Gtech, in shot 3 you have the radio tower and all the extra rubble you can see in shot 2, not to mention all the bollards on the right which you can see in both shots. just admit it, you were wrong. I will even put it together for you. See the bollards on the right in the top shot, and the tower on the left in the bottom shot. now see them both in the shot below.
Its REALLY about how these doctored photos affect the Lebanese people. These indie photographers are the only pics coming out of Lebanon. If you can't believe them, and you cannot believe their PM (who exagerates the number killed), what can you believe? Any photo Lebanon comes out with saying look at all these dead people - it is easy to come back and say - is it faked? Or if someone says 39 people were killed. Is it easy to say, are you exagerrating to suit your interests? Too bad, people are so tied in partisan barbs (yo-yo, et al), they fail to see the actual issue here.
What's the name of that movie? I may want to watch it. If the directors haven't decided on a title yet; what about "muslims don't lie"?
In essence, that's the argument I make. Would it not be proportional? In other words, if the background can appear to move 100 yards closer, wouldn't the car also be 100 yards closer, and therefore MUCH bigger? The source doesn't reference them as photoshop fakes. Read the date/time stamps of the photos along with the reported captions to get a feel.
I think it's already been established that Lebanese news sources are not reliable. They exaggerate the numbers to extort an emotional response from the international community, all out of interest obviously. How can you trust a news source like that? At least one that out interest twist the facts so badly. And the act is working, no matter that the numbers have nothing to do with reality.
Was someone questioning "bollards?" In addition to the obvious distance between the trees/building to the car in the two original photos, an unsource third photo shows a huge gape where the previous two do not.
Can you really not see it. the first photo, to the right of they guys arm, between his arm and the car and the blue line I have put in to make things easy for you, you can see the bombed out bridge.
Changing camera-to-subject distance does change perspective as shown here. As the camera is moved closer to the foreground subject (bottom), the subject appears to increase in size relative to the background. This changing relationship between the size of objects in the foreground and background creates the difference in perspective. http://www.shortcourses.com/using/lenses/chapter5.htm Bottom of page.
I don't understand what difference it would make if that was altered or not? What's the purpose? Has someone any idea about that? Perhaps to make it appear to be so close to civillian buildings?
I think its fairly obvious by now that the shots were not altered. are you pulling my leg or what. Do you seriosly believe they are carting cars around the place over there?
I will even add another image for you, now start to put together a mental image. See the second car, see the background, see the bridge (or lack of one). put it all together.
Tell you what - there are a lot of people in this thread arguing about photographs who clearly have no idea about photography! ZenWraith is absolutely correct. The images were taken with different lenses. From different angles. A telephoto lens will compress the depth of field, making everything appear as if it is on the same plane. A wideangle lens will do the opposite. Any professional photographer worth his salt will carry a minimum of three lenses - telephoto, normal 50mm and wide-angle. They can be switched on the camera in a few seconds.
This one may have not. But it's already been proven they cart dead children bodies around, would anything surprise you after that?