World Press Photo Of The Year Was NOT Faked - Verified By Experts

A couple days ago there was a thread discussing the possibility that the winner of the prestigious World Press Photo of the Year award was a fraud.

World Press Photo of the Year was faked with Photoshop

Well according to a review by various experts the photo is not a fraud.

World Press Photo of the Year was NOT faked: Award-winning image of two Palestinian children being carried to funeral verified by experts

Tech blogger called the award-winning photo a fake

Photographer has always vigorously denied the allegations

World Press Photo has backed the photographer

Photo shows two young brothers' bodies being carried to a funeral in Gaza

This award-winning image of two Palestinian children killed in an Israeli missile strike being carried to their funeral captured the judge's attention at the World Press Photo of the Year.

But since then the photographer Paul Hansen has been accused of manipulating the striking image by splicing together three different photos.

Now after a thorough investigation examining the RAW file and the JPEG image entered in the competition, the World Press Photo have announced the photograph was not faked.

'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.

"Retouching" photos seems to be a common practice in these competitions so other than the slight adjustments that Word Press acknowledges, this photo WAS NOT manipulated such as originally claimed. The photagrapher was accused of splicing three different images.

In response to the damning allegations being cleared, Mr Hansen, who has worked for the daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter since 2000, told MailOnline: 'I feel relieved that three independent forensic/computer experts in two different countries have made a clear statement.

Thankfully the Mr Hansen is still being awarded this prestigious prize as he is a worthy recipient, I find the picture to be rather moving in an emotional way.

Neal Krawetz and Extremetech.com who are the original accusers, have in fact been proven to be incorrect so hopefully they retract their claims to at least keep some credibility going forward.

I wonder what their intentions were to attempt and discredit this photo?



Personally I have a couple theories but rather not speculate at this time.

WOW, a very sad and POWERFUL photo.

I think the discrediting was as much ignorance as anything else. Prior to taking a course on Photoshop and another on Photography/Digital Image preparation in commercial graphics? I never would have believed that EVERY photo we see is "photoshop'ed". Every single one...with almost 0 exception. Changes for tone, color, warmth, exposure and contrast (with layers within the layers of meaning to each of those categories) are not just common ...but 100% standard practice.

The ignorance comes in when people think "Photoshop'ed" means altered in any way for meaning and context ...not simply appearance and visual fidelity. They change EVERYTHING because photos rarely ever pop the way we want them to on the shutter/sensor click. They need...help...to look like they're supposed to. That doesn't mean anything, in even small ways, was changed for the meaning of what the photo shows happening.

This photo, I'l willing to bet, isn't worth much more than a passing glance and comment about the ghoulish nature of photojournalism ....until they spent hours in Photoshop to get the environment and ambiance feeling 'just so'...and then it becomes a world award winner. Nothing of substance has changed...just everything about how it feels to look at.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I certainly understand the point you are making about the "photo-shopped" craze that people are so quick to yell and you are correct that pretty much any picture we see now days is manipulated to some degree.

My main concern was that this was a rather bold accusation by Neal Krawetz which go beyond the usual photo-shop that we are used to and come to expect.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with changing the tones and contrast of a picture to enhance the image as long as the changes made are not misleading to the viewer.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Oh, I see nothing wrong with it either. It was the primary focus (no pun intended) of the entire college level photography course, in fact. Shooting the picture was about 25% of the process. Post shoot processing was 75% of it. Photoshop.

One lesson used to end the bickering (At least one student in every class...never fails..HAS to know more than the instructor and insist they're wrong) came in a way I'll not forget.

The instructor brought in a BIG stack of covers to major national magazines. Everything from 16 to Cosmo to National Geographic and Time Magazine. Dozens of them. ALL covers that appeared, in published form. All covers we recognized from the magazines each of us had interest in..

Every one of them..without exception..used to show the gross photoshop errors made and published as final covers to the public. ....both to show they are all modified (which they are), and to show even major publishers can't hire good help these days.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


My apologies, it seems I misinterpreted a portion of your original post, thanks for clarifying

Thank you for sharing your own personal experiences in relation to the topic as well.

Cheers.

It looks fake to me.

Just seems to perfect...even the children don't look real. They look like dolls.

I would have preferred to see it the way it was actually captured, without any touch-ups.

Originally posted by Hopechest
It looks fake to me.

Just seems to perfect...even the children don't look real. They look like dolls.

I would have preferred to see it the way it was actually captured, without any touch-ups.

Without having the before and after shots to compare, your statement is folly. You have no idea what the original image looked like or if indeed it would have been something you would prefer....Faulty logic!

Originally posted by Hopechest
It looks fake to me.

Just seems to perfect...even the children don't look real. They look like dolls.

I would have preferred to see it the way it was actually captured, without any touch-ups.

Well it has already been established that it is not fake.

Perhaps you can look up the contact info for Paul Hansen and ask if he will provide you with the untouched version of the photo?

Originally posted by Hopechest
It looks fake to me.

Just seems to perfect...even the children don't look real. They look like dolls.

I would have preferred to see it the way it was actually captured, without any touch-ups.

Enhanced image or not the elements in it are real and showing the work of murderous Israelis.

That cannot be faked.

Originally posted by Hopechest
It looks fake to me.

Just seems to perfect...even the children don't look real. They look like dolls.

I would have preferred to see it the way it was actually captured, without any touch-ups.

Enhancements are not "fakes".

Looks like Neal Krawetz from Extremetech is not very good at his job. That's a serious accusation for having no proof and ultimately being wrong. Oh well, he'll probably think twice in the future, probably lost a lot of credibility with this one.

As a photographer myself, I have to say that is one amazing photo. Very nice editing from RAW as well.

Originally posted by Kharron
Looks like Neal Krawetz from Extremetech is not very good at his job. That's a serious accusation for having no proof and ultimately being wrong. Oh well, he'll probably think twice in the future, probably lost a lot of credibility with this one.

which btw is not bad at all in the long run since he was the big name concerning the fake obama birth certificate... so... bait and switch?

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

World Press Photo Of The Year Was NOT Faked - Verified By Experts

If a UFO image or video comes along and someone calls it a fake, we all leap on board. No one wants to be caught liking it and then be seen as being fooled.
One step further, if you can get a face and a voice on video calling it a fake, the website that claims to deny ignorance, will file it under their 'HOAX' header. (Sorry guys but, it's true.)

But... when it comes to politics?

OMG, is it real, or is it Memorex?

Reality and truth have no meaning anywhere anymore. It all depends on satisfying the mass preference. It is whatever you want it to be.

reply to post by redoubt


I am not quite sure where you are coming from with your comparison of UFO pictures that cannot be proven to this picture that has been proven to be authentic by various experts. He was accused of using three separate images to create the award winning picture only to be vindicated afterwards. The whole fiasco was whether or not he spliced three images together, which he did not, end of story.

My opinion is that your comparison has no relevance to topic which is being discussed.

Please feel free to correct me if I misread your post and portrayed it incorrectly because I am still a bit puzzled as to what you actually meant in your post.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


The photo is a fake. If it looks fake, it probably is. As a photographer, I can tell you that the photo looks way too photoshopped and not even realistic. The damn shadows on the buildings don't even co-ordinate.

As conspiracy theorists you should look at his from all angles, shouldn't you?

Admitted, the photo is "hart verskerend" (not as expressive in English, but means it does "break the heart").

I don't think I should add anything to this.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

I am not quite sure where you are coming from with your comparison of UFO pictures that cannot be proven to this picture that has been proven to be authentic by various experts.

My apologies.

First, let's look at this straight on...

We live in an age when most still and moving imagery is digital.
We live in an age where $100 or less will give you softwear that can create images and video almost indistinguishable from the real thing.
We live in an age where trust is a very worn and broken commodity due to its constant abuse from nearly every quarter.

Where does that leave us?

In an age where the term 'expert' is applied so freely and haphazardly that it has no foundation of trust.

Any image, any video... be it of big foot or a UFO or our favorite overseas political slant, can be either real or not.

How do we choose?

Well, most often, we follow our preferences. If we want that image from the war in Lower Slobovia to make one side look bad or the other look worse, then we buy into it. And because expertise is so cheap and so available to a media that has no foundation of morality in the halls of trust, it can pass with the drop of a hanky.

So, like UFOs... where we dodge the responsibility of actually trying to be right over the effort not to be wrong... we take the friendly garden path in other subject matter.

In sum... what this person or that says regarding the value of anything in the way of digital imagery or video, it has nothing to do with a single thing that can withstand contest. We choose based on our personal feelings and then rely on the term 'expert' to back us up.

No sides taken here... because none are worthy... in my humble opinion

reply to post by AlwaysWonder

The photo is a fake. If it looks fake, it probably is.

You are quite obviously....wrong.

I don't care if your a photographer or not...the exif data has been analysed....the picture is genuine.....you need to deal with it.

You know it just goes to show how some people refuse to accept the reality of the situation.

It seems some, even if presented with verifiable information, from a trustworthy source are still incapable of looking past their own silly armchair expertise.

I understand that we are all conspiracy theorists here folks, but come on. It's been analyzed every which way from Sunday and the CONSENSUS among all those involved is that the photo is genuine.

Period.

You have the right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

~Tenth

A few examples of photo touch-ups:

source, includes more examples

I suppose there is a bit of a blurry line between a fake photo and an enhanced photo, if you consider how fake the touch-up versions look next to the untouched ones. The subject doesn't change though, so its not really fair to call them fakes.