Photograph or Photoshop?

[CookieMonster187]

I thought I'd ask you guys, the photo experts, for your opinions on the following photographs, one by FoxNews (top) the other by the AP (bottom). Given that the AP photo is Truth, is the FoxNews photo possible purely using camera techniques (perspective, zoom, etc), or is Photoshop required?

Pay attention to the black background and where it transitions to blue. Notice it's right at Kerry's eye in both pictures. Notice that the perspective of both pictures is relatively the same (viewport is within feet of each other). In any event, it's important to note where the intersection is on the eye of Kerry because it anchors the geometry and rules out perspective as a cause for the problem. Notice where the black to blue transition intersects Bush in both images.

[Emo]

Is it two different times? It looks like they could have been taken at different points in the debate.

[opus]

Is it possible that Bush stepped down off a platform between shots? I say that because of the relative position changes of their shoulders, and because Bush's right arm appears bent at a different angle between shots.

On closer examination, that right arm looks awfully funny, doesn't it? It would appear to have an impossible forearm bend. The folds in the elbow are similar but not identical. The whole arm is angled more towards the body in the second picture, whereas it's angled outward in the first.

Kerry's eyes give no clue.

I'm also looking at the shadows on Kerry's suit and Bush's shoulder. They appear to support the position of Bush below Kerry, whereas in the first photo Kerry has no such shadow. And Kerry is casting a shadow on Bush.

All of this is achievable in Photoshop, but the question I ask is, Why? I can see no advantage.

OH, and I overlooked one major thing. If the shot on the second is the "real" picture, it would be almost impossible to alter it so cleanly into the first, getting rid of the shadows, extending the arm out, creating a new arm for Kerry. That would be one awfully complicated alteration. Again, I ask, What would be the advantage for Fox to go to such lengths and risk destroying their professional reputation?

My vote is for different camera angles at different moments.

[opus]

heh heh, maybe Kerry is squeezing Bush's hand so hard that Bush's knees are bending as he squirms.

[Trevor Ash]

Different angles and slightly different time when photo was taken. You can tell the angle simply by looking at the seam in the background and noticing that it changes position. The position of the seam corresponds with the angle oh the arms.

Also, these "handshakes" are held for many many many seconds sometimes to ensure all photographers get their pictures.

There's nothing more too it.

[another view]

Different angles and slightly different time when photo was taken. You can tell the angle simply by looking at the seam in the background and noticing that it changes position. The position of the seam corresponds with the angle oh the arms.

Also, these "handshakes" are held for many many many seconds sometimes to ensure all photographers get their pictures.

There's nothing more too it.

Exactly. I watched the debate - up until the last few seconds and didn't see a closing handshake if there was one. In the opening handshake, it lasted probably 2-3 seconds which would be enough for them to get their shot. There was no platform that either stood on. Different photographer positions and possibly different focal lengths can make a big difference. I'm not sure exactly how it works with who gets to be there, but I'd be pretty sure that the Fox News shot was from AP too, check the credit.

[Lava Lamp]

Is it possible that Bush stepped down off a platform between shots? I say that because of the relative position changes of their shoulders, and because Bush's right arm appears bent at a different angle between shots.

On closer examination, that right arm looks awfully funny, doesn't it? It would appear to have an impossible forearm bend. The folds in the elbow are similar but not identical. The whole arm is angled more towards the body in the second picture, whereas it's angled outward in the first.

Kerry's eyes give no clue.

I'm also looking at the shadows on Kerry's suit and Bush's shoulder. They appear to support the position of Bush below Kerry, whereas in the first photo Kerry has no such shadow. And Kerry is casting a shadow on Bush.

All of this is achievable in Photoshop, but the question I ask is, Why? I can see no advantage.

OH, and I overlooked one major thing. If the shot on the second is the "real" picture, it would be almost impossible to alter it so cleanly into the first, getting rid of the shadows, extending the arm out, creating a new arm for Kerry. That would be one awfully complicated alteration. Again, I ask, What would be the advantage for Fox to go to such lengths and risk destroying their professional reputation?

My vote is for different camera angles at different moments.

The advantage is that Kerry is taller than Bush and the possibly altered photo minimizes the height difference. The TV coverage did that, too, lining up the camera angles so they had their eyes at the same level.

[another view]

The advantage is that Kerry is taller than Bush and the possibly altered photo minimizes the height difference. The TV coverage did that, too, lining up the camera angles so they had their eyes at the same level.

Journalistically, there's a HUGE difference between altering an image after capture and moving to a different perspective to make the capture. One's a lie and the other's the truth.

[Todd Patten]

Faux News Lie or manipulate the truth? Nah. That's CBS's job