Not completely in agreement about the difference in photos increasing the "menace" level.

He broke the "law" and the LAw won.

Who is worse - the NY Times or the LA Times? I thought O'reilly was going to have a stroke last night after his tirade against the LA Times.

I really don't see 'menace'. I'm wondering why he took the old man pointing in the first pic? What is he doing anyway? "hey your boots untied?"

#1 -- It absolutely changes the composition and the "perceived" menace level. It appears that not only were the images cut and pasted, but the Iraqi and the GI were enlarged to stand out from the rest. I perceive that as an attempt to get me to notice that the GI is "not being nice" to the Iraqi.
The guy should never be hired as a "journalist" again.

So, has Mr. Walski ben hired by The Mirror yet?

Looking down the wrong end of a loaded gun would be menacing to me...

So who is in the last picture twice? The guy behind the soldier's knee, is also in front of his knee, right? I'm amazed someone spotted it -- I doubt Iraqi Waldo would have noticed it himself.

Compared to the rest of their "altered" journalism, this seems like a tempest in a teapot.

Those pictures are so reminiscent of what happens
in Israel by biased photographers (many of whom are arabs) to show the world IDF dominance and submission of the poor palestinians.
Given a slight angle of the camera while extending the telephoto lens achieves this quite effectively.
Bastards.

Santini --
you're right. I really didn't pay attention to the sizing until you pointed it out.

Ummm, it looks to me like this British soldier was menacing a man with a baby even before the picture was doctored.

He was simply showing what he *knows* to be the *Truth*, even if reality decided to not cooperate.

Jouralists do it everyday with words, why not pictures.

The bias is there if you want to see it, but it wouldn't be hard to dismiss it. Personally, knowing the LAT, I would go with the bias theory. Regardless, the dude altered, and the dude got fired; I suppose the LAT deserves credit for that.

Without seeing the expression on the soldier's face very well, it's hard to tell what he was actually trying to convey.

The pictures could just as easily be out of sequence; the "second" pic (in your example) showing the Iraqi getting up to take his kid to the diaper changing station, and the "first" pic showing him making his way back through the crowd and the soldier pointing out the loos. The Iraqi's head is even turned.

I'm sure a troll or two can make up far more disturbing interpretations than even the altered picture suggests.

Either way, altering the photo was a bigtime journalistic no-no and the guy deserved to lose his job.

I don't think he increased the "menace level". He actually reduced it, so that he could increase the "drama level" (father and child, in center) and not be accused of overly negative coverage of our troops.

I wonder how many other pictures are similarly doctored. Catching the LA Times is probably like giving a motorist a speeding ticket, you catch them once, but for every time their ticketed, they in fact committed 1000s of traffic infractions.

The menacing aspect of the doctored photo is readily apparent. Boo-hoo Brits mean to sad man with teenie child! Brit have big gun, he scary to sad Iraqi innocent man oppressed by American hegemonical oil power grab!

The fact that a fake photo showing a coalition troop "menacing" Iraqis was chosen over ALL the other photos taken that day, it tells you something about the type of photos that the LA times is looking for! It also says something about the photos that are being taken in the field- is this the worst they've got?

It couldn't have been more perfect if you planted it yourself to expose their bias- and it was done by one of their own.

---Brian

As Santini notes, the more hostile soldier figure is enlarged.

Brits are mean to babies -- that's the message.

This is silly.
There is nothing more menacing about the 3rd (manipulated) photo.

In fact, in #3 the weapon points at an angle which is LESS dangerous to the man with child than in #1 or #2.

Politics aside, IMHO this was all about VISUAL SPACE.
Trying to fill a crowded, busy space with two larger figures.

I would argue the #3 composition was trying to emphasize two figures, rather than a busy crowd, where the two figures are BOTH protagonists, not good (Iraqi) and bad (American).

The fact they caught it is good.
The fact the guy got fired for it is somewhat questionable, but that's the editor's job, to keep things real and under control.

I think the fact that the photographer was fired alludes to possible problems they had with this guy in the past, and this was just one too many.

But they're not as biased as Fox, because Fox ... you know, waves flags and stuff

Remember also to look at the doctored picture through the eyes of a leftist. They are terrified of guns. And in the modified photo, the man and baby have been brought forward to be sort of in the line of fire of the soldier's SA80.

Much ado about nothing. The first photo is essentially the same as the third (published) photo with the removal of the guy in the white shirt.

Bad Photoshop technique, undoubtedly. Poor journalism and a breach of ethics, likely. A calculated effort to portray the soldier in a bad light, unlikely. The body language is identical in the first and third, the context remains the same regardless of whther or not you can see the guys legs.

Alfred E. Neuman -

I would disagree. In the second picture, the gun appears to be aimed more directly at the father and child, than in the first and third shots. At least, to this layman's eyes, and I suspect to most who will see these pictures.

Frank,

Linear-wise I see what you mean. However, in the second picture, the rifle appears to be pointing down a little towards the ground (which is less threatening) and the soldier's finger appears to be outside the trigger guard.

In the third/first pictures, the soldier has the weapon level, which is threatening, and his finger is clearly on the trigger.

Ah, it's all nitpicking. Who the hell knows.

My journalism training came at the hands of the military public affairs progam - hardly a bastion of objectivity.

HOWEVER - it was made very very clear (oh so clear) that "Thou shalt not alter the composition of photos."

Digital photography was just coming around and I remember discussions about whether it was even permissable to alter levels of light and still call it a "photo" (rather than "photo art" or something equally odd).

One of the best things about photography, I'd say, is its ability, singular among mediums, to capture what is in front of the lens exactly as it is.

The advent of digital photographic technology has made it awfully tempting for photographers to improve upon reality - listen to photographers talk about pictures and you'll see it: "that would be an incredible shot if that guy was just over THERE," etc.

I'd say "bravo" to the LA Times for communicating through actions that altering a picture is unacceptable. The "it's a better shot" argument is a bad one.

I'm sure a soldier's bayonet in the chest of an old lady would be a better shot than the same bayonet in an Iraqi soldier, but that's something I wouldn't want to see printed just because it made a better picture.

#23 - Frank - I agree totally with you. The level of menace is enormous when you increase the size of the guy pointing the gun, then move a father and baby more or less in front of him.

I'm a photographer who also uses Photoshop (only when I really have to). Small details in a photograph make huge differences in perception, often at an unconscious level.

#9

You need to read the Guardian! Doctoring photos is a Mossad technique! LA Times is just another Zionist media outlet.

Note that the gentleman wearing the scarf in the bottom left of the first and third photos, appears twice in the third photo. He also appears immediately behind and to the right of the soldier's knee, with his head hidden behind said knee.

Can any of y'all find any other "doubles"?

Like I said, I don't think it was done to increase the "threat level" from the soldier. But let there be no misunderstanding, I think it is a reprehensible violation of journalists' ethics, every bad as Janet Cook's (of the Washington Post) fabricated story of "Jimmy the Heroin Addict" two decades ago, and Charles and all the rest are right to call attention to it.

So this wasn't done directly in support of their ideology. But just think of what they COULD do.

Those of you who are defending this photographer are crazy. ANY altering of news photos is not just bad ethics, it is a danger to history. What if we had taken a bunch of photos of Holocaust victims during World War II into p-shop and fattened them up to "even out the composition"?

This is an abhorrent and irresposibile act that only moral relativizers could say is "no big deal." Just because photos can't be trusted implicitly does not mean that those who alter news photos to fix "visual space" issues or create an impression that didn't exist in reality should not be condemned and punished in the strongest ways possible.

Words can be fisked after the fact- faked photos create a powerful impression of truth that is hard to erase in the minds of viewers. How about those who saw the photos yesterday, thought "menacing," and then don't see the retraction?

----brian

He doctored the photo.

Either a photo is a fact or it isn't.

The photographer lied.

just wait, soon you'll see all kinds of photos on Al Jizz where all allied soldiers are wearing yalmulkes rather than berets and helmets -"SEE! EETS DA JOOOOOOS!" that would would be actually decreasing the intimidation factor as well, right?

I 'm gonna have to chime in and agree that there is NO increase in menace because of the doctoring. I think he was going for drama, hoping for some kind of award with a really beautiful "human" shot. For that to happen, he needed some kind of more visible interaction between the "protagonists" in the two photos, so he spliced together this composition. Unethical, yes, but biased, no. That's my take on it, anyway.

If you're going to doctor a photo, you might as well turn it into something interesting. I can barely tell the difference between the real photos and the fake one. This guy threw his job away for nothing.

Am I the only one to notice the tank in the background of number 2? It also appears those are two different British soldiers, shot from 2 different angles. Either way, I'm glad the lying, cheating scum that decided to make it appear as if Iraqi civillians were about to be shot got fired.

I wonder, if the photo shown by the BBC (and several other news outlets) was doctored as well. The one showing the Brit pointing a gun at a surrendering Iraqi's head while another Brit gave him some water.

I'll be far more wary of photos proporting to show allied troops "being mean" next time. Good going, LAT, I trust ya'll even less now.

#29 brian
Point well taken. It's like the old argument, "Just because thievery is inevitable, doesn't mean we shouldn't punish thieves."

Keelie -

You've actually forced me to reconsider my earlier position. I was focusing on the aim of the gun, rather than the distance between the soldier and the family.

I thought it was just two halves of the first two pictures pasted together, and touched up at the junction.

Looking yet again, I realize that not only have they been shifted around, but they have been increased in size to make them appear closer. This is truly truly appalling.

The funny thing is that, while the soldier was moved so that his feet are lower in the picture, and thus appears "to scale" (though closer), the father still has his feet planted in the same place, and appears to be big. I actually thought he was, until I saw the "little guy" when I looked more carefully at the second photo.

So you and Charles were right, the doctored photo is indeed MORE menacing.

A total disgrace to the profession of journalism.

Hack job, but conveying a real change in meaning of the photos.

In the original #1, it looks as if the British soldier is reminding everyone to stay seated, motioning with a downward, open hand and looking in the direction of the moving Iraqi, who is not looking at him. He may be looking at someone in the crowd who is translating for him or something (pure supposition).

In the second, the British soldier is looking away, but the man with child is looking at him.

In the altered version:

1) the two figures of focus are combined to make them the center of attention, coalition soldier dominating the foreground. In addition, the British soldier has been enlarged disproportionally to the right-side seated figures.

2) The angle of expressions on the figures of focus imply eye contact. This gives the Iraqi a pleading posture and appearance, while the soldier seems to be singling attention and gestures on just the man with child.

3) the barrel of the rifle draws a geometric line with the standing man's head. This could only happen by enlarging the figures to different levels. The implication of that is clear, even though the logical angle is not congruent with the rifle being aimed at the standing man.

So, viscerally, it is a large, bullying coalition soldier yelling at a plaintive Iraqi with child and implicitly threatening him with the rifle.

It may or may not have been intentional, but journalistic bias can come out during photo editing without requiring conscious effort. That's precisely why photo editing is frowned upon by media watchdog groups.

I see that the doctored photo speaks of the "benevolent" "imperialistic" hand of the US over the poor defenceless Iraqi, not so much of "menace". The original true photos convey the sense of 'we are all somewhere where we really don't want to be, let's just get along and get this over with..."
This is therefore 'heavy spin-doctoring' to tow the LA Times editorial line.
Bad magic - and like Muhammed el-Dura - (where exactly is that boy's body, anyway??!!) - a brutal hi-tech assault on historical veracity.
Fire the guy.

oops - I meant "...toe the LA Times editorial line.

Charles -

it might be fun to institute a

Road Kill on the Way to Baghdad

hall of shame. It could include those lovely individuals who have been formally sanctioned by their organizations (e.g., Arnett), as well as those folks otherwise noteworthy for their appallingly idiotic behavior (e.g., Madonna, Morf).

The list gets bigger everyday!

You know this is a terrible thing to do but I would have missed this story cause I watch Fox News...

And like last weeks "What Do You Think" Segment in The Onion,

"I watch the Fox News Channel, because they're unbiased and support the war 100 percent."

/sarcasm off

I've gotten to the point where I don't believe any of these Socialist lackeys.
If I can easily verify their anti-American trash, fine.
If I can't, I'm not working too damn hard to find any verification.
These fuckwit morons are so biased, that doctoring photos comes naturally.

Can you say "Rachel Corrie"?

I don't read that trash anymore. I stick to trusted, verifiable internet sources.

And Fox News!
LOL

Look closely at the mouth on the soldier. In the original, it is pretty dark in that area and hard to see the soldier's face. In the new version, the chin has been brightened, making it appear that the soldier is simulatneously:

- Shouting at man with baby
- Gesturing at man with baby
- Holding finger on the trigger of his gun

The more I look, the more it is apparent that the photographer was not changing composition, he was creating a false impression of content.

Verdict: Menacing

----brian

I'm sure Reuters will hire this guy immediately.

Given that terrible matte halo he left he might as well have got out the alien skin filters and put flames coming out of the rifle and setting the crown on fire.

:) What a crock!

By crown I meant crowd.

Actually, the photographer did the Coalition forces a favor!

He photoshopped OUT the bullets that errupted from the soldier's rifle.

Then he patched together the kid's mangled head. Nifty trick, that.

/sarcasm off

Right out of the NY Times' playbook:

[Link: www.honestreporting.com...]

Charles,

What no "Dogs Playing Poker"? I thought you were going to have a field day with these pictures.

FARK!!!!! Give all of them Antenna, and a third eye in the forhead and make the soldier wear a French Maid outfit and put Godzilla in the background! FARK!!!!

I do this sort of thing every day as part of my job, but I am not a journalist. Here's my analysis of the techniques he might have used.
The camo on the thigh has been enhanced (history brush on multiply), there is more detail in the boot (same technique), the face has been lightened (apply image on screen or history brush on screen or dodge tool), his shoulder-patch is sharper (unsharp mask). I couldn't be absolutely certain but the thought ocurred to me that he might have widened his upper upper body just a teenie bit with free transform. Just a smidge. Maybe I'm seeing things.
And the soldier has been made larger and put closer to the viewer so that he takes up more space. This photographer did not just cut the soldier out and paste him in the other picture. He spent some time at this. An hour or 2.

He was just trying to show the brits as they truly are:
8 feet tall, with huge guns, trying to kill babies.

If you blow up the picture in Photoshop you will see that the digital content between the soldiers legs is highly suspect. It looks like it came from the guy directly behind him in photo #2 who appears to be turning. This would suggest a possible 4th photo.

Re: #12 wordwarp sarcastically penned:

He was simply showing what he *knows* to be the *Truth*, even if reality decided to not cooperate.

Movie directors who are supposedly doing historical pieces do this all the time. They change history, and then make excuses about the "limitations of their medium" (typically the need to be big and visual, and the need to limit the film to 2 hours).

However it almost gets to be this Platonic way of thinking that there is this Ideal Truth out there that can be intellectually grasped, but which can't be found in reality. The real world is always falling short of it, a mere shadow of what's "Really real". Which allows these guys to doctor the film, or alter history, so they can convey some Platonic conception of Truth, all the while feeling that their Truth is more true that what really happened.

Well said, DebP, well said.

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! You CAN'T make me believe that this sweet reporter would do this.
WAAAAHHHH! Pictures don't lie! Neither does the media!
WAAAAHHH! You don't play fair! I'm taking my Barbies and going home! WAAAAHHHH!

Me and Rachel, both.

Frank IMC - good posts. On mark

Alfred E Newman

Ah, it's all nitpicking. Who the hell knows.

Journalism is on a new cusp of professional ethics....knowing that their collective careers depend on credibility (no snickers, please)...they have come down hard in self-policing their field and removing plagarists and outright fabricators from their ranks for over a century.

Now they have to enact new codes to the profession to ensure photos and video are never digitally altered without a companion text explaining extactly what was altered.

Sometimes it makes perfect sense. Photos are cleaned up and digitally enhanced for better resolution. NASA introduces false colors into Hubble shots at times to better show different celestial or planetary structures. Succulent models are airbrushed (old time technology) or "digitally pefected) in ads or pictures or movies to gret rid of say...one huge juicy zit dead center on the woman's forehead.

But if you are "selling" the public or your paying audience "reality"...journalism has an obligation not to defraud or decieve.

Bottom line:

The photog lied.

Put a fork in him.

He's done.

It doesn't matter at all whether the doctored photo is more menacing, less menacing, or equally menacing, journalists are not supposed to create fake news, they are not supposed to doctor photos and pass them off as authentic. whoever did it, whoever knew about it and did nothing, and whoever approved of it should be fired. End of story.

Let's give LAT some credit for firing the scumbag.

I've not photoshopped before, perhaps someone can correct me:

It appears to involve only 2 photos -- the soldier and everything to the left of the soldier from pic #1 was pasted onto pic #2; color was lightened, and the whole pic was then zoomed until the soldier filled the entire frame, top to bottom (probably to hide the blend).

Comments?

as a seasoned daily news photographer, a journeyman high-end scanner operator, now employed as a prepress manager (ie I run Macs) ... I noticed the duplicated guys right away, in fact, I was laughing pretty hard at the photog's ineptitude ... and the he should never be allowed to pick up a camera in anger again, the slimy bastard ...

California Press Photographers Association Photographer of the year 2001 Brian Walski, Los Angeles Times

his gallery here

[Link: cppaonline.org...]

Allied soldier: "Talk to the hand, [bigoted word]! Told you last time I don't care if your son's slipping into shock."

But for those of you who don't see any intent to deceive, why go through all the planning and effort of falsifying history to come up with a photo that's no better than the original two?

[b]An obvious Photoshop job?

[Link: www.msnbc.com...]

A Palestinian child throwing a stone at an Israeli M-60 Patton aka Magach tank... but the child:
-is surrounded by photoshop artifacts
-throws no shadow

Musa Al-Shrar with the photo credit... and the photo was from Agence-France Press.
[/b]

#63 wrote: "why go through all the planning and effort of falsifying history to come up with a photo that's no better than the original two?"

Exactly, his "improve the composition" nonsense is a dodge. The composition is not significantly improved (except for that annoying vertical pole in the first shot... but if eliminating that were the photographer's intent, why not just brush it out, or shave to right 50 pixels from the shot, or zoom until the pole were gone.)

Obviously he wanted that soldier's arm dominating the man with a baby. He wanted reality to be one way, but damnitall, it wouldn't budge for him.

Perhaps he could get a job photographing peace protesters, and making them look peaceful.

I took a look at his personal site. One can only wonder how many of his other "prize-winning photos" were photoshopped, and/or he assumed an angle to "tell a story" that just wasn't true (e.g., there is a photo of an Afghan woman or child with a gun hanging down beside her head. The gun looks too large, indicating a lot of space between the two). The gun with a flower stuck in the end is contrived, as well. Pic.

I'm sure Reuters will hire this guy immediately.

FWIW, Reuters had a little photojournalist egg on its face recently when one of their NHL game photos showed TWO pucks in the net. No one was able to explain how that one happened.

But I don't view the manipulation as anything more than an attempt to improve the composition of the image. The eye contact between the father and soldier, along with the heightened sense of danger due to the gun being leveled, made it a more emotional image... albeit a ficitious one. My feeling was that in all three images the soldier is attempting to protect the civilians.

The LA Times was correct for canning him... But they also would have canned him if he had only PS'ed out the phone pole in the background.

Sorry for two posts. I accidently pressed the post button.

Opened the photo in PS and zoomed to 300%.

Conclusion: the kid is photoshopped in, the leg is artifacted, jagged, but the utility line shadow under the kid is smooth.

-that the lines on the tank are regular
-the shadows of the rocks on the ground. And that green thing. The boy's shadow is not consistent.
-the boy is glowing in black.

My guess is X was in boy's position. X was removed. Boy was inserted.

I just piddle around in photoshop... a photoshop expert should analyze the picture.

I received this email from some one a few days ago:
[blockquote]All right, I get paid to do Photoshop work:

Both pics have been altered, but it is difficult to tell to what extent because of the jpeg artifacting in the images. SOMETHING was definitely removed from in front of the tank - aside from the clone work, there is also a disparty in the luminence values ansit - they're not natural, and have definitely been messed with.

The picture with the tank has definitely been manipulated, but you can't tell from this pic to what extent. It could be the result of the normal color correction and clean up + jpeg artifcating, or it could be something else. I'd have to have the original digital file in front of me to tell you.[/blockquote]

Here is a detailed analysis:
[Link: www.imagedump.com...]

I'm surprised we haven't yet had a comment from a Postmodernist Professor, along the lines of:

"There's no such thing as reality, so the 'doctored' photos are no more unreal than the 'real' photos. Everything is about serving the interests of particular groups, and the photographer chose to serve the interests of the 'other' rather than of the American hegemony. For this, he was ruthlessly sacrificed by agents of that hegemony."

Thanks for the link to the photographer's photos. I have a lot of Photoshop experience and am attuned to p-shop fakery because I've done it myself. I looked over some of his other photos. There are some pics here that are possibly showing manipulation.

These are from Afghanistan.

1)

[Link: cppaonline.org...]

Suspicious depth-of-field issues with the boy. He could easily have been placed in to provide the human interest of the child coupled with guns. The kid is too big and has a suspicious fuzzy halo around him as well. There is rubbertstamping plain as day in the grass at the bottom of the photo. This grass would have been used to fit the external photo of the boy into the context of the guns in the foreground. Why fake it except to do that?

2)

[Link: cppaonline.org...]

Does that marigold look real? I could be faked so easily to create the effect I have to wonder. It's a classic variation of 60s protest photos that would immediately appeal to any photo editor. The marigold appears to have a suspicious lack of sharpness compared to the rest of the photo. The lighting isn't right either.

Someone else take a look at let me know if I'm paranoid or not. If this guy has been passing off numerous fake photos, he should be discredited and outted to the full extent of the punditry.

----brian

Sorry! All of that was confusing. Here is the synopsis.

Picture of Palestinian boy throwing stones at Israeli tank:
[Link: www.msnbc.com...]

Musa Al-Shrar with the photo credit.
The photo was from Agence-France Press.

The boy was most likely photoshopped. He's surrounded by photoshop artifacts, emits a black glow and casts an abnormal shadow (if he casts one at all).

Some photoshop monkey's analysis:
[Link: www.imagedump.com...]

What's the next step?

plot thickens

here Walski refutes actual victims accounts of an incident where 'journalists' were fired on by iraqis, to implicate U.S. marines in the incident:

[Link: www.thesunlink.com...]

La Inbredmedia likes him, but as a 'reporter'? and not a photographer

[Link: www.la.indymedia.org...]

perspective all askew here. that man isnt behind those bars:

[Link: www.foto8.com...]

#28: Didn't this feature used to appear in the Sunday comics? Let's see - hair is different, lamp is missing, curtains are shorter . . .

I do not believe that any of these photos are doctored, and believe me, I have no love lost for libs. The photos are taken at 3 different times, with the photographer taking a one-two steps forward between them. All the people (not just the soldier) sitting on the ground in the final photo are bigger than in the first one. There are some other fairly obvious explanations why, for example, the pole is invisible in the final photo (just look at the position of a rughead sitting to the right). Sorry people, but you got yourself worked-up for nothing.

It seems to me that some of the people (or parts of them) on the far left are duplicated on the right side of the soldier.
You can see it clearly in this close-up shot.

#76 -

I do not believe that any of these photos are doctored, and believe me, I have no love lost for libs.

Read the LA Times link. The photographer admitted to doctoring them.

#76 Lyin' eyes and ly'in fingers,you have it all.

Rightwing Jew,

and besides if these are progressive as in happened in chronological order, the guy tothe left decides to go from sitting position to turned around to sitting EXACTLY the way he was, within say half a second? I say half a second because the guy hunched over carying his kid is not comfortably sitting on the ground and is going to move at least a little bit, even if he's "scared". thanks for the input but look at it a bit more closely next time

Admittedly, I'm no expert in this sort of thing, but it looks to me as if the photographer cut the first picture at the soldier's front (i.e. - he simply carefully snipped alone the line of the soldier in the direction he's facing), and then layered that over the second photo. The reason the soldier seems larger is because the composite was cropped to hide the obviousness of the cut.

I may take the photos myself and see if I can do exactly what I just said, and make it look "right". (That way, I'll also see if my theory is right.)

Considering that the soldier has his mouth open (possibly as if shouting - look very carefully at pics 1 and 3), the picture looks to me as if he's looking at the man with the child and shouting something like "Stop right there, mister!" In other words, something that looks threatening.

"Right wing jew" (what's with the lower case "j"?) wrote:

I do not believe that any of these photos are doctored, and believe me, I have no love lost for libs. ... Sorry people, but you got yourself worked-up for nothing.

Would the fact that the photographer has admitted doctoring the picture have any effect on your opinion?

#76.

Erm, he sort of admitted it.

"photographer who was fired for altering a front page photo says he did it to “improve the composition.”"

If he hadn't doctored the photographs, but admitted it anyway - presumably this would have been done for some abstract devotion to art, I imagine he would be particularly out of favour with his wife this evening - (Wives don't, in my experience, appreciate the grand manner, especially when it hits their bank accounts).

Seems so obvious to me - it's a misplaced Fark Photoshop contest entry.

This guy isn't that good obviously. He should be working for the Iraqi News. Their sophistication level are the same.

I did what #81 suggested. I overlayed the two originals in Photoshop and following the most basic instructions for merging two photos came up with the people arrangement in the third. After cropping and pushing up the contrast I came up with something almost identical to the published picture. 10 minutes at most. (I've done it many times before.)

Most photographers I know would consider the published picture to be the better composition -- independent of any messages you may think are being sent. The photographer here is out in the middle of Iraq, probably working on a portable PC. I seriously doubt he was aiming for a Pulitzer or creating a message -- just trying to get a better pic. Really, really dumb for a photojournalist to do.

#83.
Dang!
The story of my life, always last off the mark.

Talk about "fictitious", Mr. Moore.

I do find it interesting that in the final pic different hands and faces are darkened or lightened. Also check out the contrast (?) of the camo pattern, the "white" bag in front of the soldier's knees, and the patch of dirt due south of it (much darker). Maybe all this could have been done with the pass of a couple of filters. But maybe the guy was bored as can be and was just messing around. I dabble with some old software, but am nowhere near good enough to say.

Either way though, it was definitely wrong and it was right to have him sent packing.

This photographer is an idiot.

I do this kind of (photo manipulation) work all the time, only for legit reasons - I am pretty good at what I do, and pretty well versed on when and why you might want to do this kind of work. NEVER in a "responsible" journalistic environment - EVER!

This guy did not do anything to help his photo, composition wise or any other way, he only accomplished destroying both the photo's and his integrity. Maybe the Enquirer or The Globe has a position for him.

Idiot.

disgusting leftist reporters...

they should be loaded in a B-52 and released over baghdad from the top... Then I'll take a picture of 'em crashing on the roof of one of saddam's palace - WITH NO COMPOSITION

#77 PDM LOL! Dare you to send it to the LA Times. :)

#82 Charles,

"Right wing jew" (what's with the lower case "j"?) wrote:

...bla bla bla...

Would the fact that the photographer has admitted doctoring the picture have any effect on your opinion?

Oh...and facts are supposed to make a difference?

#92 J.D.

Why LAT? It's not good enough for Al-Guardian?
Honestly, it might work in the Daily Mirror (sory about that).

It's interesting that the LA Times' own explanation of the manipulation only notes that the fake photo is a composite of the original two, without elaborating on the other editing that was done. (Though, to be honest the dodging, burning, sharpening, and other darkroom-like tweaks don't bother me all that much.)

It's think it's debatable whether the second image is deliberately more threatening. But wholesale manipulation for the purpose of making a composition more pleasing or dramatic is a bad enough precedent all by itself, and something a photojournalist has no business doing while at work.

I'm glad the LA Times did the right thing, though I have to wonder why the photographer thought the paper would let him get away with this.

#94 Bryan,

I have to wonder why the photographer thought the paper would let him get away with this.

Because they do the same thing with the news?

Re: Fake pic of a kid throwing a rock at an Israeli tank.

What's the point? The Israelis aren't going to do anything to him. The only way he could get hurt is if some Palestinian tries to shoot at the tank and hits the kid.

If it was a kid throwing a rock at an tank in some arab country, that would be a photo.

Look closer. In the 3rd picture, the Brit soldier is shouting, and making eye contact with the Iraqi man with the baby who appears to be advancing towards him. Also there is a hand apparent in the right side of the pic which has materialized and seems to ask the soldier to cease and desist his "mennacing posture". The eye of the viewer is immediately rivoted with the apparent angry or threatened soldier and the helpless and vulnerable man with the baby.

1. LA Times runs anti-American article by hack idiotoralist
2. LA Times sees vision of lost dollars by the abandoning of LA Times subscriptions in droves
3. LA Times photojournalist does horrible Photoshop hack of photo
4. LA Times fires photojournalist
5. Subscribers say, "Got to give 'em credit for firing photojournalist"
6. Many LA Times subscribers decide not to bail

Does anyone notice the squiggly outlines around the people? If the first two pictures aren't doctored, what is with the squiggles?

I imagine that the squiggles you're speaking of are the ones around the people and appear as a "aura" (sp?) - a result of the transition between the colors. Digital photos aren't perfect.
The lousy Photoshop job on the third photo shows up, though - expecially the transition between the outstretched arm and the sky. Also, the hand appears to be discolored in the third.

I notice those squiggles/auras appear whenever I optimize an image for the web. Generally a digital photo with good resolution is quite large in size. Most graphics programs have a utility to reduce that file size. Those auras usually show up when the resolution of the image is compromised to reduce the file size.

What is nice to see is where he has his trigger finger, over the trigger guard. Nice to see grace under pressure.

makes a change from the realistic goings-on of British soldiers being menaced by American soldiers.
friendly fire my arse.

I live near Los Angeles and I never read the Times. You can give them all the credit you want but they fired the photographer for getting caught, not for altering the picture. They would also fire any reporter who submitted a false story that embarassed them. It is the loss of face and revenue that motivate them, not the truth. They have no journalistic ethics, or any other ethics for that matter.
I do read the Orange County Register, listen to several news radio stations and watch a couple of news broadcasts on TV. While they may be biased and need to be taken with a grain or two of salt, no one in southern California can compete with the Times for inventing or modifying stories to promote their views.
All in all, while it appears the Times is a paper, calling it a newspaper is onionesque.

You're all misinterpreting. The third photo is not engineered to appear more "menacing". The soldier is simply blessing the baby... actually, he's giving a sermon on the mount... actually, he's instructing the father to kneel down before Jehova... actually, he's saying there's no more room at the inn... actually...

why is the sky above the soldier's hand lighter in the third picture? it does not match any of the others.

also the sky around the man and child is lighter

why? techique wise that is.

it has the effect of making the sainted man and child glow with an aura

madonna and child effect

interesting

Charles,

Yes, I saw the admission of the LAT. So, the idiot was too lazy to make a couple of steps forward to achieve basically the same result. I am not a professional photographer, but still I can take a picture of somebody towering over somebody else, or holding somebody else in their palm without the help of Photoshop.

About the lowercase j. In my first language, nationality is written in lowercase (unless you start a sentence with it) -- evrei; therefore, I do not pay much attention to it.

To #79 -- screw yourself, pal.

Look, having been a photjournalist, doctoring photos for *content* is extremelyt unethical and should result in dismissal. Historically, alterations to remove technical problems (scratches, dust, and color correction to accurate representation) is allowed. There has always been a grey area, even in the days of darkroom. Anything altered that does not appear in context on film (or in DIT) is not right and results in the Press being less trusted. All journalist should know this. The problem is, when you get to the high career levels, ethics go out the window. Peter Jenning violates journalism ethics every day with words. He should be next!

The sports pages are often doctored. a ball will be moved into the *composition* to show howclose a play was, so this photo running doesn't surprise me. I agree with the speeding ticket theory. The *news* isn't what is real, it's the perception of the news. The media, whether cnn or fox IS SLANTED.
It is the propaganda machine. Everyone sees somethng else.