eats away at the bottom until they become top-heavy. When they do you get that really strange brilliant blue color which comes from dense glacial ice which has had all the air bubbles forced out.
Here was a funny recent story regarding different iceberg photos with that effect: http://petapixel.com/2015/02/03/contest-copyright-controvers...