“Ridin’ the Dog”
Ah, memories. 2008. First time I ever got “front-paged” on Reddit was with this 'shop.
What bugs me is the article only shows the afters, not the before.
The Wired link has some before and afters.
I remember back in 2006 when all Adnan Hajj’s photos were removed from Reuters after it found his photos were altered (poorly at that…clone tool gone crazy). Because of that new rules got drawn up to stop it from happening again (or at least hold just the photographer responsible for any problems). At the time I was working with Photoshop on a daily basis and came across the very long and detailed acceptable edits that would be allowed to original files used for journalistic purposes. Every Photoshop tool available had specific limitations. Nowadays I wish there was even a fraction of those rules for all of the over altered images of people that we see in magazines everyday.
This is what I don’t get.
This photo was distributed to news outlets around the world before the manipulation was discovered by Little Green Footballs, an American political blog.
“Discovered”?? Surely anyone could see that the smoke had been very badly cloned in an amateurish fashion. I use PS a lot so maybe I’m more likely to pick up on it but even from the briefest glance it was clear it’d be 'shooped. How does a photo library not see that?
I totally agree! How many sets of eyes saw that picture before it was released? How not one person said a thing is beyond my comprehension.
The side by side shows how crazy the alterations to the original file are.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.