Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?

Blatant evidence of on-going photo manipulation of news pictures.

[quote]Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?
OK, now things are getting weird.

This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone” tool to add more smoke to the image. (Hat tip: Mike.)

It’s so incredibly obvious, it reminds me of the faked CBS memos. Smoke simply does not contain repeating symmetrical patterns like this, and you can see the repetition in both plumes of smoke. There’s really no question about it.

But it’s not only the plumes of smoke that were “enhanced.” There are also cloned buildings. (See below.)

Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut’s suburbs August 5, 2006. Many buildings were flattened during the attack. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj[/quote]

…and they’re not even good at it…

oh my goodness! [gasp] Thank God for the straight-shooting (cowboy pun intended) news releases out of Tel Aviv and Washington D.C.! :laughing: :laughing:

BTW: a site with loads of horrible images of Lebanese civilians killed by the Israeli war criminals was shut down in the last few days:

http://www.israeltolebanon.com/

We wouldn’t want the world to see those…it might cause spontaneous human cognition. :unamused:

[quote=“serious_fun”]oh my goodness! [gasp] Thank God for the straight-shooting (cowboy pun intended) news releases out of Tel Aviv and Washington D.C.! :laughing: :laughing:
BTW: a site with loads of horrible images of Lebanese civilians killed by the Israeli war criminals was shut down in the last few days:
http://www.israeltolebanon.com/
We wouldn’t want the world to see those…it might cause spontaneous human cognition. :unamused:[/quote]Good to see that you retain your ability to post off-topic on any thread you deem suitable.

Your continued thread hijack attempts make you almost worthy of a DB Cooper Award.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Blatant evidence of on-going photo manipulation of news pictures.

[quote]Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut?
OK, now things are getting weird.

This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone” tool to add more smoke to the image. (Hat tip: Mike.)

It’s so incredibly obvious, it reminds me of the faked CBS memos. Smoke simply does not contain repeating symmetrical patterns like this, and you can see the repetition in both plumes of smoke. There’s really no question about it.

But it’s not only the plumes of smoke that were “enhanced.” There are also cloned buildings. (See below.)

Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut’s suburbs August 5, 2006. Many buildings were flattened during the attack. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj[/quote]

…and they’re not even good at it…[/quote]

Since we’re talking about photoshopping, shouldn’t the reference be “it’s so incredibly obvious, it reminds me of the faked pictures of Bush in front of the troops.”?

Or “the fake pictures of John Kerry with Jane Fonda”?

Or the pictures showing how peaceful Baghdad was that were actually taken in Turkey?

Why bother faking a picture of one burning building? I suppose it’s possible a stringer got lazy and decided to earn a few quick bucks that way

You can turn on CNN any time and actually see the bombing, sometimes in real time.

Unless, of course, it’s all being concocted in a Hollywood studio, just like the Moon landings…

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Good to see that you retain your ability to post off-topic on any thread you deem suitable.

Your continued thread hijack attempts make you almost worthy of a DB Cooper Award.[/quote]

but Cooper had a parachute! :wink:

I read your post to mean that photos showing civilian casualties in Lebanon were to be given less weight because of instances of manipulation. Maybe that is the sub-text in the entry on LittleGreenFootballs. The blogs moved quite nicely into the insinuation that the photo of the dead infant killed by Israeli bombs in Qana (the site where Jesus performed his first recorded miracle - the turning of water into wine - the “wedding feast at Cana”) was suspect.

There is most certainly a media war going on. The Israelis are quite pleased by how that media war is going in the US:
http://www.counterpunch.org/kanazi08042006.html

And: today’s J Post has a comical essay showing how feeble israeli efforts at media manipulation are! :laughing: Always playing the victim…how can I buy a franchise? It has worked for decades. :sunglasses:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525813616&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

So we all agree that the media, in this case Reuters specifically, is sending out manipulated photos.

Good.

I guess the photoshopping is too strong even for Reuters. Or at least being caught is…:laughing: Looks like the photographer, Adnan Hajj, might have to look for a new job.

[quote]Reuters news agency admitted on Sunday that it had digitally altered a photograph of an Israeli attack on Lebanon on Saturday, showing more smoke than was actually present.

The photograph, as initially published, showed an aerial view of Beirut after an IAF attack, with two large pillars of smoke rising over the city. The caption read: Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut’s suburbs.

The agency has since withdrawn the photograph, issued an apology and released the unaltered picture. Its public relations department said the photographer had been suspended until the investigation was completed.

The scene was photographed by Adnan Hajj, who had also photographed the aftermath of the Israeli attack on Kana last week, in which the Lebanese initially claimed 58 fatalities, but could later only confirm 28.[/quote]

jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? … 2FShowFull

[color=red]The Passion of the Toys[/color] (<-- a clickable link)
…ohhh…the horrors of war…as seen thru the eyes of certain photogs…

Reuters photo from Beirut

Do we all agree that Reuters is still “sending out manipulated photos”, or do we agree that Reuters found out that one of its free-lance photographers screwed around with some images and then: 1) analyzed the photos and withdrew them; and 2) completely removed the 920 or so photos they had that had been taken by that photographer and commenced an investigation into the guy’s work.

Realize that the free-lance/stringer guys get paid per photo and have personal financial motives for wanting their war pictures to be the ones downloaded and used by royalty-paying newspapers. That’s why guys like James Natchwey make the big bucks – those who have a knack for getting into the right places and catching emblematic images of conflict naturally are more likely to be downloaded from their news-service and used by more magazines, newspapers, etc. Those who don’t have the same talents may try to catch up by darkening the smoke a bit and adding two extra flares to a plane flying overhead.

[quote=“mofangongren”]
Realize that the free-lance/stringer guys get paid per photo and have personal financial motives for wanting their war pictures to be the ones downloaded and used by royalty-paying newspapers. That’s why guys like James Natchwey make the big bucks…[/quote]

I despise Natchwey. But your premise is bullshit. Example? Take a look at these photos by Tyler Hicks of the New York Times. He’s one of the biggest photojournalists in the world.

nppa.org/competitions/best_o … &place=2nd

query.nytimes.com/search/query?q … ll&frow=10

These are from the NYT, July 27, 2006

Note the “corpse” wearing the shorts and holding the hat close to its body?

I’ve used an assistant when shooting fashion…never needed one when shooting the news.

And a closeup…

And then there’s this…

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]And then there’s this…
[/quote]

Something’s just not kosher about that photo… :s

:wink:

Want some more? Look at this US News & World Report edition cover.
(formerly a very good magazine)

Jihadi cool with his Raybans and AK, obviously surveying the site of an Israeli strike…right?
Same Jihadi dude strikin’ a pose…actin’ all concerned …right?

Guess again Bubba & Bubbettes…its a friggin’ tire fire…they are burning old tires.

Here’s the full-frame and in proper perspective.
Guess who the photog was?..None other than ex-Reuters camera man Adnan Hajj.

Go figure.

And more fake photos:
hotair.com/archives/the-blog/200 … gus-photo/

Please clarify. You despise Natchwey but (despite that despising) think my premise is bullshit? Are you really trying to attack Natchwey based on the work of a completely different photographer? Do you have anything to say about the relation between $$$ and compelling photos and my concern that individual photographers have a significant financial interest to spice up photos? You’re not being very clear here.

As to Hicks’ pictures, I can’t really tell much. Was it a mis-labeled photo in that perhaps what looked like a dead guy in one frame turned out to only be a concussioned guy who eventually was photographed walking about later on? The later photos appear to show him pointing into the rubble and, then, joining the efforts to dig through the rubble. If the guy with the baseball cap was in the bombed-out place, perhaps it would make sense for him to try to join the efforts to rescue family/friends/coworkers inside the rubble.

UPDATE: Looks like it was a mis-labeled photo after all. Here was the original caption for the first photo:

Doctor Evil, it would appear you’ve been foiled by your own inability to use an electronic device called a “computer” that can search the “internet” and find information.

A throw-down from another working prof.

eureferendum.blogspot.com/

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]A throw-down from another working prof.

eureferendum.blogspot.com/[/quote]

Looks to me like a lot of wardrobe commentary and comments about “how” the dead babies are being held, but not much commentary that it’s not a kid the guy’s holding. As to the “truth” of the situation, it’s hard to guess on several factors. Some of the comments appear a bit caustic – picking at stuff, in the end, could go a couple of ways. What’s the most respectful way to lift a dead baby out of a bombed-out house? How even should the dust coating be on a dead baby in that house at that time? If a dead baby plucked from the ruins is lifted high, is that so the rescue worker can get through a crowd without brushing the body against others or out of cynical motives to “display” the body to international media? While we like to think that a rescue worker would be “dispassionate” and “professional” in the midst of horrible situations, are we kidding ourselves to think that a guy working in a dysfunctional bombed-out wreck of a country is going to behave the same as American rescue workers?

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]
eureferendum.blogspot.com/[/quote]

[quote]Conservative British blogger Richard North, who runs a blogspot site called “EU Referendum” - popular amongst the armchair general set - spared no bandwidth to critique nearly every photo resulting from the Qana bombing. In one of his longer posts, North concludes all the photos taken in Qana were “staged for effect, exploiting the victims in an unwholesome manner. In so doing, they are no longer news photographs - they are propaganda.”

It was an interesting screed, especially the part about “exploiting the victims.” In other posts, North denies the existence of civilian victims, claiming that the events were staged. Not long after North’s posting, and similar ones aping it elsewhere on the internet, disgraced right-wing pundit Rush Limbaugh became one more talking head in a growing cacophony: “These photographers are obviously willing to participate in propaganda. They know exactly what’s being done, all these photos, bringing the bodies out of the rubble, posing them for the cameras, it’s all staged. Every bit of it is staged and the still photographers know it.”[/quote]

:unamused:

That was the essence of my post earlier on this thread: this argument dismissed the legitimacy of the victims’ complaints… the keyboard kommandos were, perhaps inadvertently, defending war crimes as they self-righteously pointed out errors in digitized images… :loco:

http://www.counterpunch.org/lyons08152006.html