World Press Photo Of The Year Was NOT Faked - Verified By Experts

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think the discrediting was as much ignorance as anything else.

This photo, I'l willing to bet, isn't worth much more than a passing glance and comment about the ghoulish nature of photojournalism ....until they spent hours in Photoshop to get the environment and ambiance feeling 'just so'...and then it becomes a world award winner. Nothing of substance has changed...just everything about how it feels to look at.

How can the opinions of a tech news outlet like Extremetech and the supposed image experts in their article be based on ignorance? The whole article referred to by the OP is set up to create the perception of a highly technical file examination which has revealed the 'fakery'. Except there was no fakery.

Your final paragraph is sick. How can you say a photo of innocent dead children being carried through the streets by their parents "isn't worth much more than a passing glace"?

Perhaps it is not worth more than a passing glance if your mission on this forum is performing apologetics for state violence and deflecting attention from the lethal and vengeful outcomes of the western military engine? I imagine an image like this would be strategically troubling for a person like that - so I guess floating the idea that this image shouldn't be given a second glance would be a good tactic here.

It is telling that your only negative perspective on the photo is the "ghoulish nature of photojournalism". Not a single thought for the ghoulish nature of the attack which killed the babies.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
My other question is who did the analysis to confirm it was real?

These two experts are:

- Dr. Hany Farid, Professor of Computer Science at Dartmouth College and co-founder and CTO of Fourandsix Technologies & Kevin Connor, CEO of Fourandsix Technologies.
You can read a very good estimation of the situation on his site here: Fourandsix

- Eduard de Kam, digital photography expert NIDF (Nederlands Instituut voor Digitale Fotografie)

As the discuss seems to take place here now , I'll quote my thoughts from the other thread here:

What I really would like to see is the full and technical analysis of Neal Krawetz.

Looking at its past work (especially in 2007 about the Al Qaeda propaganda) is interesting as he seems to use the same tool (Error Level Analysis) to detect changes in JPEG compression (based on the quantization tables).
In the paper quoted above, Krawetz contradict himself several times saying that "two different logos with the same error levels indicate that they were added at the same time" after saying early that they were added one after the other, which is a utter non-sense, as it's only shows that the JPEG compression level was the same for both items when they were added, independently of the date/hour.

So we can logically wondering if Neal Krawetz really know what he's talking about here.

I rather prefer the following assessment, from the forensic experts Hany Farid and Eduard de Kam (Source):

1. XMP Analysis. The XMP analysis reflects an incomplete understanding of the Photoshop metadata and also paraphrases the contents in a misleading way. The referenced block of metadata merely indicates that the file was adjusted in the Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw module on multiple occasions before it was opened in Photoshop and then saved out as a JPEG. In fact, this metadata does not track whether multiple files were composited.

2. Error Level Analysis. The forensic analysis of the JPEG compression as performed by error level analysis (ELA) does not provide a quantitative or reliable analysis of photo manipulation. This analysis frequently mis-identifies authentic photos as altered and fails to identify altered images, and as such is not a reliable forensic tool.

3. Shadow Analysis. The shadow analysis is flawed in its logic and conclusions. It is true that linear constraints that connect points on an object with their corresponding points on the shadow should intersect at a single point (assuming the presence of a single light source). The location of this intersection point, however, cannot be used to reason about the elevation of the light in the scene. The intersection point is simply the projection of the light source into the image plane. This projected location can be anywhere in the image (including below the ground plane) depending on where the photographer is oriented relative to the sun."

I totally agree with these three points.

ETA: Neal Krawetz stated that Hansen's photo is a composite, in the sense that it is made of parts from different versions of the same picture, overlaid, and that the XMP blocks shows these manipulations by the Document Ancestors XMP tags that appears 4 times.
What Krawetz forgot to say (or maybe he don't know) is that there's no need to create a "composite" to obtain these XMP tags.

One of the key pieces of evidence cited in the initial article criticizing the photo is a block of Photoshop metadata which was said to indicate that multiple files had been opened in Photoshop and combined. This claim immediately raised my suspicions, because I know from my 15 years working on the Photoshop team that tracking metadata from multiple, composited photos is a challenge that the team has never really tackled. Typically, when one photo is pasted into another, all of the metadata from the pasted photo is discarded.

As expected, when I examined the metadata in question, I discovered that it indicated nothing more damning than a file that had been adjusted several times in the Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw dialog prior to being opened in the main Photoshop application and saved out as a JPEG. To verify this, I succeeded in creating the same pattern of metadata in one of my own files by doing just that.

Source: Fourandsix

"Adjusted" is not exactly the same as "composited"...

reply to post by yampa


I think you let photos you see online get to you FAR to much, on a personal level. You may want to consider taking a step back. Perhaps a big one for awhile, to regain perspective a bit.

The OP was talking about how this, as a world winning photograph, as been forensically examined by experts for signs of tampering or gross editing of content or context. Nothing was found on that level, hence, no fake exists here. It's real.

As for the rest, that is where you seem very over-invested in the concept of a world known, award winning photo being taken so personally, you;d think it depicted your own family. After seeing thousands of these types of photos over time, No, it doesn't strike me personal for emotion. They haven't for a long time. That isn't casual disregard. That's psychological distancing from topic. When a good part of what I do for research is in and around topics FAR worse than anything that picture shows or even implies? It's called survival for mental sanity.

Click here for more information.

This looks like an HDR photo - not manipulated, but you take three photos of the same scene with different exposures so you can get more true color saturation (because the Chips in the cameras can only capture so much data).

Is it that the photo looks TOO GOOD in quality, or is it that some people don't believe people experience misery that is causing this controversy?

There is some strong aspect ratio going on with the lens here -- but at a quick glance without looking at the RAW file it looks OK. However -- if you were going to fake a photo - -having these deep pools of very dark regions separating the various figures would help to hide it. A well composed -- very painterly feeling image, I must say. Perhaps people are just reacting to it looking like faked photos, because so many of them use the "dark boundary" trick so much, and that the lens distortion SEEMS like unmatched photos.

But to rig this, you'd want to have a lot of relative FLAT aspect images, and then after composing them apply a lens distortion (to each layer separately, because the foreground gets more) -- because the chromatic aberration and spherical distortion would be a dead giveaway if you moved any of the elements AFTERWARD.

So if I were verifying this as authentic, I'd be looking really hard at the color alignment around the edges -- it could NOT be perfect, so certain colors would skew more and be affected by their angle from the center -- move anything, and it would show there.

reply to post by elevenaugust


I think you meant to say "HDR" photo rather than a "composite" photo. (HDR stands for "High Dynamic Range")

Taking more than one photo of the same image to enhance it is not considered "manipulation" but a method to capture more detail than the electronics allow. So a photo can seem to be forensically manipulated but still be an accurate representation of events.

HDR just looks more professional, and as amateurs and the auto-mode on cameras get better, the pros are forced to use more tricks to distinguish themselves.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by yampa

 

Yampa... You fight for pure pleasure. You pick fights with me, personally, often enough to be a problem. In this case, I figured I'd take a risk and give you a direct answer to your direct question. This is as far as I was or am going with it....and you've already twisted that around to make your next attack. You're talking to yourself at this point. Find another target.

No. I resist apologetics for violence and make no excuses for the powerful. And I will be back every time that ugliness rears its head.

Originally posted by AlwaysWonder
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

The photo is a fake. If it looks fake, it probably is. As a photographer, I can tell you that the photo looks way too photoshopped and not even realistic. The damn shadows on the buildings don't even co-ordinate.

As conspiracy theorists you should look at his from all angles, shouldn't you?

Admitted, the photo is "hart verskerend" (not as expressive in English, but means it does "break the heart").

I don't think I should add anything to this.

Nice touch.

How mucu photoshop this photo had is not that important. The phtographer/artist did a great job of capturing the emotion. amazing photo.

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by yampa

 

Yampa... You fight for pure pleasure. You pick fights with me, personally, often enough to be a problem. In this case, I figured I'd take a risk and give you a direct answer to your direct question. This is as far as I was or am going with it....and you've already twisted that around to make your next attack. You're talking to yourself at this point. Find another target.

No. I resist apologetics for violence and make no excuses for the powerful. And I will be back every time that ugliness rears its head.

Does that mean you'll be condemning the Palestinians the next time they toss a few rockets and / or suicide bombers into an Israeli town, school, or marketplace? I see 'way too many people, not just on ATS, but everywhere, who seem to think that the Israelis are the only violent people in the middle east. Someone in this very thread commented to the effect that you can't fake the work of murderous Israelis, in fact. I'm not saying that the Israelis are saints, because they aren't. There *are* no 'saints' there...the region has always been a bloody mess, and probably isn't going to change before the heat death of the universe. I'm simply tired of seeing one side of a very messy war (and make no mistake, declared or not, it *is* a war, perpetuated by both sides) take all the blame. Condemn *all* the guilty parties, or condemn none.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Does that mean you'll be condemning the Palestinians the next time they toss a few rockets and / or suicide bombers into an Israeli town, school, or marketplace?

Yes, I condemn the targeting of Israeli/Jewish civilians by militants, in and outside of Israel. I think it's disgusting.

But I am not confused about where the power lies in the occupation of Palestine. Because I've been there and seen it.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


He did soo much air brushing to that photo it looks like a painting. I don't blame anybody for calling it fake. Was all the "touch-ups" neccessary?

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I hadn't seen that photo...Powerful.

Reality is a hard pill to swallow. Eventually, we'll have to examine ourselves, the way they've examined that picture.

reply to post by Mikeyy


I noticed your avatar and A.I.C. lyric in your profile, so I'll put it in music recording terms.

Cantrell live: guitar + amp, probably some pedals
Cantrell studio recording: 3 guitar parts across 12 layered guitar tracks, compression, reverb, harmonizer, delay, etc

Touch ups! Utilizing the tools at hand to enrich the output does not make it fake. The song remains the same.

im glad the guy won the prize and this is a great photo and thread

Why call it a fake? Our Zionist overlords don't want you to know what's going on in Gaza, because if you know what's going on over there, maybe just maybe, you might have some human left in you and you might actually speak up against Zionism and the concentration camp around Gaza.

But # that, all of dem arabs are a bunch of terrorists, a bunch of dumb apes that need to be eradicated. Go Isreal! Go Satan!

Anytime your life sucks, just think of Gaza. It's literally Hell on Earth.

I can see why many people think it is fake. It would be nice to see the original... is it available?? if not it should be released just to quiet down the naysayers.

I went to their site to check out the pictures and other galleries... I am not sure why this is the only one disputed and not many of the others ones on there?

Is it because it depicts those people as people and not as the blood thirsty animals they are portrayed to be??

would showing their suffering be detrimental to someones cause??

why is this picture so disputed.. ?

Fake or not, it still is a striking picture.

Looks like I'm going to have to side my sympathies with the Palestinians on this one, and Paul Hansen deserved that award.

reply to post by Hopechest


This picture is taken with a Hasselblad H4D camera of the last F-22 Raptor produced before it was delivered to the Air Force. The quality has gotten so good that when it was published a large number of people said that it was fake because of the way it looks. Digital cameras have gotten amazing with the quality of them (the H4D is one of the most expensive cameras made, with an insane resolution).