Too Much To Dream

FWIW: I googled the photo credit (Faleh Kheiber) and he's a regular contributor to Reuters. Yahoo Italy and UK/Ireland are posting the same picture, photoshopped or not.

http://it.news.yahoo.com/030324/58/27xc4.html

Why are people talking about this photo now? This is the same 'copter shot down before were the 2 pilots were held captive. No new news here.

As mentioned by "Observer", it's an AP picture.

Well, I have no idea why other people are talking about it, though I rather think it's because it is so obviously a composite made with well-worn image-editing techniques. Really, I'm no expert, and even I could tell.

Well, I have no idea why other people are talking about it, though I rather think it's because it is so obviously a composite made with well-worn image-editing techniques. Really, I'm no expert, and even I could tell.

Andrea, I saw some of this footage on TV. Not to mention that this comes from the AP. We knew this Apache was down, why even bother faking the image.

And I know a bit about image editing(not only from doing it, but my CS Master's area was Comp. Vision and Img. Processing), and I can tell you there is nothing obvious in the image that indicates it's fake. Not to mention, if you go search news.yahoo.com for the photographers name, you'll find shots at different angles of people posing next to the chopper.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030324/170/3lv6i.html

Regardless of ElCapitan's remarks, it seems to me to be a doctored photo. Perhaps it was part of the editing process.

I have no doubt that Saddam could find some people to dance around a helicopter, but I find this photo questionable.

Look, I didn't say the incident never happened, I said the picture was obviously edited, and rather badly. Here are my reasons for saying so: the crisp edges around some of the people's outlines are a little too crisp, some of the people don't look proportioned correctly, there are some people in what look like the background who have foreground-type focus to them. Sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but then I have already said I'm no expert. However, I do know a few things, especially what I am looking at.

Now perhaps the photographer had a bunch of different pics of the crowd on the helicopter, but none of them looked quite right; he wanted a certain effect (for whatever reason) -- perhaps they didn't have enough people around it, or something. So he opened up his image-editor and did some cut-and-pasting. Maybe this isn't even the finished product, but an edit that he forgot to delete off his hard drive, which would explain the amateurish look. Or maybe he doesn't have a degree in graphic design.

I don't get it. It isn't obviously Photoshopped, it isn't Russian and it isn't propaganda. It's the Apache that got shot down this weekend, with little apparent external damage, and the video footage aired all over the world thanks to Iraqi TV. Reuters took and distributed this photo which showed up all over the web and in many newspapers. Why call something like this into question? Is it because the Iraqis are celebrating? Did you expect them to all be wearing Clint Black t-shirts and waving American flags? I don't get it.

People don't get "inserted" into an image in the editing processes. And I have yet to hear a "technical" reason, why the image has been heavily edited.

More images from this;

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030324/170/3lvco.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030324/170/3m4j8.html

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030324/170/3lvb8.html

Flipper, go to hell.

Seriously, look at the other images from that same spot taken by the same photographer... are they Photoshopped as well? But the bottom line is that if we all know the thing was shot down, the pilots are POWs, and the US later blew the Apache to pieces, why would anyone want to call into question that photo? If Reuters was in the business of Photoshopping their stuff, wouldn't they come up with something a little more interesting?

Gee, I'm sorry I USED THE INCORRECT GODDAMN TERM. And oh yes you can SELECT and COPY and PASTE INTO from ONE IMAGE INTO ANOTHER. And you can also FEATHER the edges a little and CLONE selected parts of the image and do all sorts of other image editing shizzy to make a doctored image look LIKE IT WAS THE ORIGINAL, STRAIGHT TO 35-MILLIMETER OR DIGITAL CAM MEMORY PICTURE.

And no one said that "people" can be "inserted" into the picture in the editing process -- what I actually said was: "So he opened up his image-editor and did some cut-and-pasting." I can read my own writing. The only person to use the word "inserted" of "people" was YOU.

And Flipper, the only "reason" we are calling this sacred image "into question" is because to some of us it looks BADLY PHOTOSHOPPED PLEASE READ THE REASONS BEFORE ASKING WHAT THE REASONS ARE THX SO MCH BYE.

I can imagine it now: embedded journos accompanied by embedded photo-retouching artists, desperately retouching images on their sand-proof laptops while riding in the back of a fast-moving Humvee. "No, we need more balance--add another young Iraqi boy to the left wing. And that man is not happy enough--can you clone the other guy's smile onto his face?"

Seems to me that if you're so concerned about global propaganda conspiracies during the war, you might find something of more substance on which to concentrate your efforts. There's nothing wrong with that photo.

Look, I didn't say the incident never happened, I said the picture was obviously edited, and rather badly. Here are my reasons for saying so:

the crisp edges around some of the people's outlines are a little too crisp,

I don't see any "extra crisp edges" around faces. What I see on some of the edges is typical noise introduced by JPEG compression. Perhaps the problem you have with the image is it's inherent quality?

When people get inserted in a picture, the typical side effect is heavy pixelation on the edges, not JPEG compression effects (looks a bit like little squares). Or heavy blurring, which amateurs like to use to soften hard edges. I don't see any of that here.

some of the people don't look proportioned correctly,

Who doesn't look propotioned correctly? The two kids on the back? First, they are kids, standing next to a rather tall man (who btw, is leaning against one of the other kids). Not only that, they are on the other side of the helicopter, which has 2 "wings". Looks right to me.

there are some people in what look like the background who have foreground-type focus to them.

I don't know what you mean by "foreground-type focus". You mean, they should be blurred? Notice the focus is on the people on the Apache, since they are the sharp element and the 3 most foreground elements are blurred.

Now perhaps the photographer had a bunch of different pics of the crowd on the helicopter, but none of them looked quite right; he wanted a certain effect (for whatever reason) -- perhaps they didn't have enough people around it, or something. So he opened up his image-editor and did some cut-and-pasting. Maybe this isn't even the finished product, but an edit that he forgot to delete off his hard drive, which would explain the amateurish look. Or maybe he doesn't have a degree in graphic design.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. This photographer has a bunch of pictures of this event, one that is similar to this (but with people in front). It doesn't make much sense to edit this in this way, and there are no signs of editing here.

If you want to claim it is a doctored image, be my guest, you'll get on the news because it's a big story when somebody does something like this, specially an AP photographer.

On a smaller scale, I did this with Microsoft (when the X Box was released) and it got mention even in magazines. One of the analysis images had an example of obvious pasting of one image into another. Maybe you want to do the same here?

ex : http://sellmic.com/amped_strange_edges.jpg

But it would be a waste of time, this image is not doctored. And it would be a waste of time put the effort necessary to do what you say and have it look like that.

Hey, I know a few things too :-)

Flipper;

The photographer, Faleh Keiber, is not an embedded journalist.

If you look at his pictures, he seems to be based in Baghdad.

http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news?p=Kheiber&b=21&c=news_photos

Then you are saying, ElCapitan, that he would probably not have much trouble retouching his photos? Why, he probably works for Saddam. I bet that Hussein bastard supplied him with bootlegged software. Someone should notify Adobe. If we can't get 'em for genocide and WMD, let's get 'em for software piracy.

Flipper;

Then you are saying, ElCapitan, that he would probably not have much trouble retouching his photos?

Have you been reading my posts at all???

I don't think the image was "doctored" or heavily edited, and this guy is not an embedded reporter. Please don't misinterpret my post.

Also check the link I sent you, maybe you mean he's embedded with Iraqi troops? Because if not, why in the world is he taking pictures inside Baghdad and surrounded by army and militias.

ElCapitan: dude, chill! This is clearly not a retouched photo, and the idea that anything was done to change that photo is completely ludicrous, whether the photog is embedded or lives in a presidential palace. There is there's no reason to doctor a photo like that, and this whole discussion is ridiculous.

Flipper;

ElCapitan: dude, chill! This is clearly not a retouched photo, and the idea that anything was done to change that photo is completely ludicrous,

Uhh ... that's what I've been saying in all my posts!!!

Did you miss the longish post above debunking the claims that it's a fake image?

Golly man, read, read, READ!

You must have mistaken my correction of your "embedded" comment (or joke?) as me saying that that I agree with the claim that this is a fake image. That is not the case, I was merely correcting your implication that this is an embed.

Geez!

Oh for crying out loud. Get some sleep, Capitan. I've been agreeing with you the whole time.

Jesus Christ.

All I said was, I think this photo looks fucked with. What the hell is your problem? Gee, Flip, if you don't like that I am questioning the photos of your hero, TOUGH SHIT. What, no one else is allowed to question anything? Are you the only one? Hey -- Blogspot.com has openings, get your own goddamn blog.

Captain dude, thanks so much for the input. It still looks like somebody fucked with it. TO ME. That is ALL I said, and if you don't like the idea that someone is questioning your expertise, TOUGH SHIT. I am not going to go into this any further. There is nothing more to say. Here -- maybe this will sound familiar: we agree to disagree. If you don't agree that I am allowed to disagree with you, again -- TOUGH SHIT. This discussion is closed.