But an update of a news showed up. An independent expert in the field of image forensics, Eduard de Kam, has analyzed the original Raw file, compared it to the prize-winning JPEG file, and concluded that “all of the pixels are exactly in the same place.” He also says that the final photo has experienced “a fair amount of post-production” (as in, dodging, burning, etc.), which probably explains a lot of the seemingly incredible lighting in the image.
To me this is totally different situation. What the author Paul Hansen did was a lot of retouching, dodging, burning and light adjusting just to add more drama to the photo. And that is fine by me. He has not changed, or invented an event that occurred. He just further refined the photo to leave a stronger impression on the viewer, because the actual content of that image is dramatic.
But Neal Krawetz wont give up. He even found the same photo published in November 2012 and compared it with a photograph which the author submitted to the 2013 World Press Photo of the Year contest. And here are those photos:
If you would like to read the complete analysis of the evidence put forward by Neal Krawetz you can do it if you click on this link:
And here you can see his comparison of two images from above presented in a form of rollover image for better understanding of changes that was made to the photo: