The "perhaps the most symbolic photograph ever" thread has become the "that photograph is so fake" thread

[killface]

If it were photoshoped, why would they put those ugly-ass black and white birds in there? I would have just had the white ones there.

 

[Bulk Beef]

I think people are saying that the doves were added, and the pigeons are genuine.

Some of you guys are taking this thread kinda personally, don't you think?

 

[Cerebus451]

A few things to note:

1) If you actually think that because a picture appeared on the news it could not possibly be faked, you need to get out more. I happens quite often. Little script kiddies desperate for attention will doctor a photo and then dupe a news source into printing it, just so they can show their friends that they are famous because of what they did.

2) No one has been able to explain the wing without a bird attached. I admit to not knowing everything there is to know about pigeons, but I didn't think they could extend their wings fully foward like that, and even if they could, I would think you would see more of the tail feathers sticking out behind. It's tough to tell for sure, because it is in a dark spot.

3) The MSNBC article linked in the first message no longer contains this photo. They might have pulled it for something else. They might have pulled it because they found out it was faked.

 

[docmanhattan]

<< YEAH....thats what i said "aura" =P im quick at times hehehehe



and why are you guys overlooking the "birdless wing"????? >>


We're overlooking the wingless bird because it's the birds own wing that is obscuring his body.

Look the position of all the birds wings. Notice the amount of area that they cover. Then also notice the bird in questions wing and see that it's the same relative shape as the other's but at a different point it's stroke. You can also see the tail of that bird.

 

[Laguna]

Regardless, I like it. Thanks, Vespasian.

 

[Random Variable]

<< Regardless, I like it. Thanks, Vespasian. >>


You're welcome.

 

[apoppin]

This discussion is turning fowl.

 

[docmanhattan]

<< This discussion is turning fowl.



>>

i get it! fowl! you made a funny! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Russ]

I don't know if that photo is faked or not, and I'd guess that none of you do either. I would point out two things, though. First, much of what has been pointed out as evidence of doctoring can be done with lens filters if it was shot with a 35mm.

I'd also note that the photographer to whom it is credited certainly works for reuters. Google him and he comes up all over the web in news stories.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Lucky]

<<
I'd also note that the photographer to whom it is credited certainly works for reuters. Google him and he comes up all over the web in news stories.

Russ, NCNE >>

]

THANK YOU. At least someone knows what they are talking about.



1) If you actually think that because a picture appeared on the news it could not possibly be faked, you need to get out more. I happens quite often. Little script kiddies desperate for attention will doctor a photo and then dupe a news source into printing it, just so they can show their friends that they are famous because of what they did.



Read above.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No insult "lucky"

I have no idea if it is fake or not, but as far as absolute integrity goes, one name comes to mind. Doris Kearns Goodwin. I would suggest there are individuals in journalism who are no more principled.

 

[Lucky]

<< No insult "lucky"

I have no idea if it is fake or not, but as far as absolute integrity goes, one name comes to mind. Doris Kearns Goodwin. I would suggest there are individuals in journalism who are no more principled. >>





I am sorry such individuals stick in your mind. However in this case I maintain my position.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My point here was not a dig at this photo or individual. Look, I have done many things in my day. Most people are honest and really want to do the right thing. In every field if endeavor there were some who were scoundrels. Now am I saying that I believe a significant number of photos or stories are hoakey? Not at all. But remember there have been stories recanted that have been shown to be... let's say less than completely factual. All I am suggesting is that it is POSSIBLE that something put forward may have been emphasized for editorial or artistic effect, without meaning to commit downright fraud. Again this is NOT a charge against any individual, but my personal history causes me to take everything with a grain of salt.

 

[rival]

i would still like to know the whole 'symbolic' part of it...i mean, is it like seeing dog crap and putting a rose next to it? is that symbolic? wtf you idiots

 

[Eli]

<< i would still like to know the whole 'symbolic' part of it...i mean, is it like seeing dog crap and putting a rose next to it? is that symbolic? wtf you idiots >>



LMAO...

Well, If you can't see the symbolism.. perhaps you should get out more..

 

[fleshconsumed]

I still think it's a photoshop...

1. "bodyless bird" in the bottom right corner - of couse some might argue that this is a pigeon with wings thrown forward, but if it's how they say it is, then these wings are attached to bird's ass... besides, look at the most left dove with its wings extended forward and compare it to that "bodyless wing"

2. Can anybody zoom into two black pigeons to the right and tell me what they see? Is it supposed to be two pigeons or what? And and why there is a brown blot right behind the head of foremost pigeon?

3.The most left white dove at the bottom (the one with wings extended forward)- zoom in at its wing and you can see a blurry line of pixels following the shape of the wing, indicating smear/blur/clone effect.

 

[Descartes]

Who really cares, it was a nice photo. Others in my office enjoyed it as well.

Thanks for linking it Vespasian.

 

[rival]

erm, wtf, i do get out, i dont get how putting 2 doves in the same frame as a tank means anything, did i miss a freaking memo?

 

[dude8604]

<< looks photoshopped to me...but i don't know anything about the AP and Routers >>



It's Reuters...not routers...