How the 2013 World Press Photo of the Year was faked with Photoshop
t turns out that the 2013 World Press Photo of the Year — the largest and most prestigious press photography award — was, in actual fact, a fake.
t turns out that the 2013 World Press Photo of the Year — the largest and most prestigious press photography award — was, in actual fact, a fake.
3 comments
1 | RadicalModerate Tue, May 14, 2013 1:18:51pm |
Extreme Tech has some serious backpedaling to do, as forensic analysis of the photo by some of the world’s foremost experts in digital imagery has deemed that it is not a faked/composited picture.
Digital photography experts confirm the integrity of Paul Hansen’s image files
Tue, 05/14/2013 - 19:33
Following recent discussion and speculation in the media about the photograph by Paul Hansen, selected as World Press Photo of the Year 2012 by the contest jury, World Press Photo has submitted the image files for a forensic analysis. The purpose of the investigation into the authenticity and editing history of the picture is to curtail any further speculation about the integrity of the image and to establish that it is not a composite.
Paul Hansen has previously described in detail how he processed the image file and World Press Photo has not had any reason to question his explanation. He has now again fully cooperated in the investigation carried out by independent experts. After examining the RAW file and the JPEG image entered in the competition, these are the experts’ conclusions:
“We have reviewed the RAW image, as supplied by World Press Photo, and the resulting published JPEG image. It is clear that the published photo was retouched with respect to both global and local color and tone. Beyond this, however, we find no evidence of significant photo manipulation or compositing. Furthermore, the analysis purporting photo manipulation is deeply flawed, as described briefly below.”
2 | Randall Gross Tue, May 14, 2013 3:08:40pm |
Apparently the claim that it’s a fake is fake.
3 | stabby Wed, May 15, 2013 5:13:56pm |
I looked at what is supposedly the original and the winner, to me the obvious differences are in the faces of the dead children, the color has been drained from them and the contrast raised.
Making them artificially colorless makes them LOOK dead while in the original, deeply saturated color (overly saturated even) makes them look no less alive than the adults. And the raised contrast draws the eye to them.
Presumably the photographer wanted the bodies to look a bit more lifeless in order to underline their deaths.