Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Re-imaging History: Altered photos you thought were real
blog.wired.com — A picture is worth a thousand words, and Photoshop and similar tools have made it easier than ever to make those words fib. But while computers enable easier and better photo manipulation, it is hardly a new phenomenon. Here is a sampling of some of the more famous altered photographs from the last century.
gmark13- 3243 diggs
- digg it
- peleken, on 10/12/2007, -116/+34What is with the Middle east? Why can't they learn how to use photoshop? The Soviet's did a better job in the 1930's with nothing more then a magnifying glass and some of those tiny model brushes. I mean come on?! If you need some good tutorial sites I could send you some links. If you're going to do your propaganda all half-assed why bother? (was that racist? I mean Arabs use photoshop about as well as Asian's can drive)
** the views expressed in this comment is not the opinion of peleken rather a character he is working on for his Monday night improv class- Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41Looks more like a freelance photographer trying to make his work look more dramatic to me, but it depends on whose side you're on really.
- GoldYoshi, on 10/12/2007, -132/+17They forgot a photo: Neil Armstrong on the moon.
- ChumpChief, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8So you are assuming the personality of one alias while typing under a second alias and referring to yourself in the third person... Makes perfect sense.
- alteratti, on 10/12/2007, -21/+3Fotoshop Circa 1884
- tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -8/+85GoldYoshi:
Tin foil is on sale at Walmart this week. - cwshea, on 10/12/2007, -16/+9@peleken
I was going to digg you up until your insult.
Dumbass. - godofpumpkins, on 10/12/2007, -30/+9@peleken: Asian's may not be able to drive, but Im' willing to bet that those who speak English use it better than you use your's (i.e. learn how and when to use apostrophe's)
- KSOVII, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31godofpumpkins, you misused an apostrophe in "Asians", so you probably shouldn't be correcting others on that.
- DvS01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+63In the Lebanese cityscape "Smoke and Mirrors" photo, that is the worst use of the Photoshop Clone Stamp tool I have ever seen. That person should have been fired based on this alone.
- kutza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27I think the Kent State photo was altered because it looked like she was screaming due to a huge nail in her head.
@DvS01 Couldn't agree more. Did that thing actually get published?... - LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3@DvS01
He was fired. It said so in TFA - DvS01, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@logicbomb
No, I said he should have been fired based solely on his poor use of the Clone Stamp tool! - RadiatedAnt, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3In Soviet Russia, Photoshops You!
- myk2420, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4@KSOVII
I think godofpumpkin's misused the apostrophe's on purpose - tony23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@tdogg :
http://www.foil-hat.com - less work that way - Latka, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1@cwshea
I was going to digg you up until your insult.
Dumbass. - WikiEasy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Journalistic integrity?
LOL that went out ages ago when Walter Cronkite started the downward trend of commenting on news rather than just reporting it. Most news on TV nowadays is nothing more than brain-washing entertainment, aimed at grabbing your attention with outrageous headlines. This altered photos article is just a mere distraction from the REAL problem.
News should be boring, unbiased, without any injection of personal opinion. It should cover both sides fairly, despite national agendas. And those stupid news commentary that's becoming popular? They do nothing but destroy all credibility of TV news. - godofpumpkins, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@KSOVII: I actually misused all the apostrophes in that sentence. I was mocking him.
- nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@KSOVII
"godofpumpkins, you misused an apostrophe in "Asians", so you probably shouldn't be correcting others on that."
And in "your's" and "apostrophe's", and "Im'" - it was obviously deliberate. Damn you people are dense (you and the 8 people who dugg you) - Ogopogo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Simon Wiesenthal Center was caught using an altered photo on their website.
See: http://www.air-photo.com/english/1999_mark.html
alson see: "Retrospective Analysis of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Extermination Complex"
at: http://www.stormfront.org/solargeneral/library/www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/Brugioni1.html
- xpunkx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3This is so interesting. but doesn't surprise me
- Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4In this day and age truths are no longer facts. They are products for sale.
- anonymoustroll, on 10/12/2007, -22/+5Interesting juxtaposition between Lenin era soviet and what's being reported to people in the USA...
...sometimes, folks, you have to read between the lines. I know Americans are used to this, but that's what makes them so gullible.
What the fsck ever happened to just taking good pictures and reporting the actual news?- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Too bad for your theory, the images photoshopped for the American public are to brainwash them into thinking "America BAD" which probably fits right into YOUR agenda.
- greatromance, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23***** Photoshop work on the Middle East picture. Like Peleken said, do it right if you're gonna do it at all.
- ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39That photoshopping on that smoke was absolutely craptacular. That has to be one of the WORST clone jobs I've ever seen. Someone needs to teach him about soft edged brushes, the opacity setting, and cloning from multiple places.
- halfcockedjack, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Do it right, indeed. Middle East pic is just plain bad.
- hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+63And truthfully, the pic didn't really need doctoring. He darkened the smoke and added a bit of extra smoke. It's not like the photo needed that. The city was on fire, if you can't make a good photo out of that with out resorting to Photoshop, you need to pick a new career.
- cresswga, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@hipnerd - I think the point of his manipulation was that it made it appear like there had been more strikes than there actually had been.
- ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14What's kind of ironic is that I think it actually makes it look like LESS strikes. Sure, there is more smoke coming from the one place, but the first photo looks almost like there's smoke coming from some buildings in the background, but's it been cloned over.
Also, I missed it at first, but he actually cloned several buildings, including one ghost building floating in the smoke. - DvS01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@hipnerd
I agree, it looked more dramatic prior to the manipulation. The altered one looks...stupid.
- MrBabyMan, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2Abusing the comments to add that this gallery is a sidebar to this excellent newsworthy story:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Adobe_Tackles_Photo_Forgeries - SpectreBlofeld, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Alright, I've been staring at the Kent State photo for about five minutes trying to figure out what the hell was changed. Anybody wanna clue me in?
edit: ok... after looking again... it looks like a pole or something behind her head was removed... what is that? was it something important?- pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38Look directly above the woman's head.
- Dayz, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2the spike on top of the womens head. i dont see why they removed it? to change the location?
- TransMontana911, on 10/12/2007, -11/+0also dont get it
- crash331, on 10/12/2007, -0/+56Because it's rather distracting. I bet that photographer cursed like a sailor when he got home and developed it.
- bpmox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+64they removed it because it was an eyesore. It looks like a pole is growing out of her head. It's a non-important element that's hurting the photo and they can't reshoot it.
- DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13This is where two worlds collide. On the one hand, you have journalistic integrity and, on the other, you have artistic integrity. If this photograph was meant to maximize a reaction from it's viewers, then the pole can be removed. If the photograph was meant to document an important historic moment, then, under no circumstances, should the pole be removed. As a journalist, it is imparitive that information be conveyed in both factually acurate and as unbiased as possible.
- CrushThemTorg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Nothing ruins a good shot like a pole jutting out of someone's head, or a railing coming out of their chest. But, damns, removing it like that was colossaly unethical. There's no such thing as artistic integrity when you're in the news, it's only acceptable to edit a photo to bring it in line wiht what you saw no matter how ugly it may still be.
But damn, I'll bet that was a bad day for the photog: Going back to only discover that his best shot gets ruined by a damn fencepost.
Well, that, and the kids murdered by the National Guard probably was a downer too. - BGFeltenink, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Because the fence post played absolutely no role in the event being depicted there is absolutely nothing unethical with altering it.
What ever happened to the murderous thugs that killed those students anyway? They should have been put before the firing squad.
- DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+62wow the soviets were pretty good at manual photo editing. they could work for the national enquirer!
- Dayz, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4thats some good skill
- rouslan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Back in the Soviet era innovation, technology was low. For example, at a electronic parts factory workers had to manually write the value down on each part (!!) and package, instead of automatically printing it. And this was done up to 1991, not in 1900. People there really worked hard with a lot of manual labor-automation was not heard of. Cheap, free labor was also harvested from political prisoners in Siberia. People were really stimulated to work-there is a reason why the USSR, East Germany, Cuba kept winning the olympics. So doing a complicated, repetitive task was no problem, especially when it was important the government.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30If they weren't very good at making other people disappear, they themselves would disappear.
- ostracize, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5It's pretty simple when you work with grainy black and white photos.
- kiiwii, on 10/12/2007, -6/+46In Soviet Russia, photo edits you!
- popltree2, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2In Soviet Russia...nevermind.
edit: Damn, beat me to it.
- darny, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3someone should do a story about the re-imaging of myspace. and porn. lots and lots of porn.
- XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17There has to be more than that!
- biuku, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27The Reuters photo from Lebanon is a joke. Most 13 year olds could ID the stamp tool in that. They should teach news-types basic photoshop skills to pick out that stuff.
- evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8ive read and believe that this was a deliberate fake photo. made badly simply to be a talking point that "its not so bad in lebanon, the pictures from there are fakes" and that WAS heavily run and talked about everywhere without showing the original picture.
just looking at the picture you can tell it does not make the situation look worse or make it a better picture. it was done for talking point propaganda. while this event happened many on the right were claiming MANY or ALL of the photos from there were fake simply to protect israel. - Thumpster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1The problem was that in the interest of saving money, Reuters had put only a few very lowly trained "editors" at a rather shoddy middle east photo desk. Basically told them to sit down, for low pay, and glance at the photos then send 'em out on the wire. There was little true editorial fact checking done.
They have since then put much more experienced editors at their foreign photo desks and now compensate them appropriately. They know this was a HUGE ***** up, and have taken steps to correct the problems which caused it. - CAP811, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4The US also faked the moon landing with photos supplied from Israel so the Right could protect Israel from the Flying Purple Israeli Eaters that live on the moon.
- evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8ive read and believe that this was a deliberate fake photo. made badly simply to be a talking point that "its not so bad in lebanon, the pictures from there are fakes" and that WAS heavily run and talked about everywhere without showing the original picture.
- Scrappy1850, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3i hate the news! i hate politicians! everyone lies to us about everyone lying to us! i would be NUTS if it wasnt for beer
- evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -17/+5take a look at the "Double Vision in Iraq" photos. theres rightwing moonbats on the page claiming the photo was altered by the "liberal media" to make the solider look like he is pointing the gun at the man and kid. but a quick look at the before photos shows the originals he IS pointing his gun at them. and the manipulated photo looks LESS like he is pointing his gun at them, notice how the soldier is made bigger, so he looks more in the foreground, thus the gun would be pointing far ahead of the man and child.
the first photo (original) looks like its pointing directly at them, while the third (shopped) photo looks like he is pointing about 6 feet in front of them.- darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9However, the second image that is used for the composite with the soldier's hand up in the air is more threatening than the original where the weapon is being head with the finger not on the trigger and the solider appears to be standing casually. It is hard to tell from the picture, but the weapon appears to have a sling in which case the first picture would be how you would in a casual matter were as in the second picture the weapon is braced a bit more in perpetration for possibly firing it.
- ninti, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Agreed, there appears to be little propaganda value in the change to the soldier photo, unlike the Lebanese photo. If you think it was done for any other reason but to make a more dramatic photo, you may already be biased. As one person on their forums said, "Think of the composite as a Rorschach test, revealing your paranoid version of reality."
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@evil-doer
The soldier is doing what he has to do to try and keep himself and everyone else alive. Too many want to look at that picture and scream out "look at the soldier trying to kill a man with an injured child!!! What a monster!" The sad truth is, soldiers are fighting against a force that does NOT follow the Law of Armed Conflict. They have shown again and again how they will use innocent civilians and protected structures ( Mosques, hospitals, schools, etc) to carry out a hostile action. I can guarantee you, when the area was secured, EVERY person in that photo would have been seen by a medic and given whatever help they were needed. - evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2@drmangrum
where did i discuss his job or what he needs to do? i said the before picture he is pointing the gun at the man, the after picture he is not. thats all im saying, period. and for some reason idiots are digging me down for that, just look at the god damn pictures yourselves and see for your own eyes, im not making it up. - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@evil-doer
You don't expressly say it, you insinuate it. You first start off calling people "moonbats" and then proceed point out the fact he has a weapon aimed in the general direction of a man with a child. You give the impression that the soldier didn't have a reason to do so. This is what we call spin. It's what your doing. Stop putting ridiculous spin on your comments and you probably wouldn't have been dug down. - evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1i didnt give any impressions at all about what he was doing or if it was right or wrong. the people on that site are lying or blind. i debunked what they were saying, thats IT. you added all this other crap. im sorry that the truth has a liberal bias.
- crimson117, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There were two photos...
The first was of a man hunched over and holding a child and looknig at a soldier, with the soldier in a relaxed peaceful posture with both feet on the ground.
The second was of a solder in an active pose - one foot up showing movement, his arm out defensively or commandingly at something, and the same man with a child way in the background paying no attention to the soldier at all.
The photoshop work made it look as if the soldier standing in the defensive active pose was reacting to a dangerously nearby man approaching with a child in his arms. In reality, that didn't happen at all.
If I had to judge, yeah the photoshopper tried to create a conflict that wasn't present in the original pair of photos. But I still can't speak to his motivations... either he was trying to show that the soldier should be respected because he can dutifully protect a crowd of civilians, or that he should be despised for being defensive when his only enemy was a father and his injured child.
- finista, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3So that means Photoshop existed in early 1900's?
- SkippyDoorknob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+41Yep, although it was called AirbrushShop.
Prior to that, cavemen used to alter cave paintings using RockShop. The mammoth that Gronk killed singlehandedly was actually much smaller that was seen on the cave wall.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+41Yep, although it was called AirbrushShop.
- jbus, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6The people at Wired piss all over digg at every given opportunity, yet they sure do seem to get a lot of benefit from digg. Lots of traffic and lots of ad $$$...
I don't care if anyone one else agrees with me or not, but I'm marking this and other Wired stories as SPAM because the people at Wired have thoroughly pissed me off. - WraTH017, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Seems like the ministry of truth has been hard at work altering the past and present. Fascinating stuff
- skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2So inspiring.
- cocoamix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36Still my favorite:
http://www2.jsonline.com/news/state/sep00/uw21092000.asp- sixthgear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Aha! That's the first time I've seen the inspiration for this article:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38641
- sixthgear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Aha! That's the first time I've seen the inspiration for this article:
- strabes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Those are some of the worst photo manipulation jobs ever. Granted, they didn't have photoshop but come one. That smoke one is terrible.
- selrahc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I think the smoke one is pretty recent...
- marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That was ridiculously bad.
- tehbored, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13In Soviet Russia, photographs airbrush you!
- MadNuke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8How about the famous fake iceberg, featured on the posters of many science classrooms as a real phenomena:
http://defiant.corban.edu/gtipton/net-fun/iceberg.JPG
Don't believe it's 'shopped? Check http://www.snopes.com- MadNuke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Found the Snopes article for you:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/iceberg.asp - ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"The image exists in nature but due to water visibility is not possible to capture on film."
If thats true (and it does fit with what I've always heard), then I don't find this to be such a big deal. I'd find it more in line with textbooks containing drawings of subatomic particles or (in the days before super powerful telescopes) artist's renderings of galaxies.
- MadNuke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Found the Snopes article for you:
- chadkazulu, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Don't forget this one...Whatever it Takes!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iPnvACXXV0- ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7what's faked in that video? I watched it and couldn't really tell.
- Tarnum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The soldiers at 00:47 - some of them are cloned.
- h00paj00, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1chad: I bet all that hatred is keeping you warm at night.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Of course, now you have to ask yourself: What pictures have you seen that were doctored by talented people and can be passed off as genuine? In a world of spin and photoshop, who can you actually trust?
- Nomad83, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Can't forget about the Digg-Leaked Video iPod...had everybody drooling until somebody had to ruin the fantasy with a youtube howto...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cVe61MsZjcY - racer108, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Can someone explain the second one, Water way to go? It doesn't even look like the same photo. Ex:http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/414867304_964129ce72_o.png
- ronfar623, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3My guess would be that whoever doctored the photo took another photo from the same location at a later date, and composited it over the original to "remove" the second person, thus the background change.
- econofast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It looks like the "original" is slightly more cropped. You'll noticed that the man all the way on the left looks "closer", on the original version. Also, you see more of the trench coat.
I'm guessing the alteration was done on a different print, that was done with more of the negative. Also, in the original, everything looks horizontally stretched (or the altered is horizontally squished). Notice how much thinner Stalin looks in the altered version.... - racer108, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The bridge is more faded, and It looks like they're further from it and the buildings. My point being, how could it be an altered photo if it's actually two different photos? The "missing" guy could have just been not in the second photo in the first place.
- DevilDogs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm with econofast on this one. At first, I thought they just re-shot the picture, but a picture that's cropped more, and stretched out to fill the size desired, would make things look closer. The original appears to be cropped closer than the altered one. The differences in the sizes of the men give it a way. My guess is, with it cropped and the commissar removed, it would be more noticeable because any imperfections in the airbrushing would also be enlarged.
- KiLLB0T, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I guess I won't post my picture for the college porn thing (even though it's flawless)
- marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16A time for a photo editor worry:
Stalin asks you to remove yourself from all the photos. - badbox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Photos we thought were real... would imply we've seen them before.
I've never seen any of those images so no clue WTF you're talking about.
Except the shooting one (which looks the same in both ones)- racer108, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Look closer at the shooting one. In the first one his gun is pointed at the kid. In the second one his hand is out.
- rbk303, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9where's the one of Lee Harvey Oswald holding the rifle? the one where the shadows are completely wrong? that's a classic.
- albatross5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Just remember. These are only the people who got Caught. I'm sure most image manipulations are done with more care.
- JohnnyRad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3bury innacurate, i knew they were fake.
- thewebdev, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Very cool, wonder what software they used :P
TheWebDev,
http://thelindbergletter.blogspot.com/ - MotionAesthetic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Slightly different, but this famous photo was actually staged:
http://img.waffleimages.com/3c6ed549e2726e2f489814c0c2076a708b419597/Red_army_soldiers_raising_the_soviet_flag_on_the_roof_of_the_reichstag_berlin_germany.jpg- VhaidraU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No hotlinking allowed, sir.
- garyblock, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Oh yeah. I've seen those photos, and I thought they were real!
Where do you get off writing these arrogant, lying headlines?
Come on, people. Bury this *****! Inaccurate! - thenome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Some of these are really neat. I would have never known some of these photos are fake.
- grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1But where are the moonlanding shots? ;)
- 13thfloor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I think this one of mine is pretty damn good too. I apologize for the self-promotion.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/13thfloor/399975941/in/set-72157594552707495/ - bluezinc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Lebanese pics are well known to be fake. They're the worst photoshop job I've ever seen, the repeating pattern in the smoke slaps you in the face and dares you to call it fake.
- AikoMiko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I agree with RBK303, how can they not have the Oswald photo? I've never even heard of these photos but everyone knows the rifle pic.
- jamesvaughn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1why is this so highly rated? these pics are insignificant and so are their edits.
- smoreorless, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1http://www.nidirect.co.uk
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
