Paul Hansen, a photojournalist from Sweden, has been in the cross hairs of a media frenzy after his award winning photograph of a Palestinian funeral procession was criticized for being manipulated. It began when one determined internet expert..erm I mean forensic image analyst gave the image a thorough look and made the claim that it was a composite; showing various examples of error level analysis, skeptical lighting conditions, and the suspicion of adding or retracting figures based on an XMP file attached to the original image. Making such harsh accusations is nothing to take lightly...After all, the moralistic integrity of photojournalism is at stake. The original post was then spread widely from blog to blog, stating that the image was faked. Of course Hansen had to make a rebuttal to defend himself from these pixel peepers: "
"The photograph is certainly not a composite or a fake...In the post-process toning and balancing of the uneven light in the alleyway, I developed the raw file with different density to use the natural light instead of dodging and burning. In effect to recreate what the eye sees and get a larger dynamic range...To put it simply, it's the same file - developed over itself - the same thing you did with negatives when you scanned them."
In this case Hansen stated that he manipulated the image's tones in what was most likely the result of something similar to HDR processing. Now the question getting thrown around is whether or not stacking an image for increased dynamic range counts as a composite. Photojournalism is especially very touchy by their standards of editing as it is. For the most part the only things allowed are cropping, dodging and burning, but one could argue that this is just a more advanced way of dodging and burning. We've seen countless mishaps through altered imagery in print trying to up the ante in terms of how bad things can get...and usually they've leave behind sloppy clone stamping. This is a different case where the image was processed without compromising the original content. World Press Photo, who awarded Hansen the 2012 Photo of the Year, reviewed the original RAW file vs the edited JPEG and recently made a statement defending Hansen's image:
“We have reviewed the RAW image, as supplied by World Press Photo, and the resulting published JPEG image. It is clear that the published photo was retouched with respect to both global and local color and tone. Beyond this, however, we find no evidence of significant photo manipulation or compositing. Furthermore, the analysis purporting photo manipulation is deeply flawed, as described briefly below." 1. XMP Analysis. The XMP analysis reflects an incomplete understanding of the Photoshop metadata and also paraphrases the contents in a misleading way. The referenced block of metadata merely indicates that the file was adjusted in the Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw module on multiple occasions before it was opened in Photoshop and then saved out as a JPEG. In fact, this metadata does not track whether multiple files were composited. 2. Error Level Analysis. The forensic analysis of the JPEG compression as performed by error level analysis (ELA) does not provide a quantitative or reliable analysis of photo manipulation. This analysis frequently mis-identifies authentic photos as altered and fails to identify altered images, and as such is not a reliable forensic tool. 3. Shadow Analysis. The shadow analysis is flawed in its logic and conclusions. It is true that linear constraints that connect points on an object with their corresponding points on the shadow should intersect at a single point (assuming the presence of a single light source). The location of this intersection point, however, cannot be used to reason about the elevation of the light in the scene. The intersection point is simply the projection of the light source into the image plane. This projected location can be anywhere in the image (including below the ground plane) depending on where the photographer is oriented relative to the sun.
After all that drama the jury ruled in favor of the photographer, but this hasn't stopped the debate: How much Photoshop is too much? Thanks to the original accusation, the definition of "Composite" has taken a beating over this trial. It's interesting to see the back and forth between those who think the image in question is real or fake...and it's also interesting to see how quickly media sources sensationalize one guy's opinion as absolute fact. Will Paul Hansen's image be the turning point for photojournalism in the acceptance of subtle manipulation or will publications be more critical on images that have been retouched from here on out?