Starfish – gomophia gomophia
Photographed at approximately 10 meters deep.
Photoshop
My first photography e-book is now published!
A photography e-book with 184 pages of stunning underwater photography.
It’ll be yours to page through for the ridiculously low price of € 3,75 and you can order it by clicking on the “Add to Bag” button on the right side.
The order process is super-easy, and super-fast. You can pay via PayPal or with credit card. After payment you’ll be sent a confirmation mail with a link from where you can download the e-book (pdf, appr. 25Mb in size).
(and of course, feel free to share it with everyone you know and don’t know! 😉 ).
Nudibranch – phyllidiidae
Photographed at approximately 15 meters deep.
For some weird reason some colors disappear when using strobes underwater.
The green color on this nudibranch had disappeared due to the strobe light. It was brought back in post-process using Photoshop.
Having been in the graphic business for over two decades, I look at things differently than your average guy would, I guess.
And I’ve seen quite a few weird and bad Photoshop jobs pass my desk.
Sometimes you wonder “but… but… HOW??? WHAT were they thinking??” Also sometimes you look at something and you simply KNOW there’s something odd, but you can’t really put your finger on it, because it’s not all THAT clear from the start.
Yesterday I was flying from Denpasar to Manila, a 4 hour flight. Cebu Pacific (excellent company, I’ve flown with them many many times!) has their own in-flight magazine, as many carriers do, and of course there’s plenty of advertising in it. I finished my book, so I had plenty of time to scrupulously go through the whole magazine. And really, when you look at things closely, there’s a surprising amount of really shitty Photoshop work out there.
There was one with a swimming pool, where people and chairs were copy-pasted in, with reflections and shadows in every which (wrong) way, dwarfs and giants living harmoniously together, there were really REALLY bad masking jobs, and so on.
I picked out one of many for you that caught my eye specifically.
This one, supposedly a very upscale real estate company, hired one of Philippines’ most famous models to pose in their imagery. Look how she’s holding on tight with one hand on the railing of the speed boat and with the other hand on the glass of wine.
Oh, but hang on…

Real estate advertisement, copyright belongs to the respective owners.
Snapshot of the advertisement page in Cebu Pacific Air’s in-flight magazine.
So basically every element in this adverts is copy-pasted to make this composite of images. And it’s done badly.
I kept on snickering when I paged through the magazine. The people sitting next to me probably thought I was pretty weird 😀
I’ve started a business with the Better Half.
And for that I made a few ads that I wanted to boost on Facebook to get a larger reach. You’d think that’s a straight-forward piece of design, right?
WRONG!
Facebook has a few rules to live by when you want to boost posts on their website. That’s fine, of course. And if it was all logical, it would be even finer (is that even proper English? 😉 ).
But it’s not as fine as it sounds.
The rule over which I kept on tripping was the 20% text rule. In order to be allowed to boost an ad on Facebook, the ad is not allowed to have more than 20% text. And that’s where everything goes south.
I don’t know if there are actually PEOPLE checking the posts submitted, or if that’s a totally automated “optical character recognition” kind of thing, but there are two major flaws in the system where Facebook fucks up royally (excuse me my french).
1) They don’t understand logo fonts. So everything that has a logo in it consisting of text, is seemingly considered as… text.
2) They work with a grid system. A 5 x 5-box grid. Regardless of the size of the ad, everything is divided in a 5 x 5-box grid and you’re supposed to click the boxes in the grid that contain text. If you have more than 5 boxes clicked, you have more than 20% text and your ad is rejected for boosting.
The problem with this is, if I have only ONE letter in one box, that WHOLE box is considered to have text. If that letter happens to be exactly on the division of the grid, it will be in two boxes, and thus TWO boxes are considered to have text.
Left a 125 x 125 mm square made in InDesign with the letters on the grid division. Right the grid from Facebook where you have to indicate what boxes contain text. When done properly, it indicates that this ad has 40% text. Of course that’s not true, and if there are ACTUAL people checking this, you will get away with it, because it has maybe 5% text. But a computer is stupid. If this is done automatically by OCR, then you’re screwed.
Another problem with this system is, that they use this grid, the 5 x 5-box grid, on EVERY ad. Regardless of its size. So I put out another test.
In InDesign I made a document of 150 x 2500 mm, so a super long, narrow document. I put a bit of text in the top and in the bottom. See what happens:
Facebook’s app to check your ad squeeeeeezes that complete document into a smaller space. The text is somewhat stretched, so it’s unproportionally scaled, but according to the boxes checked, that ad still has 40% text. And that’s nowhere near right
The initial add that I posted DID have more than 20% text.
So that was right. But then I changed it, took away the majority of the text (two versions in between), until only this was left:
So this one was initially accepted, it ran for about an hour, and then I STILL got a mail that it was rejected, due to the 20%-text rule.
So I really believe that they have no clue about logo fonts. In this last case the ACTUAL text is only in the red stamp and next to it, and those fall exactly in the second row of the grid. They clearly calculated the diver’s log, which is a logo font and the Reconnect Discover logo as text.
But then again, if you look at it closely, and look at the EFFECTIVE amount of text in the image, so the part that is really text and not the boxes that Facebook has indicated as being completely text, then all that is left is maybe… 10-12%? And in the example below I’ve even added the logo font that is Diver’s Log (which isn’t text, but a logo / image):

The actual amount of text in the image in blue, the text in the image according to Facebook in red (Diver’s Log not included in this).
Right now I’m a bit at a loss. If they really do also consider the Reconnect Discover logo a bit of text, there’s no way this ad would ever get through.
If they would only consider the top part text, I would have to design it like this:
I’m a designer. A visual artist. I create nice things.
And that idiotic 5 x 5-box grid of Facebook prevents me from making nice things. No designer in his right mind would make something like this. By default any design would cover exactly the division of grids. It’s a rule of thumb. That also goes in photography. You put things on the division lines, because instinctively that’s where your eye draws to first.
And Facebook is putting a plug in that.
So F**K YOU, Facebook.
Now… Since this is my own website, and I can freely advertise anything I want here, I’ll put the original ad here once more.
Go check out the website, and go get your Diver’s Log. It’ll be one of the best decisions you’ll make in 2014. I promise 🙂
Edit to add, at 13:39.
Just for the fun of it, I boosted this post on the fromadifferentangle.net Facebook page.
This was at 12:09:
Then at 13:39 I get a message from Facebook, saying that the ad to boost my post was rejected. It had, by that time, generated just over 600 views and I was charged $ 1,32 for it.

At 13:39 I got a message from Facebook saying that the ad for boosting the post was rejected, because there was too much text in it.
So first the boost was approved. I’ve boosted a good number of posts on the fromadifferentangle Facebook page, and they have ALL -without any exception until now- been accepted. Why? Because it’s a LINK. It’s a link to a post, not an image ad.
Now one can start thinking: WHY did they reject this boost? Was it because I was badmouthing Facebook? Or was it because I was basically promoting the ad that they wouldn’t let me promote through Reconnect Discover Facebook page?
It’s a very dubious case.
Do leave your input, if you know the answer.
I have to spread this out over a few posts, wouldn’t want you to get RSI from scrolling down too much 😉

D800 (in Ikelight underwater housing), ISO100, 1/1000 sec @ f/4.0, Tamron 90mm, Ikelight DS161 strobe

D800 (in Ikelight underwater housing), ISO100, 1/1000 sec @ f/4.0, Tamron 90mm, Ikelight DS161 strobe

D800 (in Ikelight underwater housing), ISO100, 1/1000 sec @ f/5.6, Tamron 90mm, Ikelight DS161 strobe
So I’m back here in the Philippines, as you may have noticed from my previous posts.
I’m not here only for photography, and writing articles. I’m not here only for diving, or holidays. Of course I’m having a lot of fun, and I’m shooting great pictures, but it’s not *just* for me.
I’m also here to prepare a little piece of paradise for all of you.
See… I’ve been photographing to gather material to show you the beauty of where you could go next year, as a holiday, as a (re)treat, where we offer you yoga and diving as a relaxing combination to get your mind off your every day life.
How does this look?

Noka Lumia 820, ISO100, 1/2020 sec @ f/2.2 (don’t ask, I have NO idea where the 1/2020 came from, I’m just typing it down from the IPTC info).

Noka Lumia 820, ISO100, 1/3003 sec @ f/2.2 (don’t ask, I have NO idea where the 1/3003 came from, I’m just typing it down from the IPTC info).
Doesn’t that look inviting? 🙂
Having been there, having done that, I can say it IS very inviting!
I’ve got a lot more pictures, also from underwater wildlife and landscapes. Keep an eye out for those in the coming posts.
And if I’ve managed to arouse some interest, head on over here:
Check it out, like if you like, sign up for the newsletter if you want to stay informed. There are visual updates on the Facebook Group frequently as well.