I think you misunderstood the point of te article, it's not trying to prove that the scene was fake nor staged, but the photo was digitally edited and not worthy of the award.
Digital editing aside, the scene seems to be quite real as it was covered by multiple news outlets and with different photos. Here is the link from the article to the time's photo (by the Reuters) : http://world.time.com/2012/11/15/a-new-gaza-war-israel-and-p...
I'm not in any way claiming that the scene was fake or staged. I was expressing an opinion about how it 'looked to me'. i.e. when I look at this photograph the colours and lighting remind me of pictures that have been taken in a studio or with artificial lighting. I was making that point in the context of this winning a competition for press photography where you would not expect a photo to have the look of something seen in a studio.
That is all I was saying.
If I wanted to make the claim that something was faked I would say so.
I am claiming nothing about the event, just the look of this individual photograph and its merits independent of the event it depicts.
You did not make this implication but the parent post we are discussing certainly did.
To be fair, the implication was probably not made maliciously, and a more appropriate response would have been "This got past the pros because such lighting is possible to achieve in outdoor photography, although it requires a level of skill, equipment, luck, post-processing, and aesthetic risk that make it uncommon outside studio settings."
Though the fact that someone could be this... blind or heartless, I'm not sure what it is... to think this is a good "look" for this source material, might warrant a post on DehumanizationNews or something - while PoliticalNews commenters could point out that this hack job essentially turned a bunch of grieving people into an "advancing mob", and that the photographer is a total asshole for that etc.
Personally, today I learned one new thing, how to figure out the position of an unseen light source via hard shadows. Awesome!
So no. Not all digital photos can accurately be said to be edited; there is such a thing as an original digital file, and a distinction to be drawn between that file and an edited version of the original.
If the photo's made up, it's no better than a poster. It can be drawn with skill and make the same point, but it is not a photograph and so does not deserve a photography award.
It is despicable to kill children.
It is not despicable to point out that they are dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_interests_%28rheto...
Perhaps the fact that they can't defend themselves? Or that you can't say that you just made the world better eliminating some dangerous terrorists? Or the fact that they had their whole life to live? You only have to choose.
That's pretty chilling.
Firstly, muslims would never show images of dead people, but brushing that aside (and that would require explaining why hamas would have no problem with showing a few palestinian atheists world-wide. Also would those people behaving against islam's principles be in a large angry mob on the streets of Gaza ? I mean, that is avoided by most pious muslims in Gaza I hear).
Where are the wounds ? A bombardment kills by using shrapnel - lots of it - as bullets, or by crushing. Obviously these children haven't been crushed. The right child's face is full of sand, but the white burial clots is immaculate. They are lying flat ... euhm ... how did that happen ? (In case you don't know there's a reason they call a corpse "a stiff"). If they died through bombardment they wouldn't have been lying, they would have been curled up. Since nobody collects dead bodies immediately after a bombardment (would have to be in 2 hours or less), they would experience rigor mortis in the curled up position. At that point the only way to get them into a lying position would be to break all of their bones, which takes time and a lot of effort. The bodies in the picture are obviously not experiencing rigor mortis, they are flexible and move with the arms of those men ... so what is it ?
Either these kids died in the last 60 minutes before the picture was taken (where's the blood ? I hear even muslims have blood. And ahem, all muscles relax, which would color such an immaculate burial cloth yellow and brown for reasons I won't go into, again where are those discolorations ?). Furthermore the eyes wouldn't stay closed. Or they're past rigor mortis, dead for at least 3 days ... so why is there skin wet ? Why is there no loss of skin tone ? And frankly a corpse 3 days old smells to the point that no emotion will allow you to ignore that, and the smell is easily detected from 10 meters away in open air (no matter how exiting a medical student tells you it is, never open a drawer with a corpse, just don't, you'll still smell it constantly a week later).
The easy explanation for all of this is very, very simple : those kids are alive (they even look like they're holding their eyes closed, although that could be an impression). Lying about it would be perfectly in line with islamic practice (probably important for large angry mobs in gaze, don't you think ?), it would explain the lack of wounds, lack of blood/other bodily fluids, the eyes, the skin tone, the flexibility of the children, everything.
That would of course mean that it is a complete lie, and the photographer is very likely complicit.
What BS is this? I follow world news for 20+ years. There have been countless, literally tens of thousands, pictures of dead people in muslim countries.
>Frankly, looking at the other fotos I find it quite hard to believe those children are even dead. (...) where's the blood? I hear even muslims have blood.
Really? Really?
And it goes downhill from there, with your explanations of why they are not really dead, of the "I've seen a lot of CSI on TV" quality.
Spoken like a true ignorant that has never gone 5 minutes away from his hometown in rural Idaho (or TV-land, which is the same).
All the BS about rigor mortis etc, are not even TV-doctor quality, but what is especially disturbing is the lack of humanity and empathy.
I'm fine with people using Occams Razor even if the conclusion that brings about is uncomfortable for me. But I'm not OK if the argument made lacks basic human dignity.
> (where's the blood ? I hear even muslims have blood. And ahem, all muscles relax, which would color such an immaculate burial cloth yellow and brown for reasons I won't go into, again where are those discolorations ?)
Yes, they dirtied and wrapped a living child in a cloth to stage a dead child and forgot to simulate piss and shit stains necessary to pass your analysis. Huge slipup on their part. Not possible that a parent or relative would first take care to ensure the dignity of their child to remain intact before bringing them out to show their grief in front of their community.
> And frankly a corpse 3 days old smells to the point that no emotion will allow you to ignore that
You might be surprised.
There are stories around of mothers tending to their stillborn fetus for weeks. I think one even made a blog about it.
I suppose we can conclude that you are falling victim to the limits of your own experience and imagination. Otherwise known as ignorance.
Ever heard of dodge and burn, in Photoshop?
Also try "staging" an angry group of people, protesting and lamenting their dead children and lost relatives after yet another raid.
Would anybody have the gal to say the same things for the Boston victims?
A bunch of photographs today "look faked" - sometimes that's great (and lucky) lighting, or gentle tweaking of levels, or outright fakery. And the fakey look is what makes it a remarkable photo. Those faces really pop out.
I'm surprised it won if they didn't get to see the RAW image. But maybe I misread the article.
I'm confused. Your "in other words" conflict with your previous statement. (1) "jgc is not saying he believes the photograph has been staged, but that it looks like it has been". (2) "In other words, how did a photo that is so obviously fake win a photography contest?"
So, is he saying that it is fake (and "obviously" so), or that it merely "looks fake"?
And, may I ask, what is that "obviously fake" about it, besides color adjustments?
Now, it's true that color adjustment is frowned upon in certain news circles, but it's used a lot in magazine reporting, and it's not that different than what you could achieve with your choice of camera (or film in a previous era). That kind of alteration might, or might not, be acceptable for a photo competition.
As for "obviously fake" as in "he staged it by putting the people in a specific position", "had lights" etc, I don't see any signs about that -- or even find it that possible given the circumstances. Those are not some "damn arabs, doing PR work and pretending to be sad and enraged". Those are parents, neighbors and friends, holding their dead children. The way some people commented here, they might as well been subhumans in the picture.
For the composition part, if a photographer is half competent, he can get a very good composition out of such as scene without even trying. And he's not some tourist with his point and shoot.
(Disclaimer: I've done some professional photography back in the day, but mostly travel work and interviews / portraits, not news).
So a picture doesn't have to "exhibit realism" to win such a competition. It just has to be real. If it looks uncanny, all the better.
The line is draw at actual image manipulation. Compositing people in, changing a face, removing elements etc.
As for color adjustments and light fixes, those are sometimes frowned upon, other time totally accepted in journalistic work. Anytime a photo editor gets a jpeg from the camera RAW, some work of that kind has already been done. Including the camera letting you pick several options, from sharpening to color balance (and more traditional stuff like bokeh, depth of field and shutter speed, each having it's own artistic effect. Does a 1 sec photograph of a running river look "realistic"?)
I've seen pictures made on an iPhone with stuff like Instagram in Afganistan/Iraq by photojournalists that won many awards, despite looking totally unrealistic with regards to neutral tone/color coming out of a camera. E.g:
http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blogs/iphone-photos-afgh...
I am in no way claiming that this event did not occur or that the scene was staged, only that the photograph looks staged and in my opinion isn't a good press photo and therefore shouldn't have won a competition for press photos. I am claiming nothing about the event, just the look of this individual photograph and its merits independent of the event it depicts.