Posted on 08/05/2006 3:52:31 PM PDT by 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
Heres a tip, I wouldnt call someone elses comments "idiotic" when you yourself bring up examples of UFO's to try to prove your point
Bears repeating. Especially when Reuters tries to explain this as otherwise.
your overreacting....not all journalists are reputable. Just like not all doctors, politicans, businessmen, etc...
bookmark
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/t36d2f41a2297.htm
"Everyday I wake up, look at the "lamestream" media and say to myself "What new lie are they going to tell me today?!" We had a classic media smear in the "Teletubbies vs. Jerry Fawell" fable of last week. Here's the real story.
Web Posted: 02/23/99 10:31:53 PST Posted by: Fraudbuster"
There were probably earlier uses, lots of the old posts are gone now.
Are they (Reuters) also guilty of the same logic used by Dan Rather? It's OK if it's not real, it's "fake but accurate."
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
all news`agencies know the difference between a photo of a real event, and a photo illustration. Its as basic as the difference between a news article and an editorial.
Cropping and re-sizingsource
You can do both, although the adjustments you make should not change the intended meaning of the picture.
For instance, if the photo is an important news picture, cropping may remove a vital piece of information, diminishing the importance of the event and, by extension, the picture.
However, if the image is more illustrative, let’s say a figure walking across an empty field, to crop probably won’t make any difference to the meaning of the image, with the exception of size or shape.
Flipping and altering levels
Illustrative images with no distinguishing features or landmarks can usually be flipped without too much concern. If, however, the image features a well-known personality or landmark, flipping the image may distort or destroy what is truthful about the subject. A left-handed subject may suddenly become right-handed, compromising Reuters claim to providing accurate information. As an example, see the Andre Agassi photo in the Detailed guidelines below.
Alter levels with some caution, attempting to maintain the integrity and authenticity about the picture.
New material
Reuters has recently acquired the UK-based sports agency, Action Images, which gives us immediate access to significantly more photography than ever before (approximately, 1.5 million online). At this early stage, how much of the new material can be used for marketing and advertising purposes is still being determined. Check back here for new information and guidelines.
Rights restrictions
Although we may own the copyright of an image, it can often be subject to underlying rights issues. We can try to clear them, and often do. However, this can be a long, expensive and not always successful process. So it is best to consider the subject of rights when selecting images from our archive for marketing, advertising and promotion.
* Don’t flip the image to change the integrity of the shot, as in this photo, where the right-handed tennis player has now become a left-handed player, and Reuters image and brand integrity could come into question. Also note: be careful where you place the 3D dot property, so it doesn’t get caught up with the logo.
Note: Never manipulate an image in such a way that it changes its meaning or compromises our brand essence.
Detailed guidelines
* The Reuters photographer’s name must be credited, in our Avenir typeface, to add authenticity to the image, and gain attribution for Reuters. Example: Reuters/Photographer Name.
* In ads, a legal disclaimer must accompany pictures. Refer to the Print advertising page for details.
* Don’t flip the image to change the integrity of the shot, as in this photo, where the right-handed tennis player has now become a left-handed player.
* Do not use low GIF/JPEG compression settings that alter the quality of the image or create visual artifacts.
* Don’t place the Reuters logo on busy photographic backgrounds. Avoid placing the brand property across a person’s face or otherwise obscures or alters the subject of the photograph.
It was only 28 dead.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
exactly my point. There was only one little cloud of smoke also.
More "fake but accurate" photo-journalism
To go with :
MEDIA CAUGHT OVER QANA PHOTOS [Liberal MSM Caught With Pants Down Alert]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1676313/posts
Boortz:
Without getting too technical, it was noticed that one of the photos taken at 7:21 by the AP shows a dead girl in an ambulance. Then, in a picture taken at 10:25am ... 3 hours later .... it shows the same girl being loaded into an ambulance. Yet another picture shows the same girl 20 minutes later, being carried by a rescue worker ... with no ambulance around.
In the ambulance ... out of the ambulance ... no ambulance at all. What does this tell us? The photos were staged. They're propaganda. Who would do such a thing? Hezbollah, of course.
"all im saying is if you dont have the actual photo then people sound just like any tinfoil conspiracy theorist. I also think it looks suspicous....but we need to have a side by side evidence"
Even in 2006, I'm sure the majority of Americans have not used a cloning tool. But I'm also sure that millions have...even the least expensive graphics programs have a cloning tool, now. For anyone with experience, the use of the cloning tool int the photo is painfully obvious and no original is necessary. It will immediately be recognized as a botched job.
Dream on.
Not only would I not buy a house based upon a photograph, I also would not buy a house from someone that photochoped the listing photo.
They should add that to the disclosure form that is filled out when listing the home....I'm aware my agent will use a photo that may not actually represent the real condition of the home.
Or how about a disclosure form for real estate people to fill out?
Check the link over at LGF, because he has added some animated GIFs to show the exact sections of the photo that have been repeated. And you do not need the original to show it was doctored.
The URL for the frame is here:
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events//wl/080601mideast/im:/060805/photos_ts/2006_08_05t152933_450x304_us_mideast;_ylt=AsjnvBODxyp92Fk5vvQNXfblWMcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg--
Lets see how long it lasts....
Wow, that makes the difference obvious and dramatic -- no way that smoke is from the same image....... good find!
I'm thinking it could be from the same image (theoretically) but the foreground has been contrast and sharpness adjusted. However, something doesn't ring right to me that the foreground wouldn't also be smokey with that amount of smoke billowing from the building. I think it is a fake too.
It's even more obvious with this illustration.
We got 'em again!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.