The difference in colour btw the 2 legs looks a little suspicious, but otherwise, it doesn't look doctored to me..
you can't really see the boy's shadow. Sunlight coming from right to left, as can be seen from the tank's shadow. but not for the boy.
it could be doctored.. the dark patches around the kids image was cause by what kind of lighting? doesnt seem to come from the sun??
dunno maybe im wrong..
Possible in my opinion, noticed some dark areas around the boy casted on the tank.
given the state of war in the middle east and elsewhere, this photo can be quite believable.
but yea as others have noted above, quite weird looking. the tank looks a little unsaturated to me - where are the shadows on its blindspot and under?
what's that funny looking bright green thing on the bottom left?
the sudden change in sharpness looks wierd also, looking at the line between foreground and background
i think the tank, the boy, the foreground and background all came from different sources
Last edited by eikin; 25th July 2007 at 07:34 PM.
looks like a real image with lousy photoshopping. Seems like they increased the contrast around the boy while leaving the tank as is, and some vignetting in the top and right side of the image causing the darkened guns and turret tip. The bottom and left sides of the image doesn't seem to have the vignetting, so image was probably cropped to get the 16:9 effect.
tough call coz the photo quality sucks (too compressed already)
seems like yes if:
you notice all the halos around the tank...
scale of the tank vs. the boy (but can be deceiving if a long tele was used)
main reason, for me though... is the DOF of the tank... If you look at how sharp the tank is from fore to aft, and compare it to the cement ruins beside it, the DOF/bokeh is not consistent.
But he did do a good job including the heat wave emitted by the tank...
I'm just appreciating the tank but think that it is a little odd to have an extra M2 browning right above their main gun (typically it's inbuild next to 105mm) when there aren't any hatch there. But we're talking about GettyImages here, their integrity of pictures is a big thing. Thus, more likely (like ricleo said) than not it's a real image but they made bad attempt to draw the shadows back which created some funny artifact along the way. Everything look pretty much in place. In terms of story, i suppose the very fact that you do not see any crew means that likely in some rather hostile territory. Thus, the kid could run riot with rocks! Afterall, this Musa guy is quite a known war photographer.
Last edited by Shuttergraphy; 25th July 2007 at 08:18 PM.
I do not think the boy was added there.. but I believe they PP the tank to create depth so the boy stands out.. trying to keep our focus on the boy.
If you look carefully at the tank, someone was obviously doing very poor pp work on it.
Pixelation quality looks the same, implying its taken by the same camera.
The halo looks pretty unsightly and could make people think it's fake but if it's really meant as a fake then why not remove the black halos since the legs looked properly erased. Therefore, this implies it's real. If the author really wanted a good fake he would have properly cleaned the boy.
Hmmm, the contrast between the boy and the tank is also too large. Besides, no sane thinking individual would think his stone could ever damage the tank.
Therefore, i think it's FAKE.
I say it's real. If u enter the link, the pic posted there looks somewhat different in terms of cropping n saturation. A lousy PP job was done on the pic posted in this thread.
IMHO. yes...i think its pp...noticed the shadow of the tank...the boy dont have any shadow at all...
Look carefully at the tank, someone tries to 'lighten' or blur it.. some part of the tank is still very sharp. (barrel tip, part of MGs and .5 still very dark, the granade launcher on the right side behind the main barrel.. very sharp..) In fact, looking at the main gun barrel, u cound even see 'brush strokes'!! Coz they dun bother to mask the boy, the 'brush' cannot 'reach' many areas around the boy, thus the helo as pointed out by some.
i could be wrong, but
among other things..i noticed there's something odd to the depth of field.
i assumed this was 'shot' with a long focal-length lens. i doubt the boy, main gun, turret and main body could be in such focus.
there's just something odd about the feel of this picture. and the tank don't appear to be moving either.
to support my theory that it is a real photo with lousy PP, i "improved" on the PP so that the tank and surroundings match the contrast added to the boy for discussions sake. Does the image look more believable now?
Last edited by ricleo; 25th July 2007 at 08:53 PM.