Unbelievable
Sunday, 12 May 2013
I'm going to have to do some tweaking to the trend detector at FotoForensics. Right now, too many pictures are being flagged as trends. Basically, the number of uploads has dramatically increased and FotoForensics is being used by many of different forums. As a result, we're getting lots of picture variants from a variety of sources.
Many of these trending picture topics are not new -- they are just new to the various forums. And some of the topics are not even very interesting or controversial (unless you actually care about Justin Bieber or follow that boy band One Direction -- which is really just a remake of Menudo but with less talent). Then again, maybe I just don't understand the controversy.
However, there are two currently trending pictures that got my attention...
The forum that began to make it popular at FotoForensics is at Godlike Productions -- a conspiracy site. The original posting on this forum (by a guy called "Ford Perfect") interpreted the ELA result as denoting a modified image.
Ford Perfect was correct -- this old Eddie photo is fake.
With Error Level Analysis (ELA), we need to make sure that it isn't identifying a false-positive result from some resave or poor image handling. The way to check this is to compare all surfaces with surfaces and all edges with edges.
In this picture, the surfaces (non-edges) include the background, his jacket, and the large, uniform portions of his hat. They are all at the same error level. Well, mostly. His stripped jacket is at the same error level as the non-striped portion (implying a consistent low-quality), but the middle band on the hat is at a higher error level than expected.
Meanwhile, the edges are inconsistent. Specifically, his eyes, nostrils, and mustache are at a higher error level than everything else. For example, his eyes have an extreme edge -- dark iris next to white sclera (the white of his eyes). In contrast, his shirt and jacket form a similar high-contrast area (white shirt next to dark jacket) but is at a lower error level potential. This flags the image as a likely modified picture.
I rarely rely on one analysis algorithm to evaluate an image. Instead, I use many different algorithms. I've previously written how photo analysis can reveal slight information variances. It can approximate an image's quality and can even reveal a face under a face. (Artists typically do something like a 99% blend for alignment, and we can identify the 1% residue from the original face.) In the Eddie Murphy picture, there is no face under the face -- it's a 100% overlay. However, the overlaid portion really stands out:
Not all of the face is from Eddie Murphy, but everything below the eyes has been replaced.
This photo is supposed to show mourners in Gaza City carrying children who died in an Israeli air strike (Nov. 2012). The photographer, Paul Hansen, recently received the World Press Photo Award for this picture. The controversy is that the picture may not be a photo, or was significantly edited. The controversy deepened when Hansen "forgot" to bring the camera-RAW image as proof of the originality. As Spiegel Online wrote:
I have seen variations of this photo at FotoForensics since February. In my opinion, it has been significantly altered.
Update 2013-05-15: Errata in the next blog entry.
For analysis, it is best to start with the highest-quality and largest image possible. FotoForensics has versions that range from 1600x1067 to 460x276. The first thing that stands out is that none of the sizes are native to digital cameras. At bare minimum, the picture was significantly cropped and/or scaled.
The biggest picture at FotoForensics is also the only one that contains any useful metadata. The metadata says that it was captured by a Canon EOS 5D Mark III (a good digital camera) on 2012-11-20 at 9:39:38 am GMT+01:00. (The time is important... you'll see why in a moment.) It also says that it was modified with Adobe Photoshop CS6 for the Macintosh.
The thing about Photoshop is that it natively includes an XMP block that details the save history. In this case, it says the picture was:
The January 4th date is interesting because the deadline for submissions to the World Photo Awards was 17 January 2013. So although the base photo was taken in November 2012, it wasn't edited until about two weeks before the contest deadline. Moreover, the final date is the day after the international jury concluded their meeting (on 14 February 2013) and announced the winner.
I cannot tell you about the original picture(s), but I can tell you that the controversial picture is definitely not original. Moreover, it appears to have been modified specifically for this contest.
Knowing the history of the picture allows us to set a baseline. ELA should have rainbowing (faint red/blue patches), and edges and textures should have a higher ELA value due to Photoshop's unintentional auto-sharpening.
The rainbowing is clearly visible on the sky, walls, and people. And high contrast edges have a bright ELA result. This is consistent with the handling described in the metadata.
However... (There's always a "however"...) notice how the near wall on the far left is significantly brighter than the near wall on the far right. And notice how the middle people are much brighter than the other people. Those are either due to splices or touch-ups.
Finally, there's the sun. According to the metadata, the photo was taken in the morning in November in the Northern hemisphere. The sun should be low on the horizon. The strong shadows on the left building allow us to draw lines that intersectwith in the general direction of the sun.
The shadows from the left wall line up with a consistent location. The sun isn't exactly low but maybe the reported time is wrong. At least the sky brightens in the direction of the sun. Unfortunately, the lighting on the people does not match the sun's position. The people should have dark shadows on their right sides (photo-left), but their facial lighting does not match the available lighting.
So here's what likely happened... The photographer took a series of photos. However, the sun's position made everyone dark and in silhouette. So, he combined a few pictures and altered the people so you could see their faces.
Finally, I found other photos of the same people. What stands out to me is that the foreground child in Hansen's "photo" has much more dirt on his face than the same child in the other photos.
Hansen's picture is a composite. This year's "World Press Photo Award" wasn't given for a photograph. It was awarded to a digital composite that was significantly reworked. According to the contest site, the World Press Photo organizes the leading international contest in visual journalism. However, the modifications made by Hansen fail to adhere to the acceptable journalism standards used by Reuters, Associated Press, Getty Images, National Press Photographer's Association, and other media outlets.
Now I understand the controversy.
Update 2013-05-14: I have a follow-up blog entry at "Angry Mob".
Update 2013-05-15: Errata in the next blog entry.
Many of these trending picture topics are not new -- they are just new to the various forums. And some of the topics are not even very interesting or controversial (unless you actually care about Justin Bieber or follow that boy band One Direction -- which is really just a remake of Menudo but with less talent). Then again, maybe I just don't understand the controversy.
However, there are two currently trending pictures that got my attention...
Eddie Murphy
There's a picture that is supposed to be an old photo of an Eddie Murphy lookalike. This picture has been making its rounds for years. Back in 2010, BuzzFeed said it was Eddie Murphy's great-grandfather. In 2012, BuzzFeed featured it again in their Time-Traveling Celebrities montage.The forum that began to make it popular at FotoForensics is at Godlike Productions -- a conspiracy site. The original posting on this forum (by a guy called "Ford Perfect") interpreted the ELA result as denoting a modified image.
Ford Perfect was correct -- this old Eddie photo is fake.
With Error Level Analysis (ELA), we need to make sure that it isn't identifying a false-positive result from some resave or poor image handling. The way to check this is to compare all surfaces with surfaces and all edges with edges.
In this picture, the surfaces (non-edges) include the background, his jacket, and the large, uniform portions of his hat. They are all at the same error level. Well, mostly. His stripped jacket is at the same error level as the non-striped portion (implying a consistent low-quality), but the middle band on the hat is at a higher error level than expected.
Meanwhile, the edges are inconsistent. Specifically, his eyes, nostrils, and mustache are at a higher error level than everything else. For example, his eyes have an extreme edge -- dark iris next to white sclera (the white of his eyes). In contrast, his shirt and jacket form a similar high-contrast area (white shirt next to dark jacket) but is at a lower error level potential. This flags the image as a likely modified picture.
I rarely rely on one analysis algorithm to evaluate an image. Instead, I use many different algorithms. I've previously written how photo analysis can reveal slight information variances. It can approximate an image's quality and can even reveal a face under a face. (Artists typically do something like a 99% blend for alignment, and we can identify the 1% residue from the original face.) In the Eddie Murphy picture, there is no face under the face -- it's a 100% overlay. However, the overlaid portion really stands out:
Not all of the face is from Eddie Murphy, but everything below the eyes has been replaced.
And the Award goes to....
My friend Xenon sent me a link to a growing controversy among news photographers.This photo is supposed to show mourners in Gaza City carrying children who died in an Israeli air strike (Nov. 2012). The photographer, Paul Hansen, recently received the World Press Photo Award for this picture. The controversy is that the picture may not be a photo, or was significantly edited. The controversy deepened when Hansen "forgot" to bring the camera-RAW image as proof of the originality. As Spiegel Online wrote:
But one thing Hansen didn't want to talk about is how much the power of this image is the result of skillful editing. He had intended to bring along the RAW file, which is essentially the photo's digital original, for comparison purposes -- but he claims that he forgot to bring it.
I have seen variations of this photo at FotoForensics since February. In my opinion, it has been significantly altered.
Update 2013-05-15: Errata in the next blog entry.
For analysis, it is best to start with the highest-quality and largest image possible. FotoForensics has versions that range from 1600x1067 to 460x276. The first thing that stands out is that none of the sizes are native to digital cameras. At bare minimum, the picture was significantly cropped and/or scaled.
The biggest picture at FotoForensics is also the only one that contains any useful metadata. The metadata says that it was captured by a Canon EOS 5D Mark III (a good digital camera) on 2012-11-20 at 9:39:38 am GMT+01:00. (The time is important... you'll see why in a moment.) It also says that it was modified with Adobe Photoshop CS6 for the Macintosh.
The thing about Photoshop is that it natively includes an XMP block that details the save history. In this case, it says the picture was:
- Converted using Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 7.1 (Macintosh) on 2012-11-20T17:19:09+01:00.
- Converted using Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 7.1 (Macintosh) on 2013-01-04T14:44+01:00. Now, you might be thinking "why are there two conversions on two dates"? This is what you typically see when a picture is spliced from two sources.
- Derived from Canon-RAW to TIFF (unknown date, but we know it was 2013-01-04).
- Converted using Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 7.1 (Macintosh) on 2013:01:04 15:43:45+01:00. (Make that three sources.)
- Saved by Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) on 2013-01-04T16:08:44+01:00. Notice that there was not an earlier "save". This is the first time the picture was saved, after incorporating multiple distinct sources.
- Converted from image/tiff to image/jpeg. (No date, but we know it was on 2013-01-04.)
- Saved again by Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) on 2013-02-15T11:23:04+01:00.
The January 4th date is interesting because the deadline for submissions to the World Photo Awards was 17 January 2013. So although the base photo was taken in November 2012, it wasn't edited until about two weeks before the contest deadline. Moreover, the final date is the day after the international jury concluded their meeting (on 14 February 2013) and announced the winner.
I cannot tell you about the original picture(s), but I can tell you that the controversial picture is definitely not original. Moreover, it appears to have been modified specifically for this contest.
Knowing the history of the picture allows us to set a baseline. ELA should have rainbowing (faint red/blue patches), and edges and textures should have a higher ELA value due to Photoshop's unintentional auto-sharpening.
The rainbowing is clearly visible on the sky, walls, and people. And high contrast edges have a bright ELA result. This is consistent with the handling described in the metadata.
However... (There's always a "however"...) notice how the near wall on the far left is significantly brighter than the near wall on the far right. And notice how the middle people are much brighter than the other people. Those are either due to splices or touch-ups.
Finally, there's the sun. According to the metadata, the photo was taken in the morning in November in the Northern hemisphere. The sun should be low on the horizon. The strong shadows on the left building allow us to draw lines that intersect
The shadows from the left wall line up with a consistent location. The sun isn't exactly low but maybe the reported time is wrong. At least the sky brightens in the direction of the sun. Unfortunately, the lighting on the people does not match the sun's position. The people should have dark shadows on their right sides (photo-left), but their facial lighting does not match the available lighting.
So here's what likely happened... The photographer took a series of photos. However, the sun's position made everyone dark and in silhouette. So, he combined a few pictures and altered the people so you could see their faces.
Finally, I found other photos of the same people. What stands out to me is that the foreground child in Hansen's "photo" has much more dirt on his face than the same child in the other photos.
Hansen's picture is a composite. This year's "World Press Photo Award" wasn't given for a photograph. It was awarded to a digital composite that was significantly reworked. According to the contest site, the World Press Photo organizes the leading international contest in visual journalism. However, the modifications made by Hansen fail to adhere to the acceptable journalism standards used by Reuters, Associated Press, Getty Images, National Press Photographer's Association, and other media outlets.
Now I understand the controversy.
Update 2013-05-14: I have a follow-up blog entry at "Angry Mob".
Update 2013-05-15: Errata in the next blog entry.
Thanks for keeping me honest!
This information needs to be confirmed : when a camera says "it's 9:39:38 am GMT*+01:00*", it just said it was settled to enclose this data in a file, it does not mean it was that very day and that very time. During winter, Israeli local time zone is GMT*+02:00*, so we can easily prove that at least this part of the reported time is wrong !
I agree with you, it is an information one must care. Unless you can hold your hand on this particuliar camera, you can't assume that this data match reality.
That's not correct. The "gist", as you put it, was that the picture was digitally altered. As the independent investigators found, there were alterations both global and local.
http://www.imagebam.com/image/a03439254372168
The earlier version has far more realistic lighting and coloration. For the WPP entry, Hansen desaturated the photo globally, particularly the blues and yellows. He also locally lowered the luminance of the left wall. Both changes focus attention on the faces, removing all sources of luminance and color other than the faces of the marchers.
It kind of freaked me out.
All I was thinking about was what the author was pointing out.
Maybe block out their little faces just to humanize it a little more please?
The internet must be a very scary place for you. Seeing dead children! How will you sleep tonight.
I can remember back in 2005 I was working on a video game and the game engine programmer would show us screenshots of different commercial game engines and try to get us to spot how many lighting/shading errors we could find (sometimes he would find up to 20 rendering errors in one screenshot where I'd only see 3 or 5).
I never thought I'd be looking at Photo 'Journalism' with those same eyes, trying to spot the things that just dont Look Rightâ„¢ to the rest of the photo.
http://i.imgur.com/aKTAc7d.jpg
There is a wall between the people and the sun, so the light on the people are mainly reflected from the other wall (and there may be flash involved). So the lightning is at least no conclusive evidence that the picture is fake.
Yes, the winning photo has been cropped differently, and the color/lighting has been adjusted -- but do you see any signs of "dirt" being added, or pixels brought in from a different image?
Or is your conjecture that there was already an unacceptable level of manipulation in the earlier image published last November?
http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/gunthert/8485283411/sizes/o/
The saves/edits seen in the file are probably from the extra editing done for the competition (desaturation, dodge & burn), which went a little too far. The previously published image (down in the linked page) doesn't have the artificial look, and you can see the lighting is natural. The sun is coming more from behind, not from over the building, and reflecting on the wall.
Looking at the original, it doesn't look like a composite at all. One possible explanation for the imports is a "manual HDR" process, where you process two or three versions of the image separately and then manually blend them to get the final result.
Not only am I correct, but I will detail it in my next blog entry. Those photos that people found from Nov 2012 prove my points.
I asked the moderator to not censor your comment, even though you violated this site's code of conduce by name calling, posting anti-social comments, and not posting something obviously related to this blog entry.
Having said that, I have no idea what you are talking about. Who are Sebastião Salgado and Gene Smith? You seem to think that conversations held in other forums are known here, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
Calm down. Take a breath. Explain yourself, or go away.
Photographers have been dodging, burning and manipulating images since the early days of photography.
Many journalists will produce an image in time for deadline, but will carefully "craft" a print for competition.
The "snap shot" versus the final print will look completely different, but they can be the SAME image.
Did the photographer "fake" the print? I don't think so. Unless you were standing beside him at the time the image was made, how can you be certain it isn't true?
I have seen very interesting lighting caused by the sun's reflection off buildings and other objects that can't be duplicated because they ONLY happen at certain times of the year and ONLY under the right circumstances.
Perhaps an apology and a retraction is in order.
So is that a known unknown date then, or an unknown known date?
Converted using Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 7.1 (Macintosh) on 2013-01-04T14:44+01:00. Now, you might be thinking "why are there two conversions on two dates"? This is what you typically see when a picture is spliced from two sources."
Also, couldn't this just be that he went back to the original RAW file to prepare his award entry (I would) or are you suggesting he had an open unsaved file in Photoshop for several months?
Jon
No the sizes aren't "native" but the proportions are. The picture is exactly 3:2 as it should be.
Of course, it has been downscaled. Where did FotoForensics gets its copies of the picture? Off the web?
Jon
Yep, I'll bet that's when the folk at WPP spat out some print and web versions of it for dissemination to the media.
On the different saves with Camera RAW. It's pretty easy to explain. You make some adjustments in Camera RAW, hit 'done' or 'save' and the data is put in the XMP. If you go back to the RAW file and make some other changes and hit 'done' again, the XMP will mark it as a second save. If I open two RAW files and merge them, only the XMP of the original image will be readable, the one pasted is just a layer. It's quit common sense to check your photos again if you apply for a contest. I do the same. If I have processed a photo to the wire or newspaper, it's done in a hurry most of the time. With the image for the contest you may want to fine-tune some more, get a better white balance for instance. So no three sources, just one!
I bet Hansen edited his photos, he will probably change some local details on contrast and brightness. What's the deal? That's not fakery, it's common sense. Burning and dodging are normal tools for a photographer. Sharpening the image will have a strong effect on the ELA.
As for the lighting: Hansen already explained that there are window shields on the left hand side of the picture, above the crowd. They will reflect some light, which gives a fill light. You show other pictures to prove the lighting as been altered by Hansen, but those pictures are not at exact the same spot. Reflecting light can be very local. You can find images where photographers have played with that kind of reflections, I have done it myself. Waiting for a person to walk right in the reflected light, it can be a matter of some meters.
The dirt on the child's face: the photo of Hansen has some more contrast, enhancing the dirt.
All in all, I think your conclusion that the photo is a composite is wrong.
The shadows and light in this picture looks natural to me. Of course he has lifted the shadowy areas a bit, but the wall to the left in the picture is already a natural bouncer lifting the shadows.
There is some classic elements of dodging and burning in this picture, if it is to an extent that is to much i leave to others. But, dodging and burning is just a digitalized version of what people did, and still do, in the darkroom.
I´m from sweden and i work for magazines and so on and so forth. The daily paper that he works for is a magazine that is printed on, as we call it, toiletpaper. It´s not magazine quality paper but really crappy daily newspaper-paper. You need to give your pictures a whole lot of contrast to make them pop on that paper, you dont on magazine paper. And you clearly dont have to overuse contrast if you put it up on the web, unless you want to.
And of course, there is a difference in the one printed in november and the competition picture. He has made it more subtle, and made the colors more discrete. Nothing wrong with that.
I think this is a no-story. Stop spreading things that is not correct. Typical problem in this day and age, people think that everything on the web or in print is true... no one has the urge to look into it anymore.
I´m really looking forward to your next post where you explain yourself further. Or is this just a trick to get traffic to your site?
Regards
Patrik
Sorry dr. Krawetz, but your analysis is full of superficial conclusions.Sorry to say this, but you could get out of the lab and step into the real world a bit. The lightning matches the photo perfectly.
I also think that this photo could be a manual HDR, of at least two or maybe three photos from the same RAW file.
That, and dodge and burn are deriving from the days of the analog, and they could be done in analog BW, although it would be a difficult to do it this precisely. (sorry but I don't know the rules for applying to WPP)
One could argue that in a few years, when extremely high dynamic range cameras hit the market; that record dynamic range beyond a human eye, that the results are not photographs?
For me, he was there, at the moment, took a picture (with or without flash), came home, made a version from one RAW file, and sent it to WPP.
It that a composite? Or does it or doesn't make a good picture?
- Multiple conversion of the same RAW image by professionals is very likely, specially because of the powerful Camera Raw controls over white-balance, exposure, etc. at 16-bit image-mode.
- Such lighting is not that unusual. Photographers use reflectors to create that. Here, it seems the cover of the child's body and the wall are working as the reflectors.
- It seems, rainbow patches and bright edges on ELA transformation are not exclusive to processed images. Here is an ELA of a SOOC image (straight out of camera) that I took http://goo.gl/atls6 . It also contains such artifacts.
- The content of the photograph seems to be intact ( http://goo.gl/8jPwn )
This does not negate that fact that the photo was enhanced to an extent, which might be questionable for a Press Photo, however, it does not seem to be "doctored" as extremely as you are suggesting.
You're second example is a wonderful photo.
You are correct that it has rainbowing and is not caused by an Adobe product. However, you seem to have missed the part in the tutorial where I point out that rainbowing is not exclusively an artifact of Adobe products:
http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php
"The strong presence of rainbowing only suggests that an Adobe product, like Photoshop or Lightroom, was used to save the image. It does not identify intentional modifications. "
The person front left has both: direct lighting from the sun behind his ear, and lighting from the left.
Look at your other, undisputed, picture, file DBPamu52UtU/s500/9771e91e8f5f5036.JPG: the bald head right behind the man in front, also is lighter on the (our) left, the side of the lighted walls, than on the (our) right, the side of the dark wall
But you are right that there are some weird points. Take the extra lighting on the shirt of the second body-carrying man. It would be more fun to examine, however, if this were a different picture.
I've shot plenty of portraits where I was able to use light being reflected from a building or car or even the sidewalk. Yes I agree that Hansen should allow the info from the RAW to be public but let's be honest...who among us has ever done that for a client? I never have and never will. But in this situation there does need to be some closure.
World press confirms authenticity. To make claims of digital manipulation without access to the raw file seems unwarranted.
your analysis shows that the photo is not the digital first generation created by the camera. well, that is expected from a professional photographer, that's his job.
only people with no visual education and no technical knowledge and an overabundance of lazyness would publish an image as first generation. everyone else at least scales down their image and runs a color- and contrastcorrection on it before showing it to others.
taking your comments on splices etc you seem to have no daily work experience with traditional analog or current day digital darkroom techniques which makes it hard for me to understand what your point really is.
because the stylistic choice the photographer took in the editing is up for debate, but to me this just looks like someone trying to enhance his image while not really used to masterprinting work.
During the analog years we used to choose tone, contrast and saturation before taking the photo by choosing the right film. The only deference now with the digital cameras is that we adjust them afterwards.
The date/time stamp embedded is a non-issue since he could have just overlooked it as many of us tend to do on trips to different time zones. I usually remember to change it, but only after snapping off several frames.
Don't forget about Tyler Hicks photographing hezi operatives (hezballah) in 2006 who got up and walked away after being supposedly injured in an airstrike on an empty building
http://www.solomonia.com/blog/archives/009284.shtml
“We have reviewed the RAW image, as supplied by World Press Photo, and the resulting published JPEG image. It is clear that the published photo was retouched with respect to both global and local color and tone. Beyond this, however, we find no evidence of significant photo manipulation or compositing. Furthermore, the analysis purporting photo manipulation is deeply flawed, as described briefly below.â€
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/550-Angry-Mob.html
The photographer describes how he did it, and his description matches my findings.
Thanks.
What these photos represent is the important issue.
I dont see real differences
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gunthert/8485283411/sizes/o/in/photostream/
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/news/digital-photography-experts-confirm-integrity-paul-hansen%E2%80%99s-image-files
Cannot help but think that the higher levels of the photojournalism community needs to come out and say what is and what is not acceptable - making it clear at a very detailed level. Without that kind of policy statement, the photos will be all over the board.
In the film world, photographers "manipulated" the photograph by lens choices, focus and exposure.
When processing the negative, they made choices by pushing, cross-processing or even the developer they chose to use.
There may have been little or no further manipulation on a film contact sheet, but in the darkroom, standard practice was to manipulate the image with the use of filters, cupping the hands to expose certain areas of the image more than others, blocking areas to expose them less and choosing printing papers for their contrast levels.
Obviously, a much higher level of manipulation is available to us in the digital realm and it's far easier and more efficient to execute.
But to say that a film photograph was the equivalent of a scientific record of an event is extremely naive.
If the photograph in question is a composite, then that is indeed fraud for a news photograph. But if it's simply a matter of adjusting exposure, color, contrast, sharpness, details, etc., on faces or other objects, I don't consider that fraud in any respect whatsoever. The other photos in the series seem to indicate that it's not fraud as they comprise photos of the same people carrying the same children.
You should discuss the picture manipulation live with the parents of the dead childreen. Shame on you.
Do you think that this is the only photo that was submitted that shows hurt or injured or distressed people? Maybe every submitted picture should be a winner because they are sad, because they point out that it is a cruel world, because "that shit" has got to stop.
The purpose of World Press Photo's contest, as I understand it, is to show the best that photo journalism has to offer. Not who has the saddest story. In theory, this could be a picture of a cat, Miss Universe, or even, yes, a tragic situation. It is supposed to be the best of photo journalism.
Sorry, but you are the one missing the point. Thanks for playing.
Are you saying that I am a "hardline or Zionist diaspora Jew" or a "pro Palestinian, Anti-occupation, anti-Apartheid, Pro Palestinian human rights etc."?
I don't believe I have ever voiced my religious position anywhere in this blog beyond saying "I don't like door-to-door solicitors who try to push their religion on me" and "I don't like those religious zealots going door to door, pushing their beliefs on me".
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/300-Ten-Little-Endians.html
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/415-Open-Source-Sucks.html
I blog on Christian holidays, I blog on Jewish holidays, I blog on Muslim holidays, and I even blog on the Sabbath (both Sabbaths, depending on whether you obey it on Saturday or Sunday). I am not associated with any church, temple, or mosque, I do not make donations to religious organization, and I don't take time out to pray. I believe that I treat people equally, independent of their religions.
And regarding pictures of cats... I have not yet reviewed a photo of a cat that was heavily enhanced. However, I have reviewed a picture of a dog:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/378-National-Geographic-and-Fauxtography.html
I can see your conclusions and it seems blatantly obvious to me given the earlier source photo that you were wrong with regards to your conclusion about the image being a composite, but have attempted to face save afterwards. A pity because you obviously know your stuff, but like anyone can make a mistake.
It's not so much about whether someone makes a mistake - that's human. It's how you handle the situation after you've made one that is the mark of a person.
No wounded pride here. I'm having fun! (Which hornets nest should I kick next? I'm thinking Scientology...)
I think this highlights important questions about what is a valid level of processing for photographers. Personally I think a good photo should need little to no processing and that Hansen has cheated via digital manipulation that goes beyond the principles and skill of pure photography. You can't improve a photo with digital manipulation, only change it and as is usually the case, degrade it. This is why the original looks better in my opinion. It's a truer reflection of the quite horrible scene depicted and makes you feel closer to the anguish, not further away and removed as is the case with his heavily processed artistic interpretation.
The original photo is technically poor (albeit because of difficult lighting conditions) and this explains why the photographer decided to perform so much processing. He also tried to imbue a particular mood to the photo (imparting his own artistic interpretation). This is quite arrogant on the part of Hansen as a photographer should be a vessel through which the photo passes freely. The photographer is certainly an artist when it comes to composition and operation of the camera but cheating and minipulation via heavy post-processing is something that should be left to marketers and graphic designers.
Unfortunately, tools like Photoshop make it all too easy to perform these sorts of edits and even encourage you to do so. Photoshop is a tool that real photographers shouldn't need or use at all. You can do basic adjustments in Lightroom and Aperture and both support third-party extensions. Photoshop is only used for manipulation that goes beyond the realm of photography and into the realm of digital artistry. This is not what a photography competition should support at all. In my opinion I think they should ban the use of Photoshop, which they could easily check for.
So all in all I think the World Press Photo competition should be embarrassed for awarding its top prize to such a heavily photoshopped image (note that I didn't use the word photo). The fact that it is so different to the one published in the newspaper a day after the event proves that he went far beyond what is a normal and routine level of processing uses by photo journalists. His original photo should've been the one judged and not his mocked up image. The photographer too should be embarrassed for bringing the profession of photography into disrepute by his use of heavy digital manipulation and the manipulation of the overall mood and character of the image.
I hope the competition does with its decision but I doubt they will because few people like to admit they got it wrong.
Their parent is dead so he can't discuss with them, that's their dads body right behind the uncle and brother.
As for the miss the point it is dead children remarks we are talking photo journalism not instagram! The flippin point is to depict such things to show the world what is going on in likes of Palestine in picture form, I follow their yearly awards myself and most years it is similar and there where darker ones than this even this year if you check. It is about making a story known so that is why ethics comes into it since a composite = lies when the point is bring truth in image form to raise awareness.
Desat, curves and dodge an burn is more like writing true story facts but with flair from a mastery of language. Same story and facts but you make bits shine more wrapping it up with clever writing rather than telling it mundane.
THAT is what the debate is about and you miss the point about dead kids, it's for a PJ contest NOT celebrity snapshot weekly!
Grahpics looks like a acreenshot from GTA V ...
I didn't believe for a second that it was a fake photo.
First, I never called it "fake". Read what I wrote. I have called it enhanced. I have called it altered. I have called it a composite. But I never called it fake. The "fake" attribution came from the media (and I don't give interviews to media).
Second: Are you kidding me?
Have you ever heard of Adnan Hajj or Brian Walski? Both were in war zones and both grossly doctored pictures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/14/technology/14photoshop.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Walski
Prior to splicing together two pictures, Brian Walski was an award-winning photographer. The next day, he was unemployed.
http://www.poynter.org/how-tos/newsgathering-storytelling/9289/l-a-times-photographer-fired-over-altered-image/
Granted, the type of modification that Hansen employed was nothing like Adnan Hajj or Brian Walski, it was certainly on-par with the front page controversial HDR "composite" that was featured on the Washington Post last January:
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/159412/washington-post-raises-eyebrows-with-composite-photo-on-front-page/
And yes, the media itself referred to the Washington Post's HDR picture as a 'composite'. HDR can be accomplished by combining multiple photos at different exposures (as seen with the Washington Post), or by combining simulated different exposures from one RAW (as suspected with Hansen).
But back to your original comment: "a photographer who risks his life to get into action" would certainly consider altering and enhancing their photo for the glory of a contest.
Nope -- because I'm not "utterly wrong". See my latest blog entry:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/552-Deep-Dive.html