Doctored or not, do you notice the tracks of the second tank?
I see perfectly defined shadows (little but consistent), the light source looks pretty consistent too. The picture does look believable to me. Nevertheless, this was a picture taken in 2002 thus these has been in circulation for a while, surely it is not doctored given the source of a known Bethlehem photographer and AFP/Getty agency.
Last edited by Shuttergraphy; 25th July 2007 at 08:55 PM.
I doubt it to be doctored. Looking back at the link given for this photo and tracking it back to the photographer he seem to be someone who is out there shooting photos of atrocities by the Isrealist towards the Palestinian.
IT looked doctored as the photoshoping was done very quickly or badly due to his/her skill. Looking at the lighting of the sun and state of the shadow. The tank would actually be pretty dark as the shadow falls forward and to the left. It is almost like shooting a backlit subject. I suspect he dodge more lighting to bring out the details of the tank but fall short of using a mask or some other means to mask down the boy's form properly when he lighten the constrast of the tank's form. So the dark bits near tight angles of the boy's body is the real shadow or shade of the tank's detail. This is almost like a HDR type touchup thingy in some way but done badly.
Last edited by sammy888; 25th July 2007 at 09:04 PM.
however selective bias and doctoring of a photo may not be miles apart. if he only shoots atrocities by the Isrealist towards the Palestinian, and not the other way round, he is not being true in his profession as a reportage photographer and that would be just bad too.
I think its a dodge job on the tank done in a hurry. The photographer could be press for time to submit this photo.
Definitely not fake.
Definitely the results of bad PP.
Don't think it's fake.
The tank is so huge and its shadows are already so thin. If you look closely, the boy's shadow can be seen too I think, but its quite insignificant compared to the tank's shadow.
this has a long history with lots of open events that is readily available for reference, with the difference or disagreement mostly left to interpretation rather than unawareness. i'm sure there is no need of you to ask this question as you can read it yourself. if what you read cannot convince you, neither could i.
regardless if the boy is added in digitally or not...
they could've just paid the boy to do the same thing...
Logging Off. "You have 2,631 messages stored, of a total 400 allowed." don't PM me.
which is why it is important of a journalist and a reportage photographer to be professional in conduct, their aim being to cover neutrally of all parties involved in the events they come across.
however, the assumption of paying of the kid or biased selective coverage are what we cannot see. the picture is what we see, so at least we can comment more on that.
Your answer is the why this conflict will still go on. You have to know who are the oppressors and who are the oppressed. Resistance is legitimate for any illegal occupied nation. I'm sure you know of how many U.N charters the Israelis has violated. If not I suggest you go on and read it.
you have to know and see things on both sides for any discussion to be viable, as invasion is bilateral. that is all i have to say from a neutral point, as i have said it is not a matter of awareness or academic interest but a matter of sociocultural background, faith and interpretation. anyway, i know it is most likely to be fixated, so i won't be dwelling any further in this discussion as it will not move. you are still free to disagree and i can't change your faith, but perhaps you can keep back to the thread.
hope to see more photographic posting from you. cheers.