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
You beat me to it...
Wow, I'm a Photoshop amateur, and even I could do better than that!!!
Definitely looks to me like someone using the Photoshop clone stamp. You can tell that the rounded portion of smoke was copied from the left side of the smoke plume and repeatedly stamped but when they copied it they caught a little of the light colored sky to the left and that was repeated in each stamp. It's clear as day. Each circular portion of smoke, bounded by the lighter color on the left, is identical in size and shape. There's no way that's natural.
This is the image hotlinked at LGF.
Very poor quality fraud! Someone doesn't know how to use a clone brush!
The MSM has that age old saying a bit altered:
A Picture is Worth a Thousand EDITS!
You don't really need side by side evidence with the "original" to see that the repeating patterns in this smoke do not appear natural in any way but I'll agree with you that no one will admit that there's definitive proof of this alteration until and unless and original is displayed.
That certainly will be necessary to convince the "straights." I know from experience that many people don't automatically spot the repeating pattern.
But there's a reason so many Photoshoppers are jumping up and down here: this is a rookie mistake. It's easy to do, hard to overcome, and everybody who works with Photoshop has struggled with it. When you do this for a living, it SCREAMS out at you.
Kinda like the fonts thing on the CBS story.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/060805/photos_ts/2006_08_05t152933_450x304_us_mideast
The photo on Yahoo is one pixel higher, but shows evidence of the cloning tool. The opacity and turbulence of the smoke looks wrong.
I adjusted the brightness in photoshop by manipulating the light curves and added an arrow to more clearly show the retouching.
Fake but accurate???
(Paging Dan Rather)
Or this:
I've retouched old family photos - to repair stains and tears. If you copy and past a section of a photo using the same section you copied, it's very obvious. This photo definitely looks doctored.
OOPS!
past = paste
100% fake. I don't have it installed right now, was waiting for someone to put it through a filter.
Anyone got an image correlation tool handy? We need to throw some math on this image.
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.
