This message follows up the thread in Diving Bonaire: Why are there no sharks? to comments made about the "realness" of the shark image I posted there. Seems more appropriate here.

Bert van Barneveld: ...looking at the colours you were in shallow waters?
Yes.

Richard Burdette: ...but was that a "real" picture of the shark?
James Thomas: ...curious as to the real deal on this photo.
What is "real"? We're talking about photons hitting electrons modifying magnetic fields, eventually tickling your brain!

DJ: Give us a break Roger, it's not even close!!!
Close to what?

Marc @ CrystalVisions: I agree; that pic is fake, the lighting is off
How do you think I "faked" it?

Here's the "real" deal. I've put together two clips (320x240, 30sec, Windows Media Files, each about 1.1Meg|:

• Sharks - Raw Footage - Just as it came from the DV tape.
• Sharks - Processed Footage - Processed with Adobe Premiere 6.5

Nice footage of the shark. I'm guessing that the digital artifacting present on the photo due mainly because it was a capture off the video (which make it quite low res) may have led people to believe it was fake. But you certainly showed them that it was not.

First, the question of "How do you think I "faked" it?". I'm assuming you're asking this question with your context being that you know you saw the shark and have video to prove it. Without the video footage as proof (which was the context of the previous thread), one could easily create a fictional scenario using Photoshop, taking two photos and merging them in an almost-believable fashion. See, for example, this edited photo:



However, it is even possible for video to be edited in such a manner if somebody had the time and money to do so. In this case, I take the bait and believe what I see in the footage. The only remaining argument could be where in the world this footage was taken. (Don't worry, I'm not going to argue that point cuz I believe you.)

Second, which clicp do I prefer regarding quality/editing/color balance etc? I choose the processed clip. I find that in most photos, there is a slight haze that coats the picture, something that is easily removed with tweaking the contrast and levels. Not being a diver and using some logical thought, I would imagine that this "haze" I see topside would be compounded under water due to various "stuff" floating in the water, combined with the effects of a large body of water between you and your subject.

I would prefer not to see through the haze and just see the colors for what they are.

The only reason I would see a need for the raw version is if someone is trying to accurately portray what "underwater" really looks like. In this case, the purpose is to show a shark swimming.

Why are there no sharks? ....too many people

neither not enough kite surfers nor snorkers...but we are working on that...

Ok, asuming you wouldn't go to so much trouble of editing a fake video just for a laugh... I had just the one picture to go by. What you didn't tell was that it was a video capture. The quality of that combined with the fact that you overdid the sharpening a bit gave me the impression that, like Brian described, you layered the shark on the background.

nice barney pic - very cool. I like your comment bob - I guess just not eoough food for the sharks
Russ