Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Furore over award-winning photo

Paul Hansen's photo won World Press Photo of the Year.

Paul Hansen's photo won World Press Photo of the Year. Photo: World Press Photo

A forensic analysis of a photograph that was awarded World Press Photo of the Year has concluded that it was not significantly manipulated, despite allegations that the image was "faked with Photoshop".

Photographer Paul Hansen has also vehemently denied accusations that he managed to "trick a panel of experienced judges" with his photograph, Gaza Burial.

The photograph shows a group of men carrying the bodies of two Palestinian children to their funeral after they were killed in an Israeli missile strike in Gaza City on November 20 last year.

The two children, a brother and sister, are wrapped in shrouds with just their faces showing as the men carry them down a narrow street, with pain and anger clearly visible on their faces.

Advertisement

In February the photograph was awarded the top prize by World Press Photo in one of photojournalism's most prestigious contests, which attracts entries from thousands of photographers from around the world.

But soon after it received the accolade, allegations began to circulate that Swedish photographer Hansen had "significantly altered" the photograph, which was branded a "composite".

"This year's 'World Press Photo Award' wasn't given for a photograph. It was awarded to a digital composite that was significantly reworked," Neal Krawetz posted on hackerfactor.com, a computer forensics website, which claims to have analysed the science behind the image.

His comments were picked up this week by technology website Extreme Tech, which declared that Hansen's photograph had been "faked with Photoshop".

That article, which was re-tweeted and shared on Facebook thousands of times, said the "World Press Photo association hasn't yet stripped the photographer, Paul Hansen, of the title, but presumably it's just a matter of time".

"Basically, as far as we can surmise, Hansen took a series of photos – and then later, realising that his most dramatically situated photo was too dark and shadowy, decided to splice a bunch of images together and apply a liberal amount of dodging [brightening] to the shadowy regions."

But Hansen has hit out at the allegations, telling Fairfax Media they are baseless.

"The photograph is certainly not a composite or a fake," Hansen said.

"I have never had a photograph more thoroughly examined, by four expert different photo-juries all over the world."

An independent forensic analysis commissioned by World Press Photo, which awarded the prize, has confirmed the integrity of the photo, the organisation said.

After examining the raw image and the published JPEG image, the independent experts concluded that it was clear that the published photo had been retouched "with respect to both global and local colour and tone".

"Beyond this, however, we find no evidence of significant photo manipulation or compositing. Furthermore, the analysis purporting photo manipulation is deeply flawed," the experts said.

Eduard de Kam, a digital photography expert at the Nederlands Instituut voor Digitale Fotografie [Dutch Institute of Digital Photography], said he could see that some areas of the photograph had been made lighter and others darker.

"But regarding the positions of each pixel, all of them are exactly in the same place in the JPEG (the prize-winning image) as they are in the raw file. I would therefore rule out any question of a composite image," he said.

Rules regarding photo manipulation in the competition say: "The content of the image must not be altered. Only retouching which conforms to the currently accepted standards in the industry is allowed."

A statement from World Press Photo refuted in point form the allegations raised by both Dr Krawetz and Extreme Tech.

"The XMP analysis [conducted by Dr Krawetz] reflects an incomplete understanding of the Photoshop metadata and also paraphrases the contents in a misleading way," the statement said.

Hansen explained the process by which he had arrived at his award-winning entry.

"In the post-process toning and balancing of the uneven light in the alleyway I developed the raw file with different density to use the natural light instead of dodging and burning. In effect to recreate what the eye sees and get a larger dynamic range," he said.

"To put it simple, it's the same file – developed over itself – the same thing you did with negatives when you scanned them."

The Extreme Tech article was later updated to include a few details of the independent analysis.

It said the final photo had experienced a fair amount of post-production, which "probably explains a lot of the seemingly incredible lighting in the image".


http://rss.feedsportal.com/c/34702/f/644591/s/2bf0a896/l/0L0Scanberratimes0N0Bau0Cdigital0Elife0Cdigital0Elife0Enews0Cfurore0Eover0Eawardwinning0Ephoto0E20A130A5150E2jlsl0Bhtml/story01.htm
jika diwebsite ini anda menemukan artikel dengan informasi dan konten yang salah, tidak akurat, bersifat menyesatkan, bersifat memfitnah, bersifat asusila, mengandung pornografi, bersifat diskriminasi atau rasis mohon untuk berkenan menghubungi kami di sini agar segera kami hapus.
◄ Newer Post Older Post ►
 

© KAWUNGANTEN.COM Powered by Blogger