Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

World Press Photo Winner Accused of Photoshopping

Posted by timothy on from the stock-characters dept.

vikingpower writes "The winner of this year's World Press Photo award, Paul l Hanssen, is under fire for allegedly having photoshopped the winning picture. The Hacker Factor is detailing the reasons and technicalities for the accusations. ExtremeTech also runs an item about the possible faking. Upon questions by Australian news site news.com.au, Hanssen answers his photo is not a fake. The whole story, however, is based upon somewhat thin proof: three different times in the file's Adobe XMP block; this does not necessarily mean that more than one file was used in order to obtain a composite image." Update: 05/14 20:04 GMT by S : World Press Photo says the photo is genuine.

6 of 182 comments (clear)

  1. Minor observations by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am not agreeing with or denying what Hacker Factor is saying, but I would like to point out some minor issues with the analysis.

    First, as to the lighting of the faces being brighter than in other pictures taken during the same procession, it is entirely possible there was a reflective surface to the crowd's right (picture left) which is making the faces appear brighter than one would think they should be in the alley way. Think of the reflective nature of the moon's surface which conspiracy theorists always ignore when talking about how bright things are in shadows. While the Photoshop effect could be the issue, note the wall to their right (picture left) which does have a reflective surface.

    Note also the man on the far left, next to the wall. Note how there is sun shining on the white cloth directly below his face. As everyone knows, a white surface reflects large portions of light falling on it which would also produce the lighting effect seen on the man's face.

    Second, as to the dirt on the girls face appearing differently in the photos, note the different angles of her head. In the winning photo the forehead is almost at a right angle to the picture taker whereas in the second photo it is pointing almost directly at the camera. The lighting in the second photo is much more diffuse than the first which could explain the difference.

    Also note that in the winning photo, the crowd is in a part of the alley which has exposure to much more sunlight than in the second photo.

    Again, I'm not saying the person didn't do what has been accused, I'm only pointing out possibilities to explain what is being shown.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re: Minor observations by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 5, Informative

      The photographer has already explained the lat the photos have been retouched to affect lighting and dynamic range, he just didn't do what he was accused of, which was splicing different images together.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  2. not convinced by jbmartin6 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm not an expert in photography and imaging, but upon reading the Extreme Tech article I wasn't impressed. Their stunning crescendo:

    I think most of you will agree, though, that the photo simply feels fake

    I was surprised they didn't simply go for "you can tell by the pixels."

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  3. zero evidence by Njovich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The supposed proof of 'fakery' from the article seems entirely consistent with what the photographer says it is, different regions with different light intensities from the same raw file.The light angles seem entirely plausible, I guess the article writer hasn't heard of reflection. Even the moon landing nutters come up with better stuff than this.

    The only true thing is that (as the photographer also says), the light intensities are differing.

    Why wouldn't the photographer be allowed to change light intensities? Every single digital image, ever uses some kind of processing to turn photons into pixels on your screen, and there is always some level of subjectivity in how that is done, even if it's done right on the chip. Why is that an issue?

  4. The author has the RAW file. Case closed by gaspyy · · Score: 5, Informative

    The gritty look on the picture can be achieved with a local contrast filter. Combined with contrast and saturation manipulation, it's pretty easy to do. In Lightroom is just a matter of setting a few sliders - Darks, Highlights, Clarity, Vibrance and Saturation.

    Furthermore, the author says he has the RAW file and it was examined by the jury. Personally I know of no software that can currently reverse a jpeg into raw. It should be possible in theory to fake a raw file, but I sincerely doubt it's the case.

    Analyzing jpeg artifacts is snake oil. My photo workflow is this: shoot in RAW. Edit in Lightroom. Convert to ProPhoto 16bit/channel. Open in Photoshop, make any fine adjustments if needed. Output to jpeg. Only fools edit and re-save jpegs.

    This is simply one of the "fake moon landings" conspiracies, started by people who don't understand photography.

    1. Re:The author has the RAW file. Case closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      A side by side comparison of the photo that won the prize and the same photo published the day after it was taken.

      There was a lot of work done on the light levels in the prize winner, but it is the same photo.