Snapped Shot

Always Watching the All-Seeing Eye

 


Voting has begun!
| See my Photoblog | Live my Photoblog

Fauxtography on the Associated Press Wire? [sticky]

Oof!

Thanks to a couple of links (thanks, Muqata and Aussie Dave!), the server is overwhelmed at the moment. As per our usual routine, we've disabled all dynamic functionality of the website, which means that this is the only article you're going to be seeing for now. My apologies for the outage—will hopefully have everything back up and running as soon as things slow down a bit.

In the meantime, if you have any comments to add to the story below, please send me an e-mail, and I'll append your commentary to the text here. (Or at least, I'll try.) Be sure to include an alias and website if you want your comment to appear on this site permanently, or just say "Anonymous" if you prefer not to be identified.

Thanks for your understanding, as always!

Regards,
Brian


Big boom? Or bigger paste job?


A couple of you have sent in the photo above (thanks to Larry_from_PHX and The Elder), and pointed to a Mere Rhetoric article related. (Also: Are We Lumberjacks?)

Is it Photoshopped? I'm on the fence. There are a number of inconsistencies in the photo, the most questionable of which is the crown of the smoke cloud. There's a little indentation at the top (circled in white) that looks like it could have been retouched with the clone tool. On top of that, the debris looks impossibly big—Unless the Israeli military was exploding a barn, one would think that it would be much smaller.

The Elder points out that the original photograph was taken by AP's Adel Hana, seen on Daylife here and here. Bob Owens also thinks that the debris looks impossibly large, that it should've been broken up into smaller pieces. Not being a demolition expert, I can't really say one way or another whether that'd be the case, but there are certainly some spots in the photo that might have been inserted after the fact (circled in red). I've enhanced the color and contrast on the local copy of the image to hopefully illustrate more clearly the areas in question—And again, I can't stress enough that I'm not convinced that this is a fraud.

I'm trying to get in touch with Adel Hana right now to see if a higher-resolution version of the photograph would be more conclusive. Watch for updates to this article if and when I hear back from him!

Update: Thoughts from The Elder. Also, the kind folks at rotter.net temporarily overwhelmed our server. My apologies for the outage, and hope it's working better now.

There's a Yiddish Report? That's awesome—Thanks for linking, guys!

Also: I've made this article sticky, since it seems to be what's hot for today.

Update: Hooray! Static mode!

Update: Is this a picture of the same explosion, from the opposite side? It sure looks like it might be to me, which would suggest that the photo above is legitimate—Though the date listed is different than Adel Hana's (3 January versus 5 Jan.)

(Thanks to InMontreal down in the comments!)

Update: My blogfather, Charles Johnson of littlegreenfootballs fame, has responded to this controversy via e-mail thusly:

You mean like this? (Adel Hana, AP)
I don't know enough about the terrain to judge. The buildings in the foreground do look Palestinian. I think it must have been a radical telephoto zoom, which could have shortened the background a lot. The debris in the air looks striking, but it could be large pieces of cheap metal roofing material, possibly even blown into air by secondary explosions.

I'm leaning toward not fake. At most, there's a small possibility it was mislabeled - from somewhere else. Adel Hana is in the Gaza area, though, and he's been filing a lot of pictures.

CJ

He adds:

also note that one of the captions says "in Beit Lahia, as seen from Gaza City." So it would have been taken looking north.

Which pretty much sums up my initial thoughts on the matter. For what it's worth, I'm still waiting to hear back from Adel Hana, who apparently doesn't check his e-mail very often. C'est la vie.
 
Snap.com Popups

If they're driving you crazy, please click here to disable them on this website.




Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments [RSS]
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Here is what a handful of random people think about this article. But first, the fine print:
The opinions expressed here, even where approved for display, do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this website, the management, or any other entity or organization, with the exception of the Vast Zionist Conspiracy. Those opinions we represent in style, yo. Please keep the language in these comments clean, as this is intended to be a family-friendly, work-friendly website. Comments not compliant with this policy will be edited for content where necessary. Abusive or otherwise illegal comments will be reported to the proper authorities, up to and including the aforementioned Vast Zionist Conspiracy. The Management cannot and will not be held responsible for commenters making a spectacle of themselves, even if The Management are the said commenters in question. In other words, don't take yourself so seriously, folks. We're all here to discuss the news, and more importantly, to have fun. Now go get yourself into some OCD treatment program—you obviously need it if you actually read all of this mess.

AJS on 2009-01-07 14:25 #1
*This explosion appears to me to be in a post-expansion phase. In other words, I would expect to see debris moving outward in an earlier phase, like where there are rapidly expanding gases and a fireball. This explosion appears to be beyond that point.

I personally think this is touched up. The pieces of debris are conveniently placed right above the 'mushroom cloud' and framed in the pic. If this explosion were true to its form, the debris might still be in the air, but lower and certainly farther away from the explosion.

Also, what is this debris? What do the gazans have that would hold together in large chunks like that? Large plates of steel maybe would hold together while being deformed; but not brick, concrete or any other masonry/stone type of construction. Wood would splinter to innumerable pieces in this large of an explosion.

Of course I caveat by saying I'm no expert; I'm just going with my gut. I hold that I could easily be wrong.
Reply  
Brian C. Ledbetter on 2009-01-07 14:28 #2
*Thanks for the info, AJS. Would love to hear what you other demolition experts think of this!

Regards,
Brian
Reply  
nato762 on 2009-01-07 14:46 #3
*Well as a photographer I can say that the debris definitely looks dropped in. Look at the scale of the debris vs the foreground buildings. That stuff would have to almost as big as those buildings for it to show like it does. Complete bs ..... There would depth of field issues as well with it being in focus in relation to the foreground as well. no way IMO. That debris would be very small that far away.
Reply  
geoffrey s. mendelson on 2009-01-07 14:51 #4
*I'm not an expert, but I think that you've gotten the right idea, but the direction wrong. To me the debris look like they are the right size for the explosion. What looks wrong is the rest of it. My GUESS is that a small explosion was photoshopped onto a picture of houses to make a hand grenade look like an atomic bomb blast. :-)

Notice that there are three different directions to the light in the front, the middle (the debris) and the back.


Geoff.
Reply  
Brian C. Ledbetter on 2009-01-07 15:13 #5
*Geoff,

That is a really interesting point. Did we need a bigger explosion in that picture to "sex up" the damage?

I've taken one of Said Katib's photos (since I could get a hi-res copy of it) and done nothing more than (1) use the lasso/wand tool to select the existing explosion, and (2) use the Transform tool to blow it up to Super Massive size. And here's what I got out of it (and yeah, it's a real hack job. 5 minutes in Photoshop and all..):

http://snappedshot.com/uploads/Intifada2009/ss-testing-transform-tool.gif


Does it prove anything? Not really. But you can now see that the debris that was already there is starting to look a lot bigger relative to the rest of the picture.

Maybe you're on to something... :-)

Regards,
Brian
Reply  
Ray on 2009-01-07 15:14 #6
*Expanding the photo in my graphics program I see that each of the dramatic flying objects surrounding the crown of the explosion cloud - imposed over a gray sky have a 1 or 2 pixel wise "halo" that has RGB components slightly different from the background sky - but always in the same direction and proportions.

The only way this could happen in a real photo is if the objects all had an area painted on them of those color values and if the several objects all happened to align themselves at the moment the photo was taken so that they would appear only around the outside edge of the objects and nowhere else on them. Of course, it is virtually impossible, statistically, for such a thing to occur.

Then there's the amazing fact that the one object seen in front of the explosion cloud happens not to have that halo. (Dropping an object extracted from a lighter background would really show up there.)

These objects were all extracted from another photo that had a different but similar sky background - which is now found in those halos.

I am no graphics specialist. I just use it in my business a lot. But I've often had to take objects out from behind other objects to reduce visual distraction. Getting rid of the 1 or 2 pixel wide tell-tale halo is the most difficult part of it. This guy failed IMO.

Oh yeah, I see FARS in the bottom rt hand corner. If this has anything to do with the Iranian media what does anyone expect?
Reply  
Joe Jordan on 2009-01-07 15:37 #7
*Guys, I am not an expert on photoshop or that kind, so I can not say if is it real or not.
What I can say, 100%....and nobody can desput it...this is not GAZA!!!!!!!!!!
There are no mountains around GAZA!
Gaza is flat, and the Negev desert around it!!!!!
Now, let's see how can it be explained other wise :-)
Reply  
Sean on 2009-01-07 15:53 #8
*This is not GAZA STRIP.

There aren't any mountains near Gaza.

I think this picture is from lebanon war, in 2006.

Pure fake picture.
Reply  
InMontreal on 2009-01-07 16:05 #9
*Regarding the debris itself, consider this photo:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/01/scenes_from_the_gaza_strip.html#photo24
Now, assuming that one isn't photoshopped, this makes this one somewhat plausible, although the debris is still rather large comparatively.

But I definitely concur with the issues of the mountains - doesn't make sense
Reply  
Eyal on 2009-01-07 16:07 #10
*Not Gaza.
The guy is pulling your leg.
This is Lebanese scenery - most probably 2006.
Reply  
Notworthy on 2009-01-07 16:20 #11
*There are no mountains in gaza, but the houses are clearly Pali, not Lebanese as they have black water tanks which are signatory of the Palis and are built like a refugee camp.

The mountains may be Judea mountains which are 40 miles away, but a huge lens could make them seen close. Dunno, just guessing.
Reply  

Add Comment
Comments disabled in static mode. Please see the top of the page for information.