Fezmid Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 I grabbed a copy of the picture before CNN removes it - it's currently on their front page: http://www.fezam.com/newt1.2054.red.ap.jpg There's no way that the guy wasn't Photoshopped into the picture. No way at all. I remember a newspaper/magazine getting in trouble for making a composite of a couple of pictures (from the same area) into one; everyone was up in arms, saying that the media shouldn't be creating pictures, they should just report on what's happening. Anyone think this picture has been edited? CW
sweet baboo Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 it definetely does not look kosher though it could've just been some incredible artistic focusing while under extreme duress
UConn James Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Not necessarily. The grass behind him, and in front of the tank, suggests he's standing on a small hill. It's not like both man and tank are in focus. But I will say that being in front of the turret probably isn't the best place to be hanging out....
Puhonix Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Looks good to me. With the blur in the depth of field, its hard to tell how far apart they are.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 I grabbed a copy of the picture before CNN removes it - it's currently on their front page: http://www.fezam.com/newt1.2054.red.ap.jpg There's no way that the guy wasn't Photoshopped into the picture. No way at all. I remember a newspaper/magazine getting in trouble for making a composite of a couple of pictures (from the same area) into one; everyone was up in arms, saying that the media shouldn't be creating pictures, they should just report on what's happening. Anyone think this picture has been edited? CW 723281[/snapback] It's gotta be photoshopped. When's the last time you saw Eddie Munster standing in front of a howitzer?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Looks good to me. With the blur in the depth of field, its hard to tell how far apart they are. 723297[/snapback] There's two other guys in the lower right corner in the background...if relative size is any indication (and it is), there's not too much distance between fore- and background. That's not a very deep field; looks to my eye like the f-stop on that exposure was about 0.75... Plus...the lighting looks pretty oddly discontinuous between foreground and background. Could be as a result of focus...I don't know, all my photography experience is at a considerable distance (like thousands or millions of light years ). And as far as I know, there shouldn't be THAT much difference in contrast across THAT little depth of field. Plus...it looks like the guy in the foreground is plugging his ears against the noise of the cannons behind him. Except...the two guys in the background, closer to the cannons, aren't. They're actually pretty clearly engaged in a conversation. The guns aren't even firing. And if you blow up the picture, the guy in the foreground isn't plugging his ears, he's holding some bizarre, unidentifiable square blocks against his face. Plus - and here's the real kicker for me - that's pretty clearly Israeli artillery in the background. Israeli military units take a very dim view of photographers crawling around their neigborhood snapping photos of them. Virtually the only picture a photographer is going to get of Israeli military units in the field is going to be a blurry one. For that reason alone, I'm disinclined to believe an AP photographer got close enough to snap a sharp picture of a soldier closely affiliated with the unit, even though the unit itself is blurry in the background. More likely it's a manufactured photo (not necessarily by AP - hell, the Israelis could have done it themselves), with the guy in the foreground inserted to add visual interest to an otherwise blurry shot.
kegtapr Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 That kind of shot can be acheived and I learned how in a photography class in college (and probably drank away the brain cells that stored that info the same evening), but that doesn't appear to be real. Chances are though, an independent photographer doctored the photo, not CNN. CNN should just know better then to post something that looks questionable.
Fezmid Posted July 15, 2006 Author Posted July 15, 2006 Chances are though, an independent photographer doctored the photo, not CNN. I didn't notice the "AP" stamp across the right, so I'm probably blaming the wrong person. It still looks like a hack job. CW
RayFinkle Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 In all fairness, look at the minature guy trying to catch a tank cannon on the front page of foxnews.....obviously this is doctored. how else would the soldiers be so small?........minature guy catching a tank cannon.
Fezmid Posted July 15, 2006 Author Posted July 15, 2006 In all fairness, look at the minature guy trying to catch a tank cannon on the front page of foxnews.....obviously this is doctored. how else would the soldiers be so small?........minature guy catching a tank cannon. 723323[/snapback] The size/perspective of the guy on the CNN photo has nothing to do with it -- it's the stuff around him, and the extreme difference in contrast/shading between him and the rest of the photo.
kegtapr Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 In all fairness, look at the minature guy trying to catch a tank cannon on the front page of foxnews.....obviously this is doctored. how else would the soldiers be so small?........minature guy catching a tank cannon. 723323[/snapback] What exactly appears fake about that photo? It's a simple matter of distance and perspective.
RayFinkle Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 The size/perspective of the guy on the CNN photo has nothing to do with it -- it's the stuff around him, and the extreme difference in contrast/shading between him and the rest of the photo. 723324[/snapback] Not to sound like a smarty pants but I did take a couple of art classes in college. The guy who took the original pic you are complaining about used what is called "Depth of Field". Its real.
KRC Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 Plus...the lighting looks pretty oddly discontinuous between foreground and background. Could be as a result of focus...I don't know, all my photography experience is at a considerable distance (like thousands or millions of light years ). And as far as I know, there shouldn't be THAT much difference in contrast across THAT little depth of field. 723305[/snapback] The lighting is really not a tip-off. When using a flash, the flash bounces off the closest target and goes back to the camera. Once it gets back to the camera, it turns off. That is why when using a direct flash, you will illuminate the closest object and the background stuff is not lit as well. I see this stuff all the time with people who use flashes. Sometimes, the effect is desired. Othertimes, it looks bad (as in this case). This same effect can happen with an even shallower depth of field, so I cannot use that as the determining factor of it being fake. I would use your other analysis to determine its authenticity.
Fezmid Posted July 15, 2006 Author Posted July 15, 2006 Not to sound like a smarty pants but I did take a couple of art classes in college. The guy who took the original pic you are complaining about used what is called "Depth of Field". Its real. 723326[/snapback] I know what depth of field is.
cåblelady Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 I know what depth of field is. 723329[/snapback] Kelly Holcomb doesn't.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 The lighting is really not a tip-off. When using a flash, the flash bounces off the closest target and goes back to the camera. Once it gets back to the camera, it turns off. That is why when using a direct flash, you will illuminate the closest object and the background stuff is not lit as well. I see this stuff all the time with people who use flashes. Sometimes, the effect is desired. Othertimes, it looks bad (as in this case). 723328[/snapback] Usually, though, the background looks darker in those case, not muted as in this case. Plus...there's blue sky in the pic. Looks like a bright, sunny day. Doesn't look like flash photography conditions. Still...that's probably the weakest of my reasons. I've seen plenty of odd things happen with cameras. Why, this one time...at band camp...
crackur Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 it's fake, the dude is standing in front of a screen......duh someone should be able to take it apart........I just dont want to put forth an effort.....
crackur Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 The lighting is really not a tip-off. When using a flash, the flash bounces off the closest target and goes back to the camera. Once it gets back to the camera, it turns off. That is why when using a direct flash, you will illuminate the closest object and the background stuff is not lit as well. I see this stuff all the time with people who use flashes. Sometimes, the effect is desired. Othertimes, it looks bad (as in this case). This same effect can happen with an even shallower depth of field, so I cannot use that as the determining factor of it being fake. I would use your other analysis to determine its authenticity. 723328[/snapback] I wouldnt think they would be using cheap cameras disposables
Fezmid Posted July 15, 2006 Author Posted July 15, 2006 it's fake, the dude is standing in front of a screen......duh someone should be able to take it apart........I just dont want to put forth an effort..... 723346[/snapback] Yeah, you're right - it does look like he's in front of a "green screen," just like the local weatherman. CW
Gary M Posted July 15, 2006 Posted July 15, 2006 CNN isn't altering the photos anymore than FHM, Stuff, People, The Enquirer, or any other mag. You just can't trust anyone these days.
Recommended Posts