How To Pick A Photoshopped Firefly

Now that firefly season is sparking up our eastern and midwestern summer evenings, I am starting to see not just the insects themselves but the attendant media buzz.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Now that firefly season is sparking up our eastern and midwestern summer evenings, I am starting to see not just the insects themselves but the attendant media buzz. That nature gets some public attention is a good thing, of course. But nature untouched isn't apparently enough for everyone. A surprising number of common stock firefly images are digitally manipulated.

Here, I give a couple pointers to separate the real images from the altered ones.

1. Look at the position of the legs. Fireflies bend their legs back in flight, even to the point of curling their toes over. Indeed, fireflies splay so dramatically the effect borders on comical. Terry Priest's unmanipulated photo shows the pose:


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Fireflies that have been photographed standing often retain the wrong position when copied to a midair setting. These images look like bug zombies, an insect equivalent of the stiff-legged, off-kilter shuffle. Consider:

2. Look at the glow and the focal plane.

The only reason to see firefly glow spilling out into a diffuse orb is if the light organ is outside the focal plane, or if the lens is dirty enough to smear. When the animal is in focus, so too should be the light trail:

In contrast, here is the broader orb from an embarrassingly mis-focused photo I took recently:

It is physically impossible to get a focused firefly and an unfocused light organ in the same exposure. At least, not without dismembering the insect across the focal plane. But it is relatively easy to add a touch of digital glow in post-processing. For example:

Or here, with added lens flare:

From Dreamstime.

With these criteria in mind, I've assembled a quiz. Which of the following images are photoshopped?

1. Stocksy

2. Rick Lieder

3. Photo Researchers

4. Getty

5. Alamy

[Images displayed here retain the copyright of their respective owners, and are used as Fair Use commentary on the artistic decisions of their makers.]

 

Alex Wild is Curator of Entomology at the University of Texas at Austin, where he studies the evolutionary history of ants. In 2003 he founded a photography business as an aesthetic complement to his scientific work, and his natural history photographs appear in numerous museums, books and media outlets.

More by Alex Wild

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe