Reuters Doctoring Photos from Beirut? [photo inside]

Little Green Footballs ^ | 8-5-2006

[Hadean]

OK, now things are getting weird.

This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop “clone” tool to add more smoke to the image. (Hat tip: Mike.)

It’s so incredibly obvious, it reminds me of the faked CBS memos. Smoke simply does not contain repeating symmetrical patterns like this, and you can see the repetition in both plumes of smoke. There’s really no question about it.

Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut’s suburbs August 5, 2006. Many buildings were flattened during the attack. REUTERS/Adnan Hajj

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

The general rule is; be highly sceptical of any report(now days this includes photographs) emanating from a war zone. Especially a report from one of the belligerents or their close allies. The warring parties are attempting to move neutral public opinion in their favor. (Example, England during WWI.)Also, there can be good reason for misinformation such as concealing military moves, potential or on going. Quite often what is not said is more important than what is in fact being claimed. That being said the smoke does appear 'funny!'

[carolinablonde]

My guess is that the foreground (the man in the hat and the rubble at his feet) and the background (the burning building) are from two separate pictures.

The perspective of the two images is very different. The background image is much more of an upward vertical view.

[usmcobra]

You can see the buildings repeated in the smoke because they didn't fix all the pixels.

[PajamaTruthMafia]

You just made my day!

[photodawg]

just because Reuters posts the pic with a story doesnt mean they actually took it. They could have bought it from a freelance journalist/photog who was trying to make a good pic in order to have future pics bought


''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Its not a "good" pic its a fake pic. he's altering the reality of a news event and if used the image should clearly state that it is an illustration. This is an attempt to deceive. Reuters is culpable, because if they purchased the picture freelance, they are still responsible for its authenticity if used as a news photo.

[armymarinemom]

Good grief! That is not only blatant but it's a sorry job with a clone tool.

[mvpel]

You may be seeing JPEG compression artifacts in the first picture - the second photo may have been scanned with less aggressive compression algorithm settings.

[ASA Vet]

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

This is the same photog that took the staged photos of green helmut guy. Reuters must know what this guy is up to by now. Plus, you'd think they'd have photo editors that could spot this obvious fraud. Reuters is abetting this sham. The only way they could be innocent here is to be completely inept and unprofessional. Reuters is guilty too.

[right-wingin_It]

I'm glad you saw that building appearing more than once. I believe there may also be a 3rd one of that building further in the background.

[Fresh Wind]

The thing is, there's no reason for faking more smoke or weird smoke. Except exaggeration.

Another possible reason would be to cover up something that the photographer doesn't want you to see.

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

So, you are saying that the picture of Monsieur Jean Francois Kerry as the frankenstein monster has to be considered real since we haven't seen the original?

are you actually comparing a burning building to that of frankenstein?

[tobyhill]

Excellent

[TruthWillWin]

The only way they could be innocent here is to be completely inept and unprofessional.

Add biased and I'll buy that.

[photodawg]

Smoke billows from burning buildings destroyed during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut's suburbs August 5, 2006. Many buildings were flattened during the attack.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

This cut line is editorializing and should be labeled as a photo illustration. By not stating the image was enhanced they are deceiving the public and that is a total violation of the ethical standards of photo journalism.

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

That's a ridiculous argument. Based on your logic then no fake UFO pictures could be disproven which has happened more often than not

UFO= not real....burning building=real....that much smoke coming from this burning building=unknown. Got any other asinine generalizations?

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

Its not a "good" pic its a fake pic. he's altering the reality of a news event and if used the image should clearly state that it is an illustration. This is an attempt to deceive.

When I said good I meant good from the photog's perspective. Good as in, more likely the freelance photog would have a better chance at selling future pictures to Reuters/AP/etc. Or maybe the photographer is a hamas supperter. I have no idea.

[PajamaTruthMafia]

Beirut photos brought to you by:

[RandallFlagg]

WOW! Over 150 posts on a Saturday night?

This will be mentioned by Rush on Monday and be worldwide hours later.

Reuters just nuked themselves here. Watch them blame the messenger and fire a lackey.