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.
Alex’s Galleries
Recent Photos
Popular Posts
- How to Identify the Argentine Ant, Linepithema humile
- CombineZP: stack your images for free
- Friday Beetle Blogging: Palo Verde Beetle
- The Canon MP-E 65mm 1-5x Macro Lens
- Things that look like ants but aren't (Part 2)
- Rover Ants (Brachymyrmex patagonicus), an emerging pest species
- Beware the Cow-Killer
- The Odorous House Ant, Tapinoma sessile
- A Glossary of Insect Surface Sculpturing
- Morning Rant: Amazon Ants aren't from the Amazon
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Donald Byron Johnson on Reader question: who discovered the sex of ant workers?
- Anonymous on Update on the Rogue Taxonomist
- Ant on Arizona Daily Star covers “Planet of the Ants”
- Ga. Girl on Beware the Cow-Killer
- Anonymous on Beware the Cow-Killer
Categories
Archives
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.