National Geographic 2016年第07期.pdf

THEREALEXHIBIT A Fingerprints?More art than science.JULY 2016Great White Sharks PREDATORS IN PERILWatch Battle for Virunga Sunday,June 26,on the National Geographic ChannelThe Gods of Ancient GreeceSaving Africas Oldest ParkCSITHE NEW SCIENCE OF SOLVING CRIMEHALTING HORSE DAVID GUTTENFELDERNATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CREATIVETraditional Mexican Charro cowboy.Oaxaca,Mexico 2016Monochrome/Pro ModeISO:50,Aperture:2.2,Shutter:1/168CAPTURED BY THE HUAWEI P9 Product shape,color,interface,and functions are for reference only.The actual product may 2016 FCA US LLC.All Rights Reserved.Jeep is a registered trademark of FCA US LLC.OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETYCorrections and Clarifications Go to Proof|Smartphone Americana After more than 20 years abroad,a photographer explores his own country.Story and Photographs by David Guttenfelder102 Greece,Gods,and the BeyondAncient Greeks believed that gods played a role in all life,from the underworld to realms above.By Caroline Alexander Photographs by Vincent J.Musi and David Coventry56 The Battle for VirungaAt one of the worlds most dan-gerous parks,survival depends upon making peace with des-perate,discontented neighbors.By Robert Draper Photographs by Brent Stirton30 Beyond Reasonable DoubtCriminal forensics has been accused of being more craft than science.Can it shake that reputation?By Veronique Greenwood Photographs by Max Aguilera-Hellweg84Great White MysteryThey are the worlds most famous sharksyet we know so little about them.By Erik Vance Photographs by Brian SkerryEven in shark-illed waters like these,near Australias Neptune Islands,no one has ever seen great white sharks mate or give birth.july 2016 vol.230 no.1On the Cover Fingerprint analysis,which investigators have used to help solve crimes since the late 1800s,is now being reevaluated,along with other forensic science practices.Photo by ar-chi/Getty ImagesFROM THE EDITORImages and EthicsPHOTO:GORDON GAHAN,NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC CREATIVESusan Goldberg,Editor in Chief Digital technology has simpliied the alteration of images,such as moving a pyramid to make a hor-izontal image(left)it on a vertical cover(above).How We Check What You SeeIn the digital age,when its easy to manipulate a photo,its harder than ever to ensure that the images we publish,whether on paper or on a screen,reflect the reality of what a photographer saw through his or her viewfinder.At National Geographic,where visual storytelling is part of our DNA,making sure you see real images is just as important as making sure you read true words.Ill explain how we strive to keep covertly manip-ulated images out of our publicationsbut first an admission about a time when we didnt.Longtime readers may remember.In February 1982 the magazines cover showed a camel train in front of the Pyramids at Giza.The image produced by the photographer was horizontal;here at headquarters we altered the photo to fit our vertical cover.That change visually moved the pyra-mids closer together than they really are.A deserved firestorm ensued“National Geo-graphic moves the pyramids!”came the outcry.We learned our lesson.At National Geographic its never OK to alter a photo.Weve made it part of our mission to ensure our photos are real.I went to our expert to explain how we do this.Sarah Leen is director of photography at National Geographic and has been here for 30 years.A few decades ago it was easier to spot photo manipu-lation because the results were a lot cruder.Now,she says,“you cant always tell if a photo is fake,at least not without a lot of forensic digging.”Even our experts can be fooled,as in 2010 when we published what we later learned was a doctored photo from a contributor to Your Shot().We work with the most admired photographers in the world,but just like we require our writers to provide their notes,we require photographers on assignment to submit“raw”files of their images,which contain pixel information straight from the digital cameras sensor.We request the same for Your Shot photos sent in by members of the public or stock images we buy.If a raw file isnt available,we ask detailed questions about the photo.And,yes,sometimes what we learn leads us to reject it.Still,reasonable people can disagree:One of our photographers recently entered a photo in a contest.It was rejected as being overprocessed;our editors,on the other hand,saw the same photo and thought it was OK.We published it.Were we right,or were the contest judges right?Thats a subject we can continue to discuss.“We ask ourselves,Is this photo a good represen-tation of what the photographer saw?”Leen says.For us as journalists,that answer always must be yes.Thank you for reading National Geographic.The National Geographic Society is a global non-proit membership organization com-mitted to exploring and protecting our planet.EDITOR IN CHIEF Susan GoldbergDEPUTY EDITOR IN CHIEF:Jamie Shreeve.MANAGING EDITOR:David Brindley.EXECUTIVE EDITOR DIGITAL:Dan Gilgoff.DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY:Sar