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

[badluck]

This could be real....if you search the photographers name you would find that he takes many pictures of symbolic nature.....

 

[Random Variable]

<< you guys believe anything just cuz its on the internet? any jackass can tell you that photo is so PHOTOSHOPPED! just look at the doves, its so damn obvious. >>


Have you even heard of Reuters? They don't doctor photos. And on top of that, the photograph was on the MSNBC web site.

Some of you are so cynical that it's sickening. :frown:

 

[Random Variable]

<< how is it symbolic? >>


If you don't see any symbolism in it, your brain must not be getting enough glucose.

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

my brain is not getting enough glucose... what do the symbols mean?

 

[Evadman]

Ok, for the people who need more glucose, Doves ( the white birds ) = PEACE. Did that help?

 

[Random Variable]

<< my brain is not getting enough glucose >>


then eat something

 

[trmiv]

<< Ok, for the people who need more glucose, Doves ( the white birds ) = PEASE. Did that help? >>




I like to think of Doves as representing PEACE, but PEASE will work too.

 

[mrCide]

did any of you READ the story? it really saddens me whats going on

i have israeli friends and im arab.. and it kills me seeing this going on over there.. sigh

 

[Evadman]

Ok, so my brain could use some glucose as well. I will go grab a coke

 

[Lucky]

I can guarantee that photo is real. There are some oddities but its most likely due to improper dodging.

 

[LaBang]

The symbolism that I see is the white doves which equal peacemaking israelies pushing out the darker "rats of the sky" which are the palistinians. I'd call it propaganda. anyone with me?

btw, I know someone that just a two years ago was head corespondent and her husband was photojournalist for the LA times in Jerusalem. It would be CRAZY to be a journalist working in israel today. Action all over the place.

 

[geforceX]

<< Have you even heard of Reuters? They don't doctor photos. And on top of that, the photograph was on the MSNBC web site.

Some of you are so cynical that it's sickening. >>



It doesn't mean that the picture on MSNBC and Reuters isn't necessary edited. It can be edited from the source that they got from.

 

[Lucky]

<<

<< Have you even heard of Reuters? They don't doctor photos. And on top of that, the photograph was on the MSNBC web site.

Some of you are so cynical that it's sickening. >>



It doesn't mean that the picture on MSNBC and Reuters isn't necessary edited. It can be edited from the source that they got from. >>




dumbass you obviously dont know how newspapers and media obtain wire service photographs. if you dont know what you are talking about please shut yer trap.


and re-reading, you are implying that the photographer doctored the photo? Yeah, right. Photojournalist s*dont* do that. Getting caught doing that would mean literal life banishment from the idustry. This particular photograph I believe is a staffer for reuters, it wasnt some random freelance junkie.

Either way you dont know how the industry works.

 

[Snapster]

The fact that there is inconsistencies in the pixels with the white birds would suggest they were added....the others look like they belong there. Zoom in on the left white bird, look just below it.

 

[WA261]

oh man....that is for sure a chop!!

 

[AdamDuritz99]

<< The fact that there is inconsistencies in the pixels with the white birds would suggest they were added....the others look like they belong there. Zoom in on the left white bird, look just below it. >>



Yah, i see that too. Definantly tampered with.

peace
sean

 

[pulse8]

Not a lot of photographers in here, eh?

I don't take as many as I used to, but hasn't ANYONE ever taken a photo that just looked fake? Just the way it was composed and lit made it look fake?

Try giving the guy the benefit of the doubt.



<< The fact that there is inconsistencies in the pixels with the white birds would suggest they were added....the others look like they belong there. Zoom in on the left white bird, look just below it. >>

And that couldn't be from a possible high compression that was used?

 

[WA261]

LOOK AT THE BIRDS BRO...there is like a freckin AURA =P around them

 

[AdamDuritz99]

<< And that couldn't be from a possible high compression that was used? >>



Pulse8, Open the picture up with photoshop, zoom in right below the left white bird. That is clearly and distinctly edited. I thought it was just the high compression at first, when looking at it with windows image viewer. But when you see the pixels...no doubt it's been photoshoped.

peace
sean

 

[Random Variable]

For the final time, it's a photograph from Reuters! I give up. :frown:

 

[LuNoTiCK]

<< LOOK AT THE BIRDS BRO...there is like a freckin ora around them >>



Yup, I see an aura around them also, looks pretty fake to me.

 

[jjones]

The darker birds are real but the white birds look to be probably chopped in; the pixelation doesn't seem to match but I'm no expert.

edit: i've seen stranger photos that show inconsistent pixelation, putting aside compression, that I know have been real.

 

[pulse8]

I took a look at the picture and the only "aura" I see is a dark ring around a VERY white bird on a dark background. I do only see it on one bird. Does that mean the other one is real? Or did the guy just get tired and sloppy on the bottom bird? bah. I don't think you guys know what you're talking about any more than I do.

I'll take Luckster's opinion over anyone's in this thread being that this is what he does for a living. I don't know think these guys would photoshop their pictures. I would think it causes them to lose their credibility.

 

[WA261]

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



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

 

[Nemesis77]

The "aura" on the white bird could be explained by the flash of the camera. It would highlight bright-white objects near the camera.