Photojournalists prepping images for competitions often walk a fine line between the enhancement of a photograph and outright alteration. Swedish photojournalist Paul Hansen, winner of the 2012 World Press Photo Award, has denied that his winning image of two dead Palestinian children in a funeral procession, is a forgery. A forensic image analyst named Neal Krawetz came forward on Monday with an allegation that the image is a composite, an egregious manipulation that may invalidate the award. Yesterday, World Press Photo issued a statement verifying the authenticity of the image.
On Monday, the web site Extremetech illustrated the analysis that Krawetz used in challenging the veracity of the image. The basis for the claim stems from the XMP data for the JPG which indicates that three images were combined on January 4, two weeks prior to the WP deadline. The second challenge to the image concerns the tonality in the faces of the subjects as they appear unnaturally warm and bright given the angle of the sun and the lack of light in the alley where the image was captured.
Hansen has denied any wrongdoing and addressed the allegations to news.com.au. "In the post-process toning and balancing of the uneven light in the alleyway, I developed the raw file with different density to use the natural light instead of dodging and burning. In effect to recreate what the eye sees and get a larger dynamic range.
"To put it simply, it's the same file - developed over itself - the same thing you did with negatives when you scanned them."
According to Extremetech, Hansen has yet to provide the actual RAW file for the image in his defense. World Press Photo has yet to comment on the award and respond to the allegations. The image appears on the opening page of the World Press Photo web site and in the image gallery.
The ability to manipulate a photograph has always been a part of photography. Digital technologies, however, have fundamentally altered the landscape with tools far more advanced than the simple burning and dodging practices of the wet darkroom. As the National Press Photographer's Association's digital code of ethics makes clear, "accurate representation is the benchmark of the profession."
UPDATE: Yesterday, World Press Photo came out with a public statement online that defended Paul Hansen's image, confirming that post-production done to the file was consistent with Hansen's statement to news.com.au and within the bounds of propriety for the competition. Citing an analysis of the RAW and JPG files by Dr. Hany Farid, Professor of Computer Science at Dartmouth College and co-founder and CTO of Fourandsix Technologies, Kevin Connor, CEO of Fourandsix Technologies and Eduard de Kam, digital photography expert NIDF (Nederlands Instituut voor Digitale Fotografie), World Press debunked the XMP analysis, Error Level analysis and Shadow analysis claims used in Neal Krawetz's assessment of wrongdoing.
The experts concluded: “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."
Do you think the image oversteps the boundaries of basic image processing?
I'm pretty sure more altered images have been used in the press before now. I'd like to see the original unedited version before passing judgement though.
The press have altered images for years, in order to have an image suit their balance of a story/article.
with digital editing, most things are possible. And without a way to prove things one way or another, we're at the mercy of the creator's word.
There are ways to gather evidence such as looking at the raw negative. Anything added to the image that was not there in the negative (or conversely) is definitely off limits in photojournalism.
However, and this is the bigger question, at what point do developing techniques start to change the veracity of the image.
Tonal corrections are exposure adjustments. It not the same as altering a image.
It's like Armstrong. Everyone is doping, and everyone knows it. Does it make it right? No. It's just a matter of who gets caught, and what can be proven afterwards.
_____________________________
http://www.michaelkormos.com
Wow, thats actually super offensive. I can guarantee you that in photojournalism its a small minority "doping" by photoshopping, and as one of the many that doesn't photoshop, I'm insulted. I do realize, though, that as someone who from the looks of their website doesn't touch journalism work or probably doesn't understand it, I understand you probably just have no concept of the community.
I think the article on ExtremeTech is nothing more than a sensational headline. They call the photo a fake, then they admit it was merely enhanced for lighting. Journalism or not, I don't think dodge and burn discredit the integrity of a photo.
So "doping" is dodging and burning? I like how I'm being voted down while you're getting voted up for being vague in the first place.
You're correct in your second statement. Your first statement was vague enough that I still think its far off-base.
Yes the picture above looks really unnatural, look at the light in the girl's cheeks... but wait... hold on... am I the only one seeing that the picture posted here in fstoppers is different from the one on the http://www.worldpressphoto.org/ home page? DId fstoppers even altered the image further to hotter the discussion :P ... to me it looks more saturated, crispier and even the sky looks HDRish ... the original picture does not look "that" unnatural to me. :)
There are two versions out there, one for magazine printing (which is more saturated, but given how thin paper magazine printers tend to wash out the colors it evens out) and one for digital viewing (the one on worldpressphoto is like that).
IS FSTOPPERS USING PRINT VERSIONS OF PHOTOS FOR SCREEN USE IN ORDER TO MAKE THEIR FALSE HEADLINES MORE BELIEVABLE? Apparently.
those people love to do sh*t like that...parade their dead in the streets as if it gives them justification to kill more people through revenge.....i have absolutely no hope there will ever be peace in that region of this planet
I assume you mean photographers when you say "those people". Otherwise you are ignoring that this is a photography site and clearly not an appropriate place to air your political/racial/cultural grievances.
Then again, there is a possibility you are too self involved to realize it (you did use the phrase "those people"), so let me say it clearly :
THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPHY AND CREATIVE FORUM. Save your brain rot for some place else.
There will be no peace anywhere with prejudice and a lack of empathy running amok.
Ugly and inappropriate - maybe you don't see that your hate is part of the problem.
I really hate "Photoshopped" as a term. It doesn't mean anything.
What if I just "Lightroomed" it?
I prefer to "Aperture" my photos. Now that's a catchphrase!
When a large community recognizes a term as such, it can mean something, that's usually how words become recognized.
I agree with Mike. What does it actually mean? Retouched? Air-Brushed? Skin smoothed? Tonal/color adjustments? Elements removed? Elements added? Digital composite?
It is too imprecise. It really doesn't mean anything particular, so it has no real meaning.
I prefer "retouched". Mostly because I never know whether or not I should capitalize "Photoshopped" as a verb. :-/
Woud I have done that much editing to the photo? No. But do I care that he did? Also no. He didn't change the focus of the image, he didn't add things that weren't there or take away things that were, he just altered the exposure in a very complicated way. He could have used other ways to brighten up those faces without doing what sounds like HDR and it would still have the same impact. That is what matters to me. What i happening i the image really happened and he was there to capture it.
And to be fair, stand in front of a upset crowd seems pretty frightening to me.
It's a chop.
I can tell by the pixels and from having seen many chops in my time.
/troll
I am not a photojournalist so as a member of the intended audience I ask myself do I feel lied to? The answer is no, I don't.
It's called HDR. It's a useful tool per the photographer's description--increases the dynamic range to something more akin to what the eye sees. It's not cheating. Some people hate it or haven't bothered to learn HDR techniques, but it's a valid and useful way to get great looking photos. Seems like some people are jealous, too lazy to learn HDR, grasping at straws of "traditional" approaches, etc. I call B.S. If you shoot in RAW and manipulate the RAW file, it's essentially no different that HDR in terms of processing and manipulating the data the sensor captured. HDR is just doing that to a greater degree, and stacking/layering different RAW files to get the desired effect.
Exactly. This isn't a game, so how is it cheating? LYING would probably be a more proper term, but in this case, was it a lie? Was any subject or object in the image implanted or removed? No. The lighting was changed. EXPOSURE. That's it. I'm so tired of people calling foul because they themselves are at a level of sensitivity that makes this whole thing ridiculous.
As I see - lighting may come bounced from white window blinds (there is another WHITE blind in background). NOTHING magical. It could also be simple flash bounced off wall (no white wall required in this case).
So allegations are ridiculous. Those "forensic" specialist probably never took a single photograph..
I also guess that there is artificial light (a light bulb) on one of those buildings just off camera left and maybe others behind the photographer. That would cause the (albeit very enhanced) warm glow on the faces.
Pretty straight forward. Just show the world the original raw file.
I personally have an issue with any type of altering in photo journalism. The issue is not necessarily the types of altering that is done to the picture but what the results are. While that does not seem to be the case with this picture (the funeral apparently did happen), there are several famous instances of photos being manipulated to change the subject, mood, and even intent of the picture. Simple cropping can do just that. Photojournalists are supposed to report the news via their cameras and not alter the news or create their own version of the news. highlighting the pain on someone's face is not altering the news but the same techniques can be used to add other elements (blood, rocket fire holes in the building, etc) which would change the news
Agreed 100%.. Talk to any (Film) photo journalist from the 1940s to 1980s...people who
covered events like WW2 or the Vietnam war.. Their photos look so much more real.. No
post processing.. Just gritty realism captured 100% on film.. that has been completely
lost today thanks to people over doing it in photoshop. As a photo journalist and
professional photographer you should be able to create the image 100% in your camera
without the aid of any digital software.. Now with that being said, I do agree if you shoot
in RAW that the images look flat and some contrast and color balancing is needed. But
when you start changing lighting,highlights and shadows or anything else.. That is clear
manipulation of the actual image and event that is taking place.. and certainly has no
place in professional photo journalism..
That must be why the likes of James Nachtwey and their assistants spend hours if not days in the dark room dodging and burning dozens of the same print until they get the image looking exactly how they want it.
Then again, some of the most famous WW2 photographs were staged outright, including the famous image of raising the flag at Iwo Jima.
its accepted in virtually any other field of photography, let these photojournalist have their fun with post-processing too, as long the picture shows whatever they saw and push the true message to the viewer, as long nothing was added and that its not a composite of multiple shots and that the not heavily manipulated, I am totally fine with it. Keep in mind that "too much post processing" is different for everyone and its too much compare to what? never seen someone shoot raw files without any sort of post processing. Raw files are not good too look at, they are flat, lack of contrast and needs to be processed. Lets remember, too much post processing is what? where do we draw the line. If he only manipulated the exposure from certain area of the picture. he used the dynamic range that was available to him to make it more appealing , I don't think its manipulated to a point where the message is different. Remember, our camera records an incredible broad range of light and digital processing gives any photographer the ability to use this at their advantage to create images that will look allot more balanced. He deserve every awards giving to him, for being there, capturing that moment so the world can enjoy.
When I first saw this photo I knew that some enhancements has been done, maybe more than my personal taste, however, I really liked it as I felt it tells the story and its very emotional.
I guess that WPP "and many other contests" became more tolerant to this kind of enhancements and this could affect more and more journalists!!!
Does it overstep the boundaries of basic image processing? No. Does it alter the focus on the subject? Also no. The photographer did not altered anything he just enhanced the lighting which is done way before Photoshop was conceived.
IT was not manipulated, according to swedish photo site..
Contrast and tonality enhancements have been an acceptable aspect of photojournalism for as long as I can remember, and I have been a professional shooter since 1982. Such print enhancements were a trademark of the legendary photojournalist, Eugene Smith.
It makes no difference whether you dodge, burn, and treat a print with selenium toner, or make similar color and tonal enhancements in Photoshop. What matters is that the image is not manipulated in ways in which it becomes mendacious. As for what would be considered mendacious, compositing is a textbook example of unacceptable manipulation, imo.
KC
Does a raw file exist to allow post-capture exposure changes? Yes. Did the image bring attention to a particular human interest story? Yes. Is the WPPA satisfied? Yes. Time to move on.
If one agrees that Dodging & Burning is OK - mainly because that was one of a few things we could do in a wet darkroom - then surely one must disagree with the winning entry? Just one look at the pic tells us straight away that a lot more than D&B'ing was done here. OK maybe the photo is an accurate depiction of the event, (in as much as nothing was added or deleted) but I'll bet the actual event looked nothing like this. This pic looks like something out of Disney. Whatever happened to realistic photojournalism? I am not a photojournolist but I have been around long enough and to know enough of them to know what a tough gig it is. If this pic was taken by the likes of Don McCullum in black & white the initial impact of the image would be tremendous.
I mainly take nature shots these days and I struggle to keep the pic and the colours etc as real as possible, as lifelike as possible. How an established and prestigious competition such as the WP could allow such a 'doctored' image to win a Press award is beyond me! The poor dead child in the front of the pic, looks almost like something out of a Hollywood animation studio, and they call this photojournalism?
Well not for me.