fotografr Posted August 11, 2006 Share #1 Posted August 11, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) There was discussion here somewhere (can't remember the thread) about the recently discovered Reuters photos that had been manipulated. I thought some of you might enjoy seeing the photo that caused all the fuss. I think one of the more interesting aspects of this is that the alterations were so obvious and amateurish. You can see the clone marks all over the smoke in the altered version. Also, it looks to me like the guy just used the levels slider to make the smoke look blacker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 11, 2006 Posted August 11, 2006 Hi fotografr, Take a look here Altered Reuters Photo. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
albertwang Posted August 11, 2006 Share #2 Posted August 11, 2006 Unfortunately the first photograph looks very bad. Sorry to say but his Photoshop skills were lacking. Back to curves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted August 12, 2006 Share #3 Posted August 12, 2006 So, he should have been fired for stupidity then and not for enhancing a photo ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 12, 2006 Share #4 Posted August 12, 2006 I'll tell you that this Hajj fellow is now a laughing stock. How in the world did he pexpect to get away with this? What was he thinking? I guess he wasn't afterall... Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uulrich Posted August 12, 2006 Share #5 Posted August 12, 2006 Brent; I caught myself wondering if this alteration I laughingly call a bould-be work in Photoshop is part of a larger scale, perhaps to fuel some story; perhaps a story I am luckily not aware of…? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 12, 2006 Share #6 Posted August 12, 2006 Forget Hajj for a moment! How did the picture desk miss this anyway??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bernd Banken Posted August 12, 2006 Share #7 Posted August 12, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) think;) . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uulrich Posted August 12, 2006 Share #8 Posted August 12, 2006 Forget Hajj for a moment! How did the picture desk miss this anyway??? May this answer my doubts.....? ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 12, 2006 Share #9 Posted August 12, 2006 No, it's just shoddy work, most likely brought about by overextended picture desk staff. No need for a conspiracy theory to get shoddy work, it's a lack of QC. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uulrich Posted August 12, 2006 Share #10 Posted August 12, 2006 Lack of QC? You mean, they are not CMM L5 nor ISO9000/90001 certified? This puts their news into a new light. And the answer is 'No', I didn't talk about conspiracy theories. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 12, 2006 Share #11 Posted August 12, 2006 These pictures, and the various discussions of them, remind me of the Woody Allen story about two women complaining at a resort: "The food is TERRIBLE here" - "Yes!, And such small servings!" Was the guy fired for being unethical - or for being incompetently unethical? The saddest part is, the smoke in the original was already pretty impressive without any manipulation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 12, 2006 Share #12 Posted August 12, 2006 Lack of QC? You mean, they are not CMM L5 nor ISO9000/90001 certified? This puts their news into a new light. And the answer is 'No', I didn't talk about conspiracy theories. I am sure you agree that Quality Control can be exercised in all spheres: Just the pride of delivering a quality product to clients. No certification is required. The consiracy theory allusion was in response to Bernd's wink. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgcd Posted August 12, 2006 Share #13 Posted August 12, 2006 These pictures, and the various discussions of them, remind me of the Woody Allen story about two women complaining at a resort: "The food is TERRIBLE here" - "Yes!, And such small servings!" Was the guy fired for being unethical - or for being incompetently unethical? The saddest part is, the smoke in the original was already pretty impressive without any manipulation. It's one thing to be unethical, you justifiably get fired for that, but adding insult to injury by being so incompetent and thinking he would fool people is just icing on the cake. Cheers, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted August 12, 2006 Share #14 Posted August 12, 2006 Hajj has exposed a soft underbelly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted August 13, 2006 Share #15 Posted August 13, 2006 Note: if this shot had been made on film and then scanned for digital transmission (which is how pictures have "moved" on the wire services for 15 years) - it still could have been Photoshopped anytime after it was digitized. Nat. Geographic had a "modified picture" scandal as far back as the 1980s - from a Kodachrome original. Horizontal shot of a silhouetted line of camels beside silhouetted Pyramids. Someone wanted to use it as the cover shot - so they "moved" the camels to be in FRONT of the pyramids to fit the vertical format. No one noticed until the photographer got back in town and pointed out he had not shot any verticals of that scene. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted August 13, 2006 Share #16 Posted August 13, 2006 One odd thing was that the alteration was so pointless. There was lots of smoke in the original. Instead of cloning, he could have fooled around a bit with contrast and curves, and nobody would have said a thing. Part of this, of course, is that he's a stringer and he's in competition with all the other stringers, and only the strongest photos get used and paid for. It alkl reminds me of a story from forty-odd years ago during the race riots in Chicago (or perhaps Detroit) that nobody knew how many people had been killed, but new numbers were coming in all the time from the cops. The story was, UPI just kept an eye on the AP numbers, and when AP came out with a new number, the UPI bureau added two --figuring they were probably accurate anyway -- and shipped off the story. The papers supposedly always went for the bigger numbers... JC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrc Posted August 13, 2006 Share #17 Posted August 13, 2006 And to add to the above, I wonder if we could get full-rez photos posted somewhere (maybe we could e-mail Hajj?) and we could ALL Photoshop them for the annual Hajj Blowing Smoke award, given for the most-enhanced, least-detectable photo. Not that it'd be allowed on a serious site like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stnami Posted August 13, 2006 Share #18 Posted August 13, 2006 Hajj is not alone Why you can't trust news photography. By Jim Lewis Digital Tampering in the Media, Politics and Law Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmr Posted August 13, 2006 Share #19 Posted August 13, 2006 Imants, thanks for the links; the second one was a very interesting read. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.