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
I use Firefox with image zoom, once I blow it up to 400% the manipulated pixels appear as square blocks five times bigger then the other pixels around them.
The area around the guy in the hat has some fine detail work done to it as if they paid special attention to getting smoke around him right.
There is no question that this is faked. It is obvious to me from the first moment I saw if, for the same reason that it was obvious that the TANG memo was also a fake -- personal experience.
Anyone who was alive in 1977 and using a typewriter and who was also alive in 2004 and using a word processor, knew that the TANG memo could not have been typed in 1977. It was just not possible to match the spacing, kerning, font, etc. as LGF so easily demonstrated.
This is the same thing. I've been using the clone tool for years, always trying to minimize the repeating pattern effect that's seen in this photo. I could have done the job a lot better, too.
No quesion about it -- the photo was manipulated with more smoke being added.
And you know what? It won't make a bit of difference to anyone in the MSM.
Can yall remove the alterations from the original?
I wonder how soon we will see this story on TV?
/sarcasm off
Two can play this game...
Agreed. I use clone a lot. It has been manipulated.
"Reuters is an Arab owned news service, no?"
I'm not sure. Guessing ... I don't think they are ... but you'd think they were by how they report news.
So, it's preatty clear that both photos are fake jobs, eh? I wondered. The smoke in the second one looked a lot like that from the first one.
"Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon."
I guess that means they can make up whatever they want! Now it all makes sense.
"But someone could come with an off the wall explanation"
Shhh! We only "enhanced" the photography. :)
"And that's the way it is. Beirut in flames. Innocence and hope murdered by the IDF. Dan Rather, CBS news reporting. Courage!"
The man in the hat has a halo of fine pixels around him, like he has been implanted into the picture.
The ORGINIAL...is what someone was saying they needed to see...not just another copy of the same photo.
Just a fast attempt: not trying for perfection.
God, I love that movie.
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.