Incidentally, what’s up with the obvious photoshop job in the accompanying image? It looks like a chorus line.
*update* – it seems they’ve swapped the image out for a more sensible one. The original is here.
Advertisement
Alex’s Galleries
-
Recent Photos
More Photos -
Popular Posts
- How to Identify the Argentine Ant, Linepithema humile
- The Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Lens
- The World's Largest Ants...
- How to Identify Queen Ants
- CombineZP: stack your images for free
- Rover Ants (Brachymyrmex patagonicus), an emerging pest species
- The Odorous House Ant, Tapinoma sessile
- Ant Metamorphosis
- Ladybirds Flying
- The most ambitious arthropod phylogeny yet
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
Categories
Archives
Tags
Oh my… did they just clone the same ant thrice and add a new leaf to each?
*
This photo would’ve been much nicer with two, no wait!, three ants!!
…but I can’t be bothered to go out looking for them…
hmm..
I wonder what this ‘Clone-tool’ does?…
O M G !
No-one will notice a thing..
I’M BRILLIANT!
*
tsk tsk honestly…
I don’t know if I should laugh or cry or explode into hysterics about that photo. Wow–and not in a good way. No one at the WSJ noticed that all three ants had the same exact pose and posture, the same shadow and light, the same everything? They should be embarrassed that they tried to sell that pathetic image as if it’s real, and Getty should be horrified that it cheaply proffered a deceptively false commodity.
To be fair, Getty’s website lists the photo as a “digital composite”. It’s more a question of why WSJ chose to use a doctored photo instead of one of the many undoctored leafcutter shots available.