

How a Minnesota programmer figured out that a NYT photo was altered - ams1
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2009/07/fakery_in_the_times.shtml

======
mquander
This story is particularly juicy because in the Metafilter thread in question
(you can read it at [http://www.metafilter.com/83061/Ruins-of-the-Second-
Gilded-A...](http://www.metafilter.com/83061/Ruins-of-the-Second-Gilded-Age))
the commenters pointed out a lot more work by this same photographer (Edgar
Martins) which is apparently doctored in the same fashion. The funny thing is
that Martins makes a public point of claiming that he doesn't do any "digital
manipulation" on his pictures, which appears to be a total joke.

Here are some more of his images which he claimed to have shot naturally that
appear photoshopped to be symmetrical:

[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/30/magazine/05gi...](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/30/magazine/05gilded.3.jpg)

[http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/30/magazine/05gi...](http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/30/magazine/05gilded.8.jpg)
(orange fence in front)

<http://www.jmakes.com/spfo/dimpresent1.gif>

[http://www.artnet.com/Artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=0E9A...](http://www.artnet.com/Artists/LotDetailPage.aspx?lot_id=0E9A0A625C8CDC2EC7B27EB47F90FFD1)
(plants are mirrored)

[http://www.saatchi-
gallery.co.uk/images/thumbnail1.php/d4d7a...](http://www.saatchi-
gallery.co.uk/images/thumbnail1.php/d4d7a4363323013004970.jpg)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
"The funny thing is that Martins makes a public point of claiming that he
doesn't do any "digital manipulation" on his pictures [...]"

Is that for real? I'm almost certain that
[http://www.capricehorn.com/images/wwwArtworks/LATEST_2-(F2C7...](http://www.capricehorn.com/images/wwwArtworks/LATEST_2-\(F2C754E0-573C-1004-BA11-871068250123\).jpg)
and
[http://www.capricehorn.com/images/wwwArtworks/The_Accidental...](http://www.capricehorn.com/images/wwwArtworks/The_Accidental_Theorist_3_\(07\)-\(5EE6BC56-53E0-1004-9023-871068250123\).jpg)
use the same mirror technique, albeit with foreground elements added (again
digitally).

However, he doesn't appear to claim not to use post-production digital
manipulation AT ALL, no mention at eg [http://www.saatchi-
gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist_profile/...](http://www.saatchi-
gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/artist_profile/a/26.html) of that. There is a quote
about this here, <http://themorningnews.org/archives/galleries/topologies/> :

"This is especially evident in “The Accidental Theorist” series. Most people
assume that these image are manipulated. Or perhaps even staged. In reality,
there is no post-production work, no darkroom or computer manipulation."

But it's clearly referring (here) to just the Accidental Theorist show. That
said the above 2 examples _are_ from that show and do appear to be 'shopped.

------
jbenz
Perhaps in the photographer's house you can climb a flight of stairs five
steps only to find another flight of stairs that lead you back down. He likes
to exercise, but only just.

~~~
Beanblabber
He seems to also like the build beams that connect to form a triangle that in
no way assist the ceiling.

------
byteCoder
I find it quite amazing that the photographer even bothered to 'shop the
photo. It seems to me as irrationality on his or his editors' part.

In this case, I don't think the doctoring of the photo affects the substance
of the article. However, that said, this is certainly an ethical lapse that
should be soundly rejected by the New York Times' readership.

~~~
potatolicious
I'm confused as to why the photo was altered in the first place - even without
the shop job it was quite striking in its symmetry.

~~~
TrevorJ
From what I understand, you aren't seeing the truly original photo in either
of those examples. You are seeing the published versions, and the 'mirrored'
version. They are attempting to prove that the published version was also
mirrored by looking at the comparison of the 2.

------
gojomo
Reminds me of the time the NYTimes swiped a collage illustration I made on my
blog and ran it without attribution:

[http://gojomo.blogspot.com/2005/04/nytimes-republishes-my-
ar...](http://gojomo.blogspot.com/2005/04/nytimes-republishes-my-artwork-
without.html)

It took two emails of gradually-increasing emotional load -- I added the
'plagiarism' label to the second -- to get them to run a correction.

It wasn't a giant deal -- a recreation of another blogger's (Niall Kennedy's)
concept -- but to see that just like any blogger, the NYTimes may just
carelessly clip things from the web was eye-opening.

------
intregus
Uuhh, yeah. I don't think you'd need to be a programmer to that is altered.
Also, I can tell from seeing a few shops in my time.

~~~
sneakums
The pixels are a dead giveaway.

