[Fresh Wind]

Yeah, it's tough to explain something that isn't true.

First you need to look at this picture:

Don't be distracted by the green circles. You need to look carefully at the lowest layer of stones in the wall to the right of granny's knees. What you will see there is characteristic of a crudely done attempt using the Photoshop clone tool to recreate the rough texture of the stone, but what the faker ended up with was an unrealistic repeating pattern that is a dead giveaway that the picture with just the two people is the fake one. You can see the same problem in the upper layers of stone, but it's not quite as obvious.

[Boogieman]

The frustrating part is all the posters here who obviously have not once in their lives tried to really alter a photo in this manner with photoshop, yet think they can talk authoritatively about how obviously fake the photo is. The altered photo you’re talking about is a good example of just how hard it is to create a doctored photo that isn’t glaringly obvious to the trained eye. Anyone who knows what they are talking about would spot that photo as a fake immediately, but the other photo is completely consistent with an original, undoctored photograph from the era.

People with no knowledge are seizing on things like overexposures as a sign of fakery, when in fact, that weighs in favor of authenticity.