Boring architecture or more photo-fakery by Reuters
A Reuters photograph of Beirut burning might have been faked.
Update: Reuters issues a correction. And looking at the original photograph, it sure looks like those buildings were copied as I describe below. Why? That I can't figure. Maybe the Israelis weren't using big enough bombs to make big enough explosions to satisfy Reuters. Damn precision weapons and their pinpoint destruction!
Michelle Malkin and others are considering this example of what appears to be crude photographic fakery at Reuters:
Professional photographers are debating the Hajj photo at SportsShooters.com and they smell something funny, too.
Here's the original photo by Adnan Hajj:
The focus is on the smoke billowing high above the city. The repeating smoke pattern is pretty obvious and discussed in detail.
One could argue that this was an example of "cleaning up" a photo taken a step (or about thrity steps) too far. After all, it's just smoke, right? Maybe the editor wanted a photo of certain dimensions, and someone decided to clone the sky and smoke upwards. That doesn't make it right, but then there was already smoke in the photo coming out of that city block, right? The facts haven't changed about that city block in Beirut being hit by an Israili bomb.
What city block? Compare these two areas. I've circle two portions of the photo, each including at least two distinct buildings.
Now Charles Johnson has already carefully considered the building with the distinct balconies. But check out the building in the left of each circled area:
Here is a close-up of the area:
Zoomed in, it still looks suspicious. So I tried overlaying one area on the other, as Johnson did with the one building:
I moved the centre portion of the upper allegedly cloned area down to centre of the lower portion.
Sure looks like a perfect lining up of picture elements. Remember, what is remarkable here is that at least two different buildings being considered here, not just one building whose architecture might have been repeated on a nearby city block.
If I wanted to construct an image of a bombing, one of the trickiest bits would be to make it appear that the smoke was billowing in front of some building but behind others. A photo is a projection of a three-dimensional space onto a two-dimensional plane. All the 3D information is lost. So what you have to do is fake 3D space by layering 2D sheets in order. What might be happening here is that a photo of Beirut has smoke overlayed on it. Then a cut-and-paste of the bulidings at the lower portion of the photo is offset down and to the left, and placed over the smoke and the original background picture. After some judicious fogging, it looks like the smoke is rising from in between buildings.
Why do it this way? Why use these buildings? The problem is scale and lighting. If I grabbed buildings from another portion of the photo, they would look wrong. Too small or too big. Wrong shadows. That sort of thing. The easiest way to insert buildings into a photo such that they look like the other buildings in the immediate area is to actually close buildings from the immediate area to duplicate.
And then just hope no one notices.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Reuters Israel Lebanon faked photograph Adnan Hajj
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
aparrently Reuters has already fessed up to this Shoppery.
Posted by: Skip at August 6, 2006 09:33 AM
"A Reuters photograph of Beirut burning MIGHT HAVE been faked."
Steve...you're getting soft in your old age...
;-)
Posted by: tomax7 at August 6, 2006 10:19 AM
There's no might about it. Reuters has admitted it was doctored. Another HUGE victory for blogs over the MSM. This will be in all of the papers tomorrow..regardless of how reluctant the MSM is to report it.
It's truly a disgusting piece of work.
Who can believe any of this crap the media tries to sell? I had huge doubts about the whole Qana 'massacre'. This is the same media that takes Hezbollah's word at face value.
Props for the blogs for being the beacon of truth.
Posted by: Levesque at August 6, 2006 10:46 AM
Oh man. And they still deny "media bias." This should be made illegal.
Posted by: Dark Blue Tory at August 6, 2006 11:21 AM
Whoever altered the photo should not only be fired for breach of conduct, but also publicly shamed for such an incompetent photoshop job. It's bizarre that the photo was even doctored. Nobody disputes that buildings in Beirut were bombed -- why not just go with the original snap, which even in an unaltered state, is compelling in its own right.
For a more objective view of infrastructure damage in Beirut, take a look at some satellite images, available here and here.
Posted by: A at August 6, 2006 11:59 AM
as a professional photographer who specializes in black and white portraiture and fine art prints, i use film most of the time. that being said, i use digital technology also. that's a pretty bad photo chop to be sure. however, it's hardly evidence of a vast left-wing media conspiracy to "fake" the consequences of disastrous israeli foreign policy. the photographer who sold this image has damaged his own cause by manipulating the cold hard facts. lebanon is a disaster and civilians are dying daily.
Posted by: jeff at August 6, 2006 12:09 PM
Jeff: Are they? That's the point of the complaint. Truth in reportage has been sadly lacking of late, and this is a particularly silly example of how bad it can be. I don't doubt there are casualties, bombings, fires, etc. But how much? How many? I'm not there, and frankly I can't trust the report of the MSM who is supposed to be "covering it" (not covering it, up). And "Lebanon is a disaster and civilians are dying daily." Oh? you're there, are you? Being a professional photographer means squat - I do B&W (and colour) fine art photography too. I can chop you the most incredible war zone shots. But are they true? Dunno, how much you paying?
As an aside, some of the very worst shopped prints turn up on the front page of the G&M.
Posted by: Skip at August 6, 2006 12:36 PM
This just more of the same photographer's work that is intended to further the Islamic cause. Check out his Kana photograph of the ever present mortician with the young girl being held up for viewing. (Seems that this poor girl is being used after her death for a variety of photo ops.) Another photograph that is being examined as a fraud.
And to think that the West eats this sh4t up and calls it accurate news reporting is beyond belief.
Pat
Posted by: Pat at August 6, 2006 02:38 PM
And to think that the West eats this sh4t up and calls it accurate news reporting is beyond belief.
Let's keep some perspective here. This one photographer and his work has been discredited -- that's not in dispute here. But neither is there any dispute over the growing civilian death tolls on either side of the conflict. Everyone agrees that Qana did happen, that dozens of innocents, including children, died there. For every one dishonest photog, there are thousands more who are responsible and fair. Moreover, all states and military use graphic images of death and destruction as patriotic propaganda. Morally questionable, but nothing new there.
In any case, claiming that the MSM is guilty of bias is a false accusation, because the condemnation comes equally from the right and the left. Like Steve's previous blog posting on Fox News vs. CNN, arguing for the existence of vast media conspiracy misses the point, which is that all publications have their particular editorial slants. Though there are degrees of subtlety, everyone's guilty of shaping the news. Some, like the Globe and Mail, have even been accused simulataneously of being too conservative-friendly (by the left) and too liberal-friendly (by the right). Additionally, let's not forget the reader, whose own political leanings wil influence whether bias is detected or not.
An alternative approach? Read widely, and often. Embrace viewpoints that differ from your own. Never put your trust in a single source. Read the G&M, but also read the National Post. Watch Fox News, but also check out BBC World and CNN. Explore the alternative press. Do not avoid bias, but do not be seduced by it either. Be extremely cautious of -- and avoid entirely where possible -- editorialists, columnists, TV pundits, and personality-driven shows like Anderson Cooper 360' and Hannity & Colmes, which all seek to sell to you their particular perspectives, whether 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Track down cited sources, reports, publications, etc. Read them, and decide for yourself what to believe.
Posted by: E.R. Murrow at August 6, 2006 03:06 PM
 
|
|
