Reuter's Photoshop Explained

Assuming that an operation like Reuters might start talking about lighting, photo angles, negatives and such, I wanted to document the photoshopping in a point by point fashion. I hope the Images below (1, 2 and Inset) accomplish that. They are enlargements taken from images everyone now has, you can find them here at lgf.

Orient yourself to building 1-A in photo 1 and then find building 2-A in photo 2. They are the same building. Now look for 1-C and 2-C. Due to the miscoloring, you can only see the side wall in photo 2. But, again, that is the same building.

See how in photo 1 building 1-B lies between 1-A and 1-C? So, what's up with photo 2? Simple, there's an extra building there. But not just any building. If you look at the inset you'll see that building 2-D is actually a duplicate of 2-B.

You'll see three white lines in the Inset and in Photo 2. They are there to call your attention to the border of the coloring that was smudged about in the photoshopping process. It's also why building 2-B and 2-D in photo 2 look somewhat different. The smudging took place after the building was inserted, or at the same time. And the red line in photo 2 points out that it's likely the building was replicated again and is simply even more discolored, or masked, if you will.

In essence, look at image 2. You'll see that 2-C and 2-D are actually in the right relative position to one another when compared to photo 1. Also note that buildings 2-B and 2-A are in correct position to one another when compared to image 1. 2-A and 2-C are not because the middle building was replicated during the photoshop. Building 2-B and 2-D are the same building.

Comments

[Randy]

Hey Dan,

You seem to be really good at busting and analyzing this kind of stuff, and I was wondering what you make of the negative image I created of the Hajj photo

http://www.rightwinged.com/2006/08/photoshopping_the_news_reuters.html

Something just seems really weird, but I can't put my finger on it.

[larwyn]

Charles Johnson LGF got death threat from Reuters' employee.

getting "Gateway timeout" at LGF - inundated or attacked?????

Be Safe
and let's get the bastards and accept their apology as media is accepting Mel Gibson's. Reuters is very real and deadly ANTI-SEMITE!

[Heli Pilot]

The Mainstream Media wants to cast us all as characters in a bad Mexican Novella. News is not news any more, it is the News Opera.

There must be antagonists, and there must be perepetual strife in this bad act.

It reminds me of Jim Carey in 'The Truman Show'. Now we are all being cast as Truman.

This is hard evidence that a new media age is dawning. If MSM doesn't get back to unbiased reporting, the market forces that exist in the 'Blogosphere' - with Truth as the commodity, will run them off the tracks like a freight train rollin.

Shhhhhh... what's that sound I hear a comin'?

[Randy]

I totally agre Heli Pilot, we can't trust ANYTHING we hear in the media now, unless we can back it up with multiple other sources. We shouldn't have to spend an entire day proving a story to ourselves, but the lies and distortion of the media has created just such an environment. Sick, and sad really when you consider how many people will never know about these kind of "busts".

[Mark A. York]

What BS about nothing. Smoke is smoke and a hit is a hit. That's the truth of the picture. Unless you can prove no strike occurred? As an aside my editing class involved working with photoshop. Why is that? Now indiginous stringers inventing staged events is something to watch for. The altering decision did not come from above in Reuters. That's the impression you want to make. It's false.

[Brian]

I am struggling trying to understand why an artist would go to such great lengths to alter a photo in a manner that really didn't add anything to the original, other than possibly making it appear dark and sinister. Catching them in the act of altering a photo, and doing a bad job of it at that, still leaves the "why", and I have yet to see anyone answer that.

I'm as suspicious of Reuters as anyone else, but all this seems to expose is 1) the artists they employ need training in the use of Photoshop, and 2) they have no problem performing minor alterations of photos for effect, rather than submitting them as originally shot.

Yes, Reuters is busted, but for what? Looks to me like they're busted for bad artistry. Either of the photos essentially show the same thing, with the exception that the altered version is darker and more sinister.

[sadie]

Personally, I prefer the Godzilla version.