Posted by on May 18, 2013 in Blog | 0 comments

A few days ago I read the news that the 2013 World Press Pho­to of the Year is fake. This rev­e­la­tion comes from Neal Krawetz, a foren­sic image ana­lyst. At first he claimed that the author com­posed even 4 pho­tos to get the final image. My first thought was that it is not objec­tive­ly jour­nal­is­tic report­ing. Because if you com­pose more pho­tos that have occurred at dif­fer­ent time inter­vals then it is not objec­tive­ly pre­sent­ed sit­u­a­tion that hap­pened.

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 sto­ry and to fol­low new devel­op­ments regard­ing this news, you just click this link:

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: