9/27/2003: Jumping frog
 

http://cellar.org/2003/jumpingfrog.jpg

Maybe the pastoral appeal of a frog-hopping contest hasn't been true since Mark Twain described it, but this is a nice photo in any regards, and there's something appealing about including amphibians in our pastimes.

That is a *great* picture, actually. What kind of frog is that, though? It looks like the same sort that the main character on "Dead Like Me" has.

I'm surprised the frogs back legs would be drawn up and "cocked" for another leap before the front legs touched down.
Maybe the photographer made it get ready for a sudden stop.:)
Don't they have to use local frogs under federal or state rules.?

Just my opinion . . .
 

but it looks photoshopped to me.

The lighting and the depth just don't seem right.

It's probably just the unique perspective of the photographer, and the fact that the froggie is in the air.

/shrug

jesus, this is hot. do you have the rest of the series?

This looks photoshoped to me too. The position of the frog looks like they cut it from another picture of it laying there, and pasted it to this picture of the kid strugling to do a pushup (or whatever the hell he's doing). It's also strange this frog doesn't appear to have a shadow, and the lighting/contrast differs so much. If you compare the size of the frog to the kid, the frog's pretty big.

Just my 2¢
:turd:

That was my first reaction too, that it looks photoshopped. But look more closely, try zooming in. I did. The first thing that stands out is that there are shadows on the frog's body, corresponding to where they should be compared to the boy's shadow in the background. Also notice how the frog looks just slightly blurred as if it is in motion. It doesn't look like it was just sitting there when it was taken. Also, while looking at it at first, it appears that there might be dark lines indicating the border of a photoshop job, but closer inspection reveals that they're actually part of the frog's body.

I think the real reason it looks so strange is because the flash appears to have reflected quite a bit more off the frog's body than anything else in the picture, giving it very different lighting, so it looks out of place.

So while it's possible it could be photoshopped, I don't think it's very likely...just a real cool photo.

I'd like to see a better shot of the blond with the red top in the upper left.;)

Looks like pixel magic to me too, but what the hell do I know:confused: .

Is that a rhetorical question?

Yeah, it's rhetorical;) .

Yeah actually, upon further inspection, I realize that I too would like to see a better shot of the blonde with the red top.
:beer:

Blond in red top
 

I'd just like to say 'Good eyes!' to xoxoxoBruce for spottin that one.

I thought it looked fake as hell too.

I think the biggest factor is the apparent difference in color balance -- all the faces are reddish, while the frog is very yellow.

Your wish is my command! :D

This is one of the problems with the whole Photoshop thing... it has ruined our innocence and makes us suspicious of every picture we see. (Of course, in some ways, that's good.)

Anyway, your average dinky on-camera flash is rarely effective past 10 or 12 feet or so. This is why it doesn't do you any good to use flash to (say) take a picture of a stage from back in the audience. It's also one reason why you see professional and serious amateur photographers carting around monstrous-looking flashes that attach to the outside of the camera.

One of the issues of using a flash is that you light different parts of the scene differently. If you do this in a dark room or at night, you'll end up with the foreground subject lit and everything in the background dark. That's kind of what happened in this shot--the frog is lit (and looks a bit unnatural, because there was already daylight on it), but the rest of the picture is unaffected. But the flash does have the side effect of "stopping" the motion of the frog, at least a bit. So, all things considered, I'd be willing to believe this picture was legit.