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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe