National GeographicC Has violated the objective?

Discussion 1 post |  Only members can post. Join?

About National GeographicC Has violated the objective?

When the National Geographic released the winner of the Grand Prize, this photo was titled “Splashing,” and described the situation was a sudden rainstorm...then the Editor rephrased the words to accurately reflect the truth. The National Geographic cited Tim Laman’s comment: “...very striking macrophotography image that rose to the top of the nature category for me because of its originality, beautiful light, rare action in a close-up image, as well as its technical perfection.” A “technical perfection?” That is absolutely ridiculous! Ironically, “a sudden rainstorm” turned into “superb lighting” and “a friend spraying water on the dragonfly to simulate rain,” what a far cry!
國家地理剛發布的時候說.獲得大獎（Grand Prize）的這位得獎者，其實將其作品命名為Splashing。並在投稿時寫到，這張照片是在一場突如其來的大雨中拍攝，現在卻更改為.攝影師Shikhei吳作棟了“高超的照明”的優勢和上灑水的朋友蜻蜓來模擬雨水，結果是一個“非常引人注目的翻拍形象，因為它的獨創性，美麗的光芒，在近距離圖像罕見的行動，以及其技術的完美。現在是怎樣在說笑話嗎?


If the photographer Shikhei Goh had told the truth in the first place, would the National Geographic have still awarded him the winner?
天然的一場雨頓然變成朋友灑水來模擬雨水.如果一開始就說雨水朋友灑水來模擬.
那評審會給他優勝嗎?.

If my inference is correct about torturing the insect, would the National Geographic have still approved his conduct?
如果我有關折磨昆蟲的推斷是正確的, 國家地理雜誌還會認同拍攝者的行為嗎?