World Press Photo Winner Accused of Photoshopping 182
vikingpower writes "The winner of this year's World Press Photo award, Paul l Hanssen, is under fire for allegedly having photoshopped the winning picture. The Hacker Factor is detailing the reasons and technicalities for the accusations. ExtremeTech also runs an item about the possible faking. Upon questions by Australian news site news.com.au, Hanssen answers his photo is not a fake. The whole story, however, is based upon somewhat thin proof: three different times in the file's Adobe XMP block; this does not necessarily mean that more than one file was used in order to obtain a composite image."
Update: 05/14 20:04 GMT by S : World Press Photo says the photo is genuine.
Seriously? Secretly photoshopping? (Score:3, Insightful)
The "photo" looks like it was CGI'd from the ground up. It looks like it was meant to look that way.
It looks like a Final Fantasy cutscreen.
Re: (Score:2)
The "photo" looks like it was CGI'd from the ground up. It looks like it was meant to look that way.
Indeed. My first thought was "uncanny valley" [wikipedia.org]. The people don't even look real.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. But there's a big difference between enhancing the tones that are already there in a single shot, and compositing from more than one image, or other techniques such as shape distortion.
I have no problem with photo-journalists enhancing the tones of an image. The image still shows an actual scene. It might change the feel of an image but it doesn't change the facts that the image shows. I'd rather see an image where I can see the details than one where I can't because the exposure needed for different
Re: (Score:3)
WTF, seriously kids died in that Israeli attack, their grieving parents are carrying their dead bodies!
And you think its CGI'd??? Seriously?
When you hear the news about a shooting, do you think it's a Halo mission video!?
the picture looks like it was repainted - it's practically ready for print, and not just for printing on a news story but as in ready to print to be glued on a wall as a mural - in that way it's nice.
the other pictures from the scene do not look like that, and thus look more real, and less like they're from a movie poster commemorating the tragedy.
anyhow.. the telltale is that the guy "forgot" the raw.
Minor observations (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not agreeing with or denying what Hacker Factor is saying, but I would like to point out some minor issues with the analysis.
First, as to the lighting of the faces being brighter than in other pictures taken during the same procession, it is entirely possible there was a reflective surface to the crowd's right (picture left) which is making the faces appear brighter than one would think they should be in the alley way. Think of the reflective nature of the moon's surface which conspiracy theorists always ignore when talking about how bright things are in shadows. While the Photoshop effect could be the issue, note the wall to their right (picture left) which does have a reflective surface.
Note also the man on the far left, next to the wall. Note how there is sun shining on the white cloth directly below his face. As everyone knows, a white surface reflects large portions of light falling on it which would also produce the lighting effect seen on the man's face.
Second, as to the dirt on the girls face appearing differently in the photos, note the different angles of her head. In the winning photo the forehead is almost at a right angle to the picture taker whereas in the second photo it is pointing almost directly at the camera. The lighting in the second photo is much more diffuse than the first which could explain the difference.
Also note that in the winning photo, the crowd is in a part of the alley which has exposure to much more sunlight than in the second photo.
Again, I'm not saying the person didn't do what has been accused, I'm only pointing out possibilities to explain what is being shown.
Re: Minor observations (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Minor observations (Score:4, Interesting)
I have to agree with this, I actually see VERY LITTLE evidence of a splice of three "different" images.
What is very possible, is three copies of the same image where spliced and lighting adjustment was performed on three splices separately. This is done for masking purposes, or situations of convenience.
I believe in fact, this is what the photographer claims and I find the analysis of the pixel changes and shadows consistent with this.
Re: (Score:3)
I think that is what he did too, selectively enhancing different parts of the image each differently. it matters little if they were done in separate copies or on the same image just at different places of the image(technically it's the same anyhow).
however, I'm not so sure he would admit to that so directly on his own - because it's walking on a fine line what's acceptable and what's not. (since he could fade out entire persons with that technique, and it was supposed to be a photojournalism contest). beca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He already said exactly what he was doing and why.
"In the post-process toning and balancing of the uneven light in the alleyway, I developed the raw file with different density to use the natural light instead of dodging and burning. In effect to recreate what the eye sees and get a larger dynamic range. To put it simply, it's the same file - developed over itself - the same thing you did with negatives when you scanned them."
You could call this "sloppy" digital editing, but you could also argue it just me
Light Room 101 (Score:2, Informative)
It looks like it's be run through lightroom which is what he says he did to it!
If you're not familiar with lightroom, its what professional photographers use to get brightness and depth into photos. It's a set of filters coupled to some workflow and archiving tools. What it isn't is Photoshop editing. He didn't put the dead children into the shot, or composite two separate dead children into one shot.
https://photographyconcentrate.com/15-snazzy-lightroom-and-afters/
Israel really did kill children, they real
Re: (Score:2)
It really is a tragedy, and pretending it's fake, and by implication that the dead children are also fake is a misleading argument.
But it usually works. Resistance is diminished and discredited, and that's all that matters.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL! In Slashdot and Reddit, at least.
not convinced (Score:5, Insightful)
I think most of you will agree, though, that the photo simply feels fake
I was surprised they didn't simply go for "you can tell by the pixels."
Re: (Score:2)
The bit with the shadow angles reminded me of those Apollo conspiracy sites. "The sun's on the right, nothing on the left can be illuminated at all!"
Like ambient light doesn't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that analysis uses ELA, which is completely unreliable and not proof of anything, in any direction. Anybody who uses ELA as a proof has no idea what they are doing.
Re: (Score:2)
“Error level analysis (ELA) works by intentionally resaving the image at a known error rate, such as 95%, and then computing the difference between the images. If there is virtually no change, then the cell has reached its local minima for error at that quality level. However, if there is a large amount of change, then the pixels are not at their local minima and are effectively original.”
zero evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
The supposed proof of 'fakery' from the article seems entirely consistent with what the photographer says it is, different regions with different light intensities from the same raw file.The light angles seem entirely plausible, I guess the article writer hasn't heard of reflection. Even the moon landing nutters come up with better stuff than this.
The only true thing is that (as the photographer also says), the light intensities are differing.
Why wouldn't the photographer be allowed to change light intensities? Every single digital image, ever uses some kind of processing to turn photons into pixels on your screen, and there is always some level of subjectivity in how that is done, even if it's done right on the chip. Why is that an issue?
Re: zero evidence (Score:3)
From the contest: " The content of the image must not be altered. Only retouching which conforms to the currently accepted standards in the industry is allowed."
It seems lighting isn't the issue, so much as the accusation of image splicing.
Re: zero evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems lighting isn't the issue, so much as the accusation of image splicing.
Yes, but the image splicing accusation is largely based on the three conversions from raw. If he made a hdr image from a single raw, as he claims, he would obviously have to do several conversions of the same raw file. That would also explain different ELA brightness in different parts of the picture: they came from different conversions of the same raw file, so they were processed differently. Notice that there are several slight halos, for example on top of the building in the background, that would indicate a hdr from raw techique that the author claims he used. In fact, a single raw hdr was my first reaction when I saw the picture.
The only thing left that would support possible splicing is then the lighting itself: the light on the faces is not consistent with the location of the sun. That can easily be explained by an additional (weaker) light source on the left (most likely a reflective surface on the left wall). The hdr processing emphasizes this light in the otherwise dark areas of the picture, which makes it look strange and unnatural, but is still does not prove splicing of several images.
I don't know whether the single raw hdr techique "conforms to the currently accepted standards in the industry", but I am pretty sure I have seen it used in news images before. After all, it does not alter the actual scene in any way, it just emphasizes some parts of it differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
True. Even during the black&white developing process one can alter the lighting of the original exposure by various means. One simple method is to cover certain areas with hands while the photographic paper is exposed. Press images always have a viewpoint which is pronounced by a simple crop for example. Their function is to distill the context into a striking composition. This image conveys the feeling and the depth of the actual event really well - it's a good press photo.
The fake times are upon us (Score:2, Interesting)
It's no longer really possible for "normal" people to tell apart real images from photoshopped or even completely CGI rendered ones. Computer imagining has become this good.
What's real? What's fake? Or rather, where does the fake start? Pretty much every ad picture is 'shopped. Models don't "grow" that way. A real human isn't pretty enough for us. And real reality isn't sensationalist enough either.
Get used to fake images being broadcast as news. Thinking about it, you probably already are, you just don't k
Re: (Score:2)
The news is almost already entirely lies. Adding fake images doesn't affect its trustworthiness at all.
Re: (Score:2)
It's no longer really possible for "normal" people to tell apart real images from photoshopped or even completely CGI rendered ones.
To be honest, it never has been. Photographers, long before Photoshop or computers, have been editing photos to the point that normal people can't tell the difference. It's always funny to read some photographer go off about the abuse of digital editing these days and give evidence of some well known photo [brainpickings.org] as what photographers used to do 'in camera' only to have some other photographer show the original photo [wikipedia.org] and show that most of that great photo was not done in camera.
Bit of retouching (Score:5, Insightful)
"supposed" to show (Score:2)
This photo is supposed to show mourners in Gaza City carrying children who died in an Israeli air strike
No, it really does show mourners in Gaza City carrying children who died in an Israeli air strike. There's no dispute about the factual content. The only dispute is about dramatic enhancement. "Supposed" is an attempt to cast uncertainty about what happened on the ground, when the only uncertainty is how pretty the photographer made it look.
The author has the RAW file. Case closed (Score:5, Informative)
The gritty look on the picture can be achieved with a local contrast filter. Combined with contrast and saturation manipulation, it's pretty easy to do. In Lightroom is just a matter of setting a few sliders - Darks, Highlights, Clarity, Vibrance and Saturation.
Furthermore, the author says he has the RAW file and it was examined by the jury. Personally I know of no software that can currently reverse a jpeg into raw. It should be possible in theory to fake a raw file, but I sincerely doubt it's the case.
Analyzing jpeg artifacts is snake oil. My photo workflow is this: shoot in RAW. Edit in Lightroom. Convert to ProPhoto 16bit/channel. Open in Photoshop, make any fine adjustments if needed. Output to jpeg. Only fools edit and re-save jpegs.
This is simply one of the "fake moon landings" conspiracies, started by people who don't understand photography.
Re: (Score:3)
Me neither, and now that I think of it, that's kind of a glaring hole. Somebody needs to write one, so that the entire chain of evidence can be faked. At this point, I think it's better to establish in everybody's mind that no photos can be trusted, rather than some notion that the fakes can still be distinguished from the real.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have to write one for each variety of CCD, no?
Re: The author has the RAW file. Case closed (Score:2)
You could create a RAW file easily enough, but it would be painfully evident that your 8 bit JPEG source data was not 10-16 bit RAW data. Not to mention the loss from the compression.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I always wanted to create an iPhone app to do something like that. I'd call it "Unstagram".
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't Adobe allow you to convert your RAW to DNG? Will that also convert your JPGs to DNG?
Some cameras produce DNG as their RAW format, so it must count. It's just going to look a bit shitty as it came from a JPG.
(For what it's worth, I publish 100% quality JPGs. They're not as good as RAWs, but for most uses they're pretty adequate)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I know of no software that can currently reverse a jpeg into raw.
Print at high res, then take a picture of the print!
Re:The author has the RAW file. Case closed (Score:4, Interesting)
When I see any modern "photo contests" that require images to be "unmanipulated", I just shake my head. Not because I don't think that manipulation is good or bad, but because I don't think the idea of "manipulation" or "unmanipulation" is even a coherent concept in the context of what I call "information images", colloquially called "photographs(2)", which by their nature are manipulated and interpreted, and the authenticity of such information images has no meaning apart from the manipulative choices of the artist/programmer(s). A digital image can be considered no more or less authentic than a painting. They must always be considered interpretations because that's what they are, by their very nature; they have no nature apart from such interpretive manipulation; they must be interpreted to even be experienced. The common man only clings to the idea of an "unmanipulated image" because he thinks digital images are some different type of photograph(1), when in reality an "information image" (photograph(2)) is actually a fundamentally different (no matter how superficially similar) thing to a physical photograph(1). This is an example of the kind of "counterproductive metaphor or analogy" that Dijkstra talks about in one of his EWDs about radical innovations. The shift from photography to digital imaging is actually what EWD considers a "radical innovation" not some kind of evolution, and failure to understand this, evidenced by the fact that the common man thinks that digital images and photograph(1)s are similar things, is a tragic, limiting and counterproductive semiotic "false friend" that is only the more inevitable because the two things are so superficially similar.
Photographs(1) can be manipulated, and the extent to which their image can be said to represent reality is totally open (see Jerry Uelsmann) and I'm not talking about that kind of interpretation in the "viewing space". I'm just saying that in the objective space, the ideas of an "authentic" or "original" photograph(1) at least is a concept that can be understood, that COULD make sense, however useful or useless it may be. With digital photographs(2), the concept does not philosophically exist (in my opinion) and only exists as some kind of mass illusion, where people declare an photograph(2) "unauthentic" because "I know it when I see it" (except they demonstrably do not).
Re: (Score:2)
Photographs(1) can be manipulated
No, photographs (here, sticking with your notion of not referring to digitally captured images as photographs, only things that use something chemically photosensitive) are manipulated. Every single one of them. Film speed and tonal behavior? Lens behavior like field curvature, chromatic smearing, and non-infinite depth of field? Choice of chemistry? Grain? Paper stock? How it's all souped? Filters to deal with color temps? The photographer's own choice of exposure method? The use of reflectors or suppleme
Re: (Score:3)
Analyzing jpeg artifacts is snake oil.
Exactly. The second I saw that the accusers were bringing out ELA, I lost all reason to believe anything they were saying. ELA is almost completely random, and will show you whatever you want to see.
Re:The author has the RAW file. Case closed (Score:5, Informative)
A side by side comparison [flickr.com] of the photo that won the prize and the same photo published the day after it was taken.
There was a lot of work done on the light levels in the prize winner, but it is the same photo.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that wraps it up nicely. The sad thing is I find the less doctored photo looks much better.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a lot of work done on the light levels in the prize winner, but it is the same photo.
Sure, it's the same photo, but how did the photographer get light onto the right side of a man's face when the primary light source (the sun) was obscured? That would have required an off-camera flash, which is doable but uncommon.
Re: (Score:2)
Your English is pretty good, but you need to learn a new phrase:
Oh, I guess I was wrong. Goes to show.
You should try it sometime.
Bring back film! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh yeah, it's Photoshopped (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't like the retouching, but given it won whatever the award in the title is clearly some other people did like it. So ruined from your perspective - made to appeal to the people judging that award in a less self centered perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Killing kids is sport now?
Actually, I could see how it might get serious TV ratings. See also: Battle Royale.
Re: (Score:2)
Bounce flash? (Score:2)
The strong light coming from the left-area is consistent with a bounce flash. The left-most person has a high amount of directed light, while the rightmost does not. The rightmost is also shielded from the potential flash behind the person carrying the right-most child. If a bounce flash wasn't used, then perhaps a strong reflection from the sunlight from an object. Also, if a remote flash unit was used, it may not show on the metadata.
The picture looks processed, but mostly to bring out the shadows and hig
"Fake" is the new "real, but enhanced" (Score:5, Interesting)
How the 2013 World Press Photo of the Year was faked with Photoshop
OMG, it was faked! This is an outrage!
... but, from the ExtremeTech article:
When is an image fake, and when is it merely enhanced?
The bigger discussion, of course, is whether Gaza Burial is actually fake — or just enhanced to bring out important details. This is a question that has plagued photography since its inception. Should a photo, especially a press photo, be purely objective? Most people think the answer is an obvious “yes,” but it’s not quite that simple. What if a photo is perfect, except that it’s taken at an odd angle — can you digitally rotate it? What about cropping? What if there’s dust on the lens/sensor/film — can you digitally remove it?
Perhaps most importantly, though, cameras simply don’t capture the same gamut of color or dynamic range as human eyes — a photo never looks the same as the original image perceived by your brain. Is it okay for a photographer to modify a picture so that it looks exactly how he remembers the scene?
So, it wasn't faked, but rather cleaned up? All those people were in those positions at that time? The event was real?
The article uses the word "fake" to discredit the photographer, while at the same time admitting that that determination is really a subjective one having to do with how much enhancement is acceptable, and that the subject of the photo - which photojournalism is really about - is completely real.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad shadow analysis (Score:2)
This analysis is very dubious, and the shadow analysis is just wrong. The people are in shadow -- they are not lit by the sun -- so you wouldn't expect the shadows on their faces to be determined by the sun. In fact they are illuminated by the sunlit wall, so the shadows are perfectly consistent.
To be sure the lighting is odd, and I wouldn't be surprised if the photographer had lifted the lighting on and around the people. But this is not proven by the analysis, and in any case I don't think that kind
cut&pase job no, altered a lot - definitely (Score:2)
I see no reason to believe that the picture in question has been created by using several photos and copying/pasting people or heads around, but the lighting DEFINITELY looks "fake" (heavily edited) to me. Not only the light, also the colours. For example, the old guy (2nd from the left, holding the left child) - his head just looks unrealistically bright. Or the glasses guy two to the right of him. He definitely is in the shadow, yet his face is not dark at all. And the colours - on the hackerfactor page,
manipulative all the same (Score:2)
It doesn't really matter whether the photo was changed in Photoshop; just the photo itself, the lighting, the angle, and the subject matter are designed to manipulate the viewer's emotions. Press photography and photo journalism is probably the most dishonest form of reporting because it pretends to be authentic, but the the message is so strongly under the photographer's control and the picture and moment are so unrepresentative.
From a semi-pro photographer... (Score:2)
This isn't 'photoshop'
Simply put it's selective filtering and editing as typically afforded in modern day photography software such as Nikon Capture NX
In fact both photos are highly edited - one photographer/editor will manipulate the exposure, colour, contrast to suit their eye as opposed to another. But the content of the photo is NOT manipulated.
So effectively you are seeing the results of two different edits, either by the same photographer (unlikely) or two different editors.
It would be similar to the
Typo (Score:4, Funny)
I believe the correct spelling would be Newsweak.
News for people who don't want to know but find People magazine too deep.
Re: (Score:2)
This actually happens more often than you think.
I just assumed it was par for the course now. I thought that pretty much every newspaper and magazine photo was photoshopped at least some these days. I certainly haven't seen a magazine cover since the 80's that I didn't think was photoshopped to within an inch of its life.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but if all they have as evidence is an XMP block, that just means an Adobe product touched it in some manner. It could have been something nefarious, or he could have just used it to crop the photo. Whatever the truth, it's really hard to prove.
there's more than just adobe product touching it.
also, just forgetting to bring the original to a place where many people had disbelief in the photo... how the fuck did he get the award without the original?
at the very least all the levels on the picture were adjusted severely to bring out the pop - at worst composited from entirely different pictures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Happens All the Time (Score:4, Interesting)
I take your point, However, I don't see a better alternative. Without photojournalists showing the horrors of tragic events what does that leave, Only writers are allowed to tell the story's without photos? Or, perhaps discussing tragedies in any form is bad? I personally think we need more photo journalist willing to go to the battlefields and in the case of the photo Gaza city so that more civilized people like you and me can sit at our computers and have a debate about whether or not what they are doing (taking photos of emotional, bloody events) is worthy or not. That way I don't have to get physically dirty.
Re: (Score:2)
If you would have looked at the links, you would have seen that, indeed, other photographers had taken pictures of those exact same people. This guy tarted up the photo in ways that are not considered appropriate for 'photojournalism' - a specific form of photography. It would be similar to someone trying to show a Kodachrome in a Black and White photo exhibition.
The big issue was why the editors let it get through without the RAW file. So sorry dude, you don't bring everything to the table, you don't ge
Re:Happens All the Time (Score:5, Informative)
In my mind, the question is, did he use more than one negative to create the image, or cloning or additions? I agree, the simplest way to put the discussion to bed is for him to produce the original raw file. He claims he used one negative and no cloning. He is either telling the truth or he is lying. The practice he *claims* to have done is valid and accepted by all photojornalist and more importantly the awards rules. FWIW, As an amateur photographer myself, I would not consider what he *claims* to have done to be wrong.
The photojornalist's claim:
"In the post-process toning and balancing of the uneven light in the alleyway, I developed the raw file with different density to use the natural light instead of dodging and burning. In effect to recreate what the eye sees and get a larger dynamic range."
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/technology/photographer-says-his-2013-world-press-photo-of-the-year-is-not-a-fake/story-e6frfro0-1226642304141#ixzz2THb8ihps [news.com.au]
If I were him I would post the original, and the post-production images side by side. It would be very easy for him to do.
Re:Happens All the Time (Score:4, Informative)
If I were him I would post the original, and the post-production images side by side. It would be very easy for him to do.
You mean like this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gunthert/8485283411/sizes/o/in/photostream/ [flickr.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Only writers are allowed to tell the story's without photos?
No, but there is a distinction.
If a news reporter writes down a story and starts adding things that didn't happen, greatly exaggerate the events or puts a subjective slant on something, then it stops being news and becomes an editorial.(See Fox 'News')
The same with journalistic pictures. You're allowed to take pictures at such a angle or with a specific technique that highlights the facts. But if you start taking pictures that misrepresents the facts or start photoshopping in post production, then it's no l
Truth? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah JIDF. Thing is I can spot propaganda from both sides.
Re:Happens All the Time (Score:5, Funny)
There's a joke that goes something like this:
"If you have a choice between saving a man's life or taking a Pulitzer prize winning photograph of him plunging to his death, what shutter speed and aperture settings should you use?"
Re: (Score:2)
The tragedy for me is that they never got to experience life
You and I have different definitions of "tragedy".
Re: (Score:3)
It would be easy if the photographer supplied the RAW image like he was supposed to. He conveniently "forgot" to bring it. Instant disqualification in my book.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I see a market for a tool to convert pictures in other formats to RAW, if there isn't one already.
It's have to be a bit clever though as RAW stores more information than other standard formats.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can do it. It's just harder. Canon has a system that creates a digital provenance. It's used quite a bit in forensics. Nikon's system has been shown to be easily hacked.
It's a matter of degrees. These guys are running a photography contest, not a police department.
Re: (Score:2)
well, it's not an _art_ contest.
I would just say that he selectively adjusted the levels. from quick glance, that could explain how there's more dirt on the face.
and well, generally that would explain how he "took" a photo that looks like airbrushed.
Re: (Score:2)
The big concern was that he cut and pasted different pictures - a huge Bad Thing in photojournalism. Puts you right up with Iran and China and all of those popular folks.
I'm not convinced that he did. I think that he just adjusted levels and curves - that may have been 'too much' for pure photojournalism. The big screwup was the raw file. The judges should have disqualified him until he 'remembered' where he put it.
Re: (Score:3)
ELA is complete and utter garbage, and can not be used to show anything at all. It's like looking at tea leaves.
Re: (Score:2)
But blogs don't lie!
Re: Happens All the Time (Score:2)
It looks like either its an HDR composition of several exposures, possibly with some dodging and burning, but the same effect could have been achieved with a flash.
I don't know the rules for this particular contest, but HDR wouldn't be contrary to many standards, although dodging and burning might be. Flashes aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, HDR (High Dynamic Range) modifications to an image would be contrary to the Photojournalism standards in this particular contest. They are pretty strict. You're allowed to crop (sort of), mild modifications to levels and curves but nothing along the lines of what he purportedly did.
For the New York Daily News, El Reg or Slashdot - it's fine. Photojournalism, it's not.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that's true. The photographer stated clearly in his description of the photo to the contest that it was created with an HDR like treatment of the RAW file. The AP photojournalism standards clearly allow dodging and burning:
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/goffs/135%20photojournalism/Associated%20Press%20ethics%20code.pdf [csus.edu].
Compositing two images to add or remove elements isn't allowed, nor is manipulating a photo in such a way that it misleads or changes the factual content, but there's no real sug
Re: (Score:2)
To me it looks like the photographer took multiple layers of the same image and did a multiply effect on the stack to increase the contrast.
Of course the accusations of manipulation or even the nomination itself would have nothing to do with any other political issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Not HDR. You need multiple exposers for that and the people look like they are moving too fast to make that viable. Its dodging and burning combined with a lot of messing with the colour curves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Happens All the Time (Score:5, Interesting)
They draw some lines showing where the sun is. They then claim this means the illumination of the faces is wrong. Without any proof, and without allowing for the possibility that they are illuminated in some other way.
Why am I reminded of the moon landing conspiracy theorists?
As to Error Level Analysis, it can indeed show composites up. But there is nothing strong enough in the ELA they show to indicate compositing.
It's pretty obvious just looming at the photo that it's been enhanced. I don't see the problem with increasing contrast, even selectively, to make a better photo. It still shows exactly what was there, and nothing else.
A composite would be different, and that would indeed be a scandal. But there's no evidence of a composite here.
Re: (Score:2)
The lighting on the faces is consistent with light bouncing off the building and onto the people.
Re: (Score:3)
It looks to me as if he went for an HDR treatment of the image, which would also explain the alleged 3 RAW files in it - if he used the same RAW each time but with an altered exposure level to get the dynamic range he wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree.. it looks like a well done HDR final.
Re: (Score:3)
It reminds me of the people who make reasonable-sounding cases that 9/11 was an inside job. They make it sound questionable until your r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Silly question: How do you do multiple conversions from RAW? Is that an embedded JPG within the RAW file?
Just that Lightroom just overwrites the previous JPG for me, replacing the whole file rather than updating it. I don't use embedded JPGs though, I just publish when needed.
My RAW files on the other hand will show multiple edits on multiple days. I take the photo, I load it into Lightroom (which changes it), I apply my own changes, I may come back another day and apply other changes. I may make a virtual
Re:as a professional photographer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
that's why likely it's the same RAW file 'developed' in camera raw for shadows / midtones / highlights and merged in PS with layers/masking to create a good HDR composite.
It really depends from the rules of the contest if the above is acceptable or not, but I don't consider it more cheating than dodging & burning in the darkroom...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to say this. Show me a professional photographer who doesn't do at least basic post-production work on his/her pictures.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)