Lipush
Gold Member
Pallywood being cought, again?
This photo, Gaza burial, taken by Paul Hensen, has won the "Photo of the year" award.
However, things just might not be what they seem.
An independent expert in the field of image forensics, Eduard de Kam, has analyzed the original Raw file, compared it to the prize-winning JPEG file, and concluded that “all of [the pixels] are exactly in the same place.” He also says that the final photo has experienced “a fair amount of post-production” (as in, dodging, burning, etc.), which probably explains a lot of the seemingly incredible lighting in the image.
Neal Krawetz, the forensic analyst who originally claimed that the image was significantly altered, has issued a response to the World Press Photo’s independent analysis. In short, despite the independent analysis, Krawetz still believes he is vindicated in saying the award-winning photo has been significantly modified. There’s a roll-over image on his site that shows two different versions of the image — and it quite clearly shows that the award-winning photo has been subject to more than just dodging/burning. The original blog post remains below — but we have inserted new section that discusses the new revelations.
How the 2013 World Press Photo of the Year was faked with Photoshop | ExtremeTech
Gotta love those~!
This photo, Gaza burial, taken by Paul Hensen, has won the "Photo of the year" award.
However, things just might not be what they seem.
An independent expert in the field of image forensics, Eduard de Kam, has analyzed the original Raw file, compared it to the prize-winning JPEG file, and concluded that “all of [the pixels] are exactly in the same place.” He also says that the final photo has experienced “a fair amount of post-production” (as in, dodging, burning, etc.), which probably explains a lot of the seemingly incredible lighting in the image.
Neal Krawetz, the forensic analyst who originally claimed that the image was significantly altered, has issued a response to the World Press Photo’s independent analysis. In short, despite the independent analysis, Krawetz still believes he is vindicated in saying the award-winning photo has been significantly modified. There’s a roll-over image on his site that shows two different versions of the image — and it quite clearly shows that the award-winning photo has been subject to more than just dodging/burning. The original blog post remains below — but we have inserted new section that discusses the new revelations.
How the 2013 World Press Photo of the Year was faked with Photoshop | ExtremeTech
Gotta love those~!
Last edited:
