3 ms·
Regardless of all the criticism of the analysis, or whether the analysis is "worth it": this post is a really interesting look into how someone that does photog
by someone13 13y ago
Regardless of all the criticism of the analysis, or whether the analysis is "worth it": this post is a really interesting look into how someone that does photographic forensics professionally operates. I thought it was pretty nifty :)
- photoJ 13y agoMight be slow to trust this as professional forensic analysis. Previous claims, which were more extensive, were refuted by independent review of professionals. From the following article on other case: "The results of the expert analysis are in, and it looks like Hansen’s photo does indeed stand up to serious forensic scrutiny." http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-world-press-photo-winner-a-fake-photographer-responds/ http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-worl...
- xymostech 13y agoPosting the same link and comment five different times in the same thread isn't all that helpful.
- EdwardDiego 13y agoIf you only check replies to your comments, it is.
- abalone 13y agoTotally different. The OP is not claiming the work was photoshopped. In fact, if you actually read the post, he confirms that there's nothing suspicious with the post-processing. He's claiming the subject was fake. She has blood trickles drawn as if coming from wounds on her face (not spatter from someone else). Yet when he uncovered the original high resolution photo and zoomed in, there are clearly no wounds. That's on top of the other issues with the paint looking more like paint than blood on close inspection. But the lack of wounds at the origin of the streams makes it very clear that the streams were painted on. The photographer isn't explicitly implicated in this.. it's possible that he just saw her in the crowd and was tricked too. We don't know.