4 ms·

How a Minnesota programmer figured out that a NYT photo was altered

33 points by ams1 17y ago

byteCoder 17y ago
I find it quite amazing that the photographer even bothered to 'shop the photo. It seems to me as irrationality on his or his editors' part. In this case, I don't think the doctoring of the photo affects the substance of the article. However, that said, this is certainly an ethical lapse that should be soundly rejected by the New York Times' readership.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  I'm confused as to why the photo was altered in the first place - even without the shop job it was quite striking in its symmetry.
  - TrevorJ 17y ago
    From what I understand, you aren't seeing the truly original photo in either of those examples. You are seeing the published versions, and the 'mirrored' version. They are attempting to prove that the published version was also mirrored by looking at the comparison of the 2.
jbenz 17y ago
Perhaps in the photographer's house you can climb a flight of stairs five steps only to find another flight of stairs that lead you back down. He likes to exercise, but only just.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- Beanblabber 17y ago
  He seems to also like the build beams that connect to form a triangle that in no way assist the ceiling.
gojomo 17y ago
Reminds me of the time the NYTimes swiped a collage illustration I made on my blog and ran it without attribution: http://gojomo.blogspot.com/2005/04/nytimes-republishes-my-artwork-without.html http://gojomo.blogspot.com/2005/04/nytimes-republishes-my-ar... It took two emails of gradually-increasing emotional load -- I added the 'plagiarism' label to the second -- to get them to run a correction. It wasn't a giant deal -- a recreation of another blogger's (Niall Kennedy's) concept -- but to see that just like any blogger, the NYTimes may just carelessly clip things from the web was eye-opening.
mquander 17y ago
This story is particularly juicy because in the Metafilter thread in question (you can read it at http://www.metafilter.com/83061/Ruins-of-the-Second-Gilded-Age http://www.metafilter.com/83061/Ruins-of-the-Second-Gilded-A...) the commenters pointed out a lot more work by this same photographer (Edgar Martins) which is apparently doctored in the same fashion. The funny thing is that Martins makes a public point of claiming that he doesn't do any "digital manipulation" on his pictures, which appears to be a total joke. Here are some more of his images which he claimed to have shot naturally that appear photoshopped to be symmetrical: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/30/magazine/05gilded.3.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/30/magazine/05gi... http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/30/magazine/05gilded.8.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/30/magazine/05gi... (orange fence in front) http://www.jmakes.com/spfo/dimpresent1.gif http://www.jmakes.com/spfo/dimpresent1.gif http://www.artnet.com/Artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=0E9A0A625C8CDC2EC7B27EB47F90FFD1 http://www.artnet.com/Artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=0E9A... (plants are mirrored) http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/images/thumbnail1.php/d4d7a4363323013004970.jpg http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/images/thumbnail1.php/d4d7a...
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago
  "The funny thing is that Martins makes a public point of claiming that he doesn't do any "digital manipulation" on his pictures [...]" Is that for real? I'm almost certain that http://www.capricehorn.com/images/wwwArtworks/LATEST_2-(F2C754E0-573C-1004-BA11-871068250123).jpg http://www.capricehorn.com/images/wwwArtworks/LATEST_2-(F2C7... and http://www.capricehorn.com/images/wwwArtworks/The_Accidental_Theorist_3_(07)-(5EE6BC56-53E0-1004-9023-871068250123).jpg http://www.capricehorn.com/images/wwwArtworks/The_Accidental... use the same mirror technique, albeit with foreground elements added (again digitally). However, he doesn't appear to claim not to use post-production digital manipulation AT ALL, no mention at eg http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist_profile/a/26.html http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist_profile/... of that. There is a quote about this here, http://themorningnews.org/archives/galleries/topologies/ http://themorningnews.org/archives/galleries/topologies/ : "This is especially evident in “The Accidental Theorist” series. Most people assume that these image are manipulated. Or perhaps even staged. In reality, there is no post-production work, no darkroom or computer manipulation." But it's clearly referring (here) to just the Accidental Theorist show. That said the above 2 examples _are_ from that show and do appear to be 'shopped.
intregus 17y ago
Uuhh, yeah. I don't think you'd need to be a programmer to that is altered. Also, I can tell from seeing a few shops in my time.
- sneakums 17y ago
  The pixels are a dead giveaway.

33 points by ams1 17y ago

I find it quite amazing that the photographer even bothered to 'shop the photo. It seems to me as irrationality on his or his editors' part. In this case, I don't think the doctoring of the photo affects the substance of the article. However, that said, this is certainly an ethical lapse that should be soundly rejected by the New York Times' readership.

potatolicious 17y ago
I'm confused as to why the photo was altered in the first place - even without the shop job it was quite striking in its symmetry.
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  From what I understand, you aren't seeing the truly original photo in either of those examples. You are seeing the published versions, and the 'mirrored' version. They are attempting to prove that the published version was also mirrored by looking at the comparison of the 2.

jbenz 17y ago

Perhaps in the photographer's house you can climb a flight of stairs five steps only to find another flight of stairs that lead you back down. He likes to exercise, but only just.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
Beanblabber 17y ago
He seems to also like the build beams that connect to form a triangle that in no way assist the ceiling.

gojomo 17y ago

Reminds me of the time the NYTimes swiped a collage illustration I made on my blog and ran it without attribution: http://gojomo.blogspot.com/2005/04/nytimes-republishes-my-artwork-without.html http://gojomo.blogspot.com/2005/04/nytimes-republishes-my-ar... It took two emails of gradually-increasing emotional load -- I added the 'plagiarism' label to the second -- to get them to run a correction. It wasn't a giant deal -- a recreation of another blogger's (Niall Kennedy's) concept -- but to see that just like any blogger, the NYTimes may just carelessly clip things from the web was eye-opening.

mquander 17y ago

This story is particularly juicy because in the Metafilter thread in question (you can read it at http://www.metafilter.com/83061/Ruins-of-the-Second-Gilded-Age http://www.metafilter.com/83061/Ruins-of-the-Second-Gilded-A...) the commenters pointed out a lot more work by this same photographer (Edgar Martins) which is apparently doctored in the same fashion. The funny thing is that Martins makes a public point of claiming that he doesn't do any "digital manipulation" on his pictures, which appears to be a total joke. Here are some more of his images which he claimed to have shot naturally that appear photoshopped to be symmetrical: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/30/magazine/05gilded.3.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/30/magazine/05gi... http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/30/magazine/05gilded.8.jpg http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/30/magazine/05gi... (orange fence in front) http://www.jmakes.com/spfo/dimpresent1.gif http://www.jmakes.com/spfo/dimpresent1.gif http://www.artnet.com/Artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=0E9A0A625C8CDC2EC7B27EB47F90FFD1 http://www.artnet.com/Artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=0E9A... (plants are mirrored) http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/images/thumbnail1.php/d4d7a4363323013004970.jpg http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/images/thumbnail1.php/d4d7a...

pbhjpbhj 17y ago
"The funny thing is that Martins makes a public point of claiming that he doesn't do any "digital manipulation" on his pictures [...]" Is that for real? I'm almost certain that http://www.capricehorn.com/images/wwwArtworks/LATEST_2-(F2C754E0-573C-1004-BA11-871068250123).jpg http://www.capricehorn.com/images/wwwArtworks/LATEST_2-(F2C7... and http://www.capricehorn.com/images/wwwArtworks/The_Accidental_Theorist_3_(07)-(5EE6BC56-53E0-1004-9023-871068250123).jpg http://www.capricehorn.com/images/wwwArtworks/The_Accidental... use the same mirror technique, albeit with foreground elements added (again digitally). However, he doesn't appear to claim not to use post-production digital manipulation AT ALL, no mention at eg http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist_profile/a/26.html http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist_profile/... of that. There is a quote about this here, http://themorningnews.org/archives/galleries/topologies/ http://themorningnews.org/archives/galleries/topologies/ : "This is especially evident in “The Accidental Theorist” series. Most people assume that these image are manipulated. Or perhaps even staged. In reality, there is no post-production work, no darkroom or computer manipulation." But it's clearly referring (here) to just the Accidental Theorist show. That said the above 2 examples _are_ from that show and do appear to be 'shopped.

intregus 17y ago

Uuhh, yeah. I don't think you'd need to be a programmer to that is altered. Also, I can tell from seeing a few shops in my time.

sneakums 17y ago
The pixels are a dead giveaway.