The lighting is pretty weird all round, what with the smoke and all, and the dark tree on the right makes the shadows on the figures seem possible. I can't see any obvious cuts around the figures, but the depth of field just seems too sharp. It's unlikely that both the figures and the background would be in focus. Also the structure on the right looks cut and pasted - pillars end oddly, as does the cornica around the eaves.
Just look at the corners of the building. Light comes from the right, in a diffuse fashion (left side is slightly darker). Now look at the woman : Light comes form the left, and the right side is pitch black.
Complete fake information for the sake of an impressive internet portail frontpage picture. Sad days.
but also look at the street; light on the left, dark on the right.
and the structure, even if it looks copy/pasted, is actually there.
the woman in pic 7 on the BBC site looks pasted in. take a look at photo 15 in the yahoo link. the car in the foreground has shadows on the left side of the vehicle but the dome in the background has shadows on the right.
it looks to me like it was a rainy overcast day with inconsistant lighting.
just because something looks fake doesn't mean it is.
I drew a line to the aproximate shooting location, as I could discern from all the photos of the event. If you notice the lighting angle in the photos here is consistant with the lighting in the google earth screenshot. The location is in shadow from a nearby building. The strange lighting on the people is caused by it being overcast, thus diffusing the light, and having the direct lightsource, which is low and to the right side of the camera, blocked by buildings, which the cathedral isn't subject to.
They are not in total shadow due to the light bounce from the light material of the buildings across the street, which do have a direct LOS to the sun, and the overhead diffuse light from the clouds. Which will net you shadows on the faces away from the indirect light source.
However, the photo may have been gamma corrected for the building, accentuating the shadows on the woman.
ALso all the other people in the same location, have the same shadowing even when the camera angle changes. bbc image 7 and 6. But you have to look close on 6
It's either fake, or they increased the contrast too much to give it a vivid and powerful look/feel. No one's backside would be that shadowed during the day, even if it is overcast. It may have originally not been so dark, it DOES look like they increased the contrast (and used a sharpen filter) by the looks of the rest of the image. Look at the tree in front of the building to the right... it's fuckin black!
Probably some noobie editor wanted to throw some high contrast on there for dramatic effect and ruined the picture. Can't really tell!
My wife is a wedding photographer, and I shoot with her about 20 weddings a year. I always process my own photos from the weddings so I have quite a bit of experience with photo manipulation. This photo is NOT faked, IMO. I think perhaps a little dodging was done to bring out the subjects in the foreground, and that's it. Dodging is also a darkroom technique that has been accepted as a legitimate photojournalism method from what I've heard.
I think it "looks faked" because of how the foreground and background subjects are both in focus (foreground being slightly out of focus). Usually, when an object in the far background is the focal point (church), the foreground objects will appear out of focus. This photograph was shot with a very high f-number to get everything in focus. This slowed the shutter speed, which is why the people have some motion blur.
I met you and yer wife @ the NS Xmas party in vegas!
Also as a pro Photo retoucher & wedding photographer I can say that while it may look a little fake, it isn't for sure. Its had work done, but that doesnt mean its fake. Look at the other photo of the woman walking past. You can see her reflection in the concrete, and the lighting on her face contradicts the lighting on the church also.
They probably had motion blur and smart sharpened it out, and also dodged/lightened the foreground subjects. That can make it look very fake. The shutterspeed they'd need to be at in order to freeze motion like that with no fill flash would either leave the image dark, or motion blurred.
Why would anyone fake this? The pics from the Israel/Lebanon thing where pictures were doctored to be 'more dramatic', but I don't get that any sense of that here. Not saying it is or isn't, but I can't see the point when there are plenty of other pics of the cathedral fire to already sell the story.
I guess we have a photographers war here. My girl, the photographer, says it's fake. There are artifacts in the foreground not consistant with the background. The right side of the subjects is too sharply cut, and she says she thinks she saw that photo as stock photography somewhere.
Why is it that the little girl's forhead (while hidden under a hood) has orange spots on it matching the fire? Someone should ask her before she gets away.
[ QUOTE ]
So you don't think a woman carrying a child away from the fire, covering her mouth makes this more dramatic?
Initially I thought it was fake, but I'm beginning to think more that it's just poorly 'enhanced'.
[/ QUOTE ]
Err, yeah, I see what you mean, but I meant the object of the disaster itself. IIRC, the Lebanon pics were modified to show more smoke from burning buildings, more missiles fired from a fighter jet, that sort of thing - point of interest stuff. This pic looks like a composition the photographer staged, but nothing was done to make the fire look more impressive or whatever.
I think what I should have said that, unlike the Lebanon pics, this isn't falsifying the news by making it look worse than it is. I seem to have trouble explaining things lately
they were taken from about the same angle. The grass touch ups look extremely different, (although sun could have been a factor), but what really gets me are the trees.
I can understand the building being moderately symetrical, but the trees are different in both shots, and the grass median thing is different in both. I can understand a lower angle shot, or even tighter composition, but it still seems odd. maybe the photo was flipped for better composition... i got nuthin. Ive never been there so what do i know :P
There is a street sign on the lower left that exists in both, which is the only similarity between the two, apart from the density of the smoke surrounding the building.
Replies
The lighting is pretty weird all round, what with the smoke and all, and the dark tree on the right makes the shadows on the figures seem possible. I can't see any obvious cuts around the figures, but the depth of field just seems too sharp. It's unlikely that both the figures and the background would be in focus. Also the structure on the right looks cut and pasted - pillars end oddly, as does the cornica around the eaves.
Just look at the corners of the building. Light comes from the right, in a diffuse fashion (left side is slightly darker). Now look at the woman : Light comes form the left, and the right side is pitch black.
Complete fake information for the sake of an impressive internet portail frontpage picture. Sad days.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/5287862.stm
but also look at the street; light on the left, dark on the right.
and the structure, even if it looks copy/pasted, is actually there.
the woman in pic 7 on the BBC site looks pasted in. take a look at photo 15 in the yahoo link. the car in the foreground has shadows on the left side of the vehicle but the dome in the background has shadows on the right.
it looks to me like it was a rainy overcast day with inconsistant lighting.
just because something looks fake doesn't mean it is.
Google Earth Screenshot
I drew a line to the aproximate shooting location, as I could discern from all the photos of the event. If you notice the lighting angle in the photos here is consistant with the lighting in the google earth screenshot. The location is in shadow from a nearby building. The strange lighting on the people is caused by it being overcast, thus diffusing the light, and having the direct lightsource, which is low and to the right side of the camera, blocked by buildings, which the cathedral isn't subject to.
They are not in total shadow due to the light bounce from the light material of the buildings across the street, which do have a direct LOS to the sun, and the overhead diffuse light from the clouds. Which will net you shadows on the faces away from the indirect light source.
However, the photo may have been gamma corrected for the building, accentuating the shadows on the woman.
ALso all the other people in the same location, have the same shadowing even when the camera angle changes. bbc image 7 and 6. But you have to look close on 6
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060825/481/d273f1e1f27a42309affb24bb4f7938e
I'm not convinced it's fake.
Probably some noobie editor wanted to throw some high contrast on there for dramatic effect and ruined the picture. Can't really tell!
I think it "looks faked" because of how the foreground and background subjects are both in focus (foreground being slightly out of focus). Usually, when an object in the far background is the focal point (church), the foreground objects will appear out of focus. This photograph was shot with a very high f-number to get everything in focus. This slowed the shutter speed, which is why the people have some motion blur.
I say real....again.
Also as a pro Photo retoucher & wedding photographer I can say that while it may look a little fake, it isn't for sure. Its had work done, but that doesnt mean its fake. Look at the other photo of the woman walking past. You can see her reflection in the concrete, and the lighting on her face contradicts the lighting on the church also.
They probably had motion blur and smart sharpened it out, and also dodged/lightened the foreground subjects. That can make it look very fake. The shutterspeed they'd need to be at in order to freeze motion like that with no fill flash would either leave the image dark, or motion blurred.
Initially I thought it was fake, but I'm beginning to think more that it's just poorly 'enhanced'.
So you don't think a woman carrying a child away from the fire, covering her mouth makes this more dramatic?
Initially I thought it was fake, but I'm beginning to think more that it's just poorly 'enhanced'.
[/ QUOTE ]
Err, yeah, I see what you mean, but I meant the object of the disaster itself. IIRC, the Lebanon pics were modified to show more smoke from burning buildings, more missiles fired from a fighter jet, that sort of thing - point of interest stuff. This pic looks like a composition the photographer staged, but nothing was done to make the fire look more impressive or whatever.
I think what I should have said that, unlike the Lebanon pics, this isn't falsifying the news by making it look worse than it is. I seem to have trouble explaining things lately
if you look at:
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/w...2968a0ba665441d
then
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/w...affb24bb4f7938e
they were taken from about the same angle. The grass touch ups look extremely different, (although sun could have been a factor), but what really gets me are the trees.
I can understand the building being moderately symetrical, but the trees are different in both shots, and the grass median thing is different in both. I can understand a lower angle shot, or even tighter composition, but it still seems odd. maybe the photo was flipped for better composition... i got nuthin. Ive never been there so what do i know :P
There is a street sign on the lower left that exists in both, which is the only similarity between the two, apart from the density of the smoke surrounding the building.