*Please read the comment, around the 15th, which is by a professional, who studied the picture well and came to the conclusion that it's probably staged and very similar composition to others of that photographer.
Is this photo, no more than an illusion, a work of art?
This very impressive photo accompanied the Jerusalem Post internet edition's front page to illustrate "Operation-Cast Lead." It just looks a bit too "perfect." Only the people are in color, and the rest of the picture is mostly shades of grey.
Colors in the New York Times are much brighter.
I'm no expert in photoshop, but if you can prove it doctored, please let me know. Thanks
20 comments:
It is a Reuters photo, not doctored.
davka Reuters?
They have a history of sending out doctored shots.
http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2006/08/reuters.html
Lots of beautiful pictures coming out now of lots of black or mottled uniformed terrorists who used to be in this world.
Are they "too pretty to be true," or is it that they make you happy. This one doesn't look real.
My personal feeling is that if you cannot prove it to be faux, don't publicly suspect it.
If you want to be suspicious, look for the more obvious, like the picture in Israel Matzav's report on a scrubbed NYT article.
"Last war" doctored pictures were used by the mainstream media. Why shouldn't I ask a question?
Maybe it's the way you asked.
Saying a photo is "questionable" immediately makes it suspect.
On the other hand, asking if a photo is questionable in the first place is an invitation to invite opinions, hoepfully from those familiar with the technologies.
Personally, I have no reason to question that photo in particular.
I'd be more than happy for anyone to point out new cases of Arab fauxtography from the last few days. What I wouldn't like to see is our side being accused of falsely accusing the media when it just isn't so.
It's the other side that's always proclaiming "fake but accurate". We should have no need to venture there.
I'm just doubting everything, except G-d. I just posted about another "con."
Muse:
It is entirely relevant to raise the question of fauxtography, particularly given the history of Hezbullah and Hamas' careful and planned exploition of news photography and reports.
I am highly experienced in photography plus the use of Photoshop and other graphic software.
The photos you cite appear genuine to me. The first was taken shortly after the guided bomb struck. There is considerable smoke and dust in the shot, as one would expect. The presence of significant amounts of dust, smoke, and similarly, for example, snow in a winter scene, causes color to be "desaturated" --- that is, to appear gray, hazy and essentially colorless. The figures in the foreground show more color because they are closer to the camera.
In the second photo, taken later after firefighters arrived on the scene, is much more colorful because the smoke and dust have settled and the air is more clear, thus lessening the desaturation of color.
It is also important to remember that there are two major methods to create fauxtography.
The first is to manipulate the image itself, by cloning elements such as smoke and/or elements such as missiles in flight as we saw in photos from the "last war."
The second is to "stage" the photograph by intentionally placing elements such as children's toys amidst bomb rubble for dramatic effect.
Photo editors are keen on looking for and detecting image manipulation now, but the "staging" of photographs is more difficult to prove and to prevent.
The recent photo, originally appearing in the Washington Post and other news sources of the unharmed children lying beside a wounded, bloody terrorist is to me a clear example of a staged photograph.
spook, I have no problems with the NYT photo and posted it for contrast. It's the other one which bothers me. I'm not an expert. It's just kishkes/instinct/intuition. Thanks for the input.
Batya writes @ 8:54 PM
"I have no problems with the NYT photo and posted it for contrast. It's the other one which bothers me. I'm not an expert. It's just kishkes/instinct/intuition."
I would ask, then. What about it bothers you?
Honestly it would be fairly easy (although also quite easily detectable) to outline the figures in the foreground and then place a gray layer with noise (small dots that add grain to the image) on the remaining portion.
But, what would be the benefit of doing that? The faked photos from 2006 in Beirut added cloned smoke and cloned flares to make the scenes appear far more devastating and ominous than they actually were. Adding smoke to this scene would not achieve that.
I'm a Gemini like you and have "instincts" as well. The photo that "bothers" you is not, in my opinion, a fake at all ... in any way.
International photo editors were greatly embarrassed by revelations of manipulated photographs from 2006. They have most assuredly instituted extreme measures to prevent this from happening again.
That said, the "staging" of photos will go on, and we've seen those types of fakes appear once again.
It seems more beneficial to me to spend time on analysis that is grounded in fact and reality rather than rampant speculation.
spook, it's just too gorgeous. The figures stand out, like they don't belong.
You're the expert.
Hi Batya,
I agree - it looks like the characters are imposed - however I also agree with Spook: What would be the reason? I don't think this is an image which is very damaging.
It shows survivors of massive damage, and we're the ones guilty of the damage.
Ok ... this will be my final comment unless you feed me.
Please understand two things;
(1) I'm not trying to win an argument here, particularly against Jewish women --- do you think I'm crazy already? Plus, none of us will ever know for sure. and
(2) I am not in anyway making a "pro-Hamas" argument. Hamas is a terrorist organization with a fundamental goal of destroying Israel. As such, they are my enemy. I hope the Israeli forces destroy Hamas and send their very sick brand of hate into extinction. It is past time Israel took such action.
That said, we are discussing a photo and I have extensive experience in observing doctored photos.
The characters are not imposed. I obtained a larger resolution file here:
I downloaded it, blew it up to 700% and examined it carefully, pixel by pixel. I believe that there is no way on earth that the figures are "added" to the photograph, and I would testify in court to that fact. There are many technical reasons for my opinion that I won't bore you with. Trust me (shrug).
I also believe that the photo is "staged." The two men on either side of the dazed old boy who survived the blast probably arrived with, or at the same time as, the photographer. (The man on the viewer's left has a small digital camera in his right hand) Thus they're "clean" and look very posed. They didn't go into the rubble and fetch the guy or else their clothes would be covered in dust. It's likely that the photographer saw this old boy wandering around in a daze and he told those two men to go parade him by the camera.
I studied dozens of photos online taken by the same photographer. He prefers the standard "anguished figures in the foreground model" and I believe that many of his other photos are similarly staged. He also had photos taken in many areas where an "independent" photographer would not be allowed, so his complicity with Hamas seems to me, certain.
With respect to your comment, Bataya, about the photo showing "massive damage," there are hundreds of other photos online that show far more damage, so there is no reason to doctor this photo to achieve that goal.
And finally, if you really want to be a sleuth, look at the upper right thigh of the survivor's pants close to his crotch ... he has obviously wet his pants! This happens when you hear a bomb blast so loud that it makes your ears ring for a week, get blown off of your feet, and then realize you're not dead.
People who die in bomb and missile blasts from air-launched munitions often do not look too bad if they're not covered and injured by rubble, but they're dead ... real dead. That is because if you're even close to such a blast, it will rip your organs out by the roots; heart, lungs, and others ... the sorta stuff you need to have connected to sustain life.
This guy was lucky. Hopefully, other members of Hamas won't be.
spook, thanks, yes, staged for sure is the best description
I'm going to tell people to read your comment.
Thanks
You're welcome, but "tell-schmell!"
Just get me some brisket ... I adore brisket!
I don't deliver.
We've been here so long, I couldn't cook American Jewish if I tried.
Is this an invitation request?
Hahahaha! No ... I'll mind my manners. I'm up late and have developed this craving for brisket.
I'll go tomorrow to a restaurant not far away and have a huge brisket sandwich and a tall beer in your honor.
Be well!
Spook
Enjoy in good health!
Post a Comment