Staged and/or Edited Photos in the Media.

first, before posting, visit this site:

http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/
pay special notice to the smouldering skyline before and after pictures. yes, i know it is a completely bias site, and not one that reflects my opinions much, but you know what they say about a broken clock and these photos were used in major media outlets.

now for those who dont know photoshop, there is whats called a cloning brush and it basically samples a preset radius of any point on the photo and repeats it as a pattern. the proper way to pull this effect off is a random pattern, since in the end you wont notice a repeat patten. --anyway this shit is textbook for anyone who has working knowledge of the program.

where am i going with this? the photo was so blatantly fudged that i suspect a willingness to be caught. i call sabotage within the system. to the core of my logic, i cannot find any loophole were such a blatantly altered photo could make to broadcast on a major media outlet.

am i crazy? perhaps. but either way, its clear that the media is altering photos biasly and making them part or even all fiction.

discuss

Textbook, and easy as all hell to do...and easy as hell to spot, if you work with the program regularly.

It's all sensationalism. Don't think you'll get the reaction you want, then doctor it up so you do.

Though good god that smoke is terrible...

they didnt even take the light blue dots out of it. im telling you, this shit is sabotage.

It seems that the things that were edited are purely to provoke a heightened emotional response. I mean, in the big picture, who cares about an extra building, or thicker smoke? The answer is no one, and that if you're being bothered by these little additions then you appear to be ignoring the bigger picture--that there's a war going on.

Am I saying that I agree with this dramatic flair? Certianly not, it's an idiotic waste of time where things are edited for an increased shock value, but that doesn't keep me from missing the big picture, in that even though some of the picture might be fake, the main part is still true.

Moral of the story, get your news from multiple sources.

i just pointed out the blatant editing job which opens the door for inquiry.

now we get into the staging of photos. check the page out.

Oh I saw the page, there was something similar to this on break.com.

And I'm not agreeing with its being done, and I hope there are consequences for those involved, but I don't think it's as big a deal as some are trying to make it.

At the link posted there's quite a few more examples of possible propaganda/doctored images/false captions. Definitely shady.

Originally posted by PVS
they didnt even take the light blue dots out of it. im telling you, this shit is sabotage.

It's funny. The Bulletin, a current affairs and politics magazine from Australia (one of the good ones) has a chap, proudly conservative, who does a column (there are others who have columns from other parts of the political spectrum.) Anyway he dedicated a whole column to mocking liberals, and liberal media sources and so on over that one photo - how the left feels the need to use doctored material to make points etc.

Maybe there is indeed sabotage going on. The chap who first used to in Australian media didn't make it, simply procured it through normal means when it comes to journalism. One has to wonder what motivates certain people to do a bad doctoring job, and then pass it off as real, when they have to know that the truth will come out, and quickly.

Doctored photos are so easy to detect these days that the very idea of them is ludicrous.

i'm willing to bet it happens quite regularly but thats propaganda for you and it'll be ever more present from all sides in war as the media have more and quicker access to the events

who could forget the mirror publishing fake photos of iraqi civilians being abused by UK soldiers
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40156000/jpg/_40156213_mirror2ok.jpg&imgrefurl=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3717669.stm&h=300&w=203&sz=12&hl=en&start=16&tbnid=Nf0tA3dOkH38zM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=78&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmirror%2Bfake%2Bphotos%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

What city is that? Hong Kong? Tulsa?

Hadn't actually seen the photo until now... incredibly blatant.. I can do better with Photoshop...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Hadn't actually seen the photo until now... incredibly blatant.. I can do better with Photoshop...

As can i... frickin amateurs...

so you choose to believe that it was unintentional that these photos are easily spotted as doctored?

Originally posted by PVS
so you choose to believe that it was unintentional that these photos are easily spotted as doctored?

I think whoever doctored them assumed that their demographic wouldnt notice/care....

as lana (i think it was) said, anyone who uses photoshop would notice... otherwise a lot of people may just take it as genuine...

and the blatantly staged photos with duplicate people, as well as people posing as rescue workers?

Hey, speaking of doctored up, I found this on some other message board. I'm just presenting the photo, so draw your own conclusions.

Originally posted by PVS
and the blatantly staged photos with duplicate people, as well as people posing as rescue workers?

I haven't seen those... but if the photos are in a newspaper, most people would only glance at the pic, go 'oh my look at that', and then read the article...

i'd just wonder if alot of genuine photos are treated as suspiciously...

Originally posted by botankus
Hey, speaking of doctored up, I found this on some other message board. I'm just presenting the photo, so draw your own conclusions.

thats just... wow... what kind of person would do that...

(apologies for the double post)