Must have missed it. What's the deal with Zen's photo? Besides the obvious, that the background in one is several hundred yards further away from the car in one shot, than the other.
Yet some more fake photos: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/new-york-times-busted-in-hezbollah.html
Yeah! What's the big deal really? Its not like these photos hurt the lebanese people or anything! Oh wait! They do. They hurt the lebanese people far more than their being faked hurts Israel. Too bad you are blinded by partisanship to realize the damage this does.
Are you slow??? Look Dougle, I will explain this one more time. Small, Far away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoom_lens http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lenses.htm# http://www.cameraguild.com/technology/lens.htm
but, but, but yo! assured us he hates both sides equally! About the same time he said Israel where the terrorists! Can't you see the equality in his posts?
Its like talking to a brick. OK imagine that in shot 1, the wide angle one the photographer is standing near the car with a wide angle lense. in shot 2 he is much further away and using a telephoto lense. The telephoto lense will make both the subject and the background bigger. Duh.
If the car was as proportionally bigger as the background, we'd be seeing details in the paint of the car. So the background can move at least a hundred yards closer while the car appears to move a few feet? And the rocks on the ground will double, even triple? Yeah, bricks
The details are more enhanced, you can make out the petrol cap a lot better in the closer image for example.
I know all about wide and tele lens, this is still possible, problem here is the difference is so huge. Here's a layover, look at the difference:
Ok here is another pic, lets call it pic 3 taken from a different photographer, now you can see the tower and the extra rubble together, you can also see the bombed out bridge that is not visible from the 1st shots. Looks to me like the area got hit repeatedly.
The little mini-radio tower behind the wheel is another good indicator. In the bottom photo, it is barely visible and to the right of the wheel. You'd have to blow the photo up to see it (especially the shield on the bottom part of the tower - not the big tower to the left). In the top photo, directly behind the rear wheels, you can see the mini-radio tower and the same shield. Suddenly it is a hundred yards closer, but the wheels seem basically the same size.
The rubble I refered to was from in front of the vehicle. Take a look at the overlay hex just posted. Note there is much more rubble in front of the car in one shot, then the other. Not withstanding how the shield on the bottom part of the mini-radio tower appears to be just feet behind the rear wheel in one shot, and so far away in the first shot, it's barely discernable. I can appreciate some lens variances, but I can't see how a different lense could move the background a good hundred years closer and the vehicle only a few feet, at best.
Wouldn't this count as a "burning a strawman" argument? The discussion isn't about whether or not Lebanon is being attacked, it's about the doctoring of photos, and thus by extension the problem about how much we can trust certain news sources :/
Would it not be proportional, i.e if something was closer already then it would look a little closer, something much further away would look a lot closer. I'm looking at it from the other way around, if it's faked, then how, the Photoshop skills would have to be amazing and for what reason, a minor difference in perspactives? I'd have photoshopped somthing a bit more spectacular.