Sounds like you didn't read past the first couple of paragraphs.. while he isn't offering any conclusive proof, his argument consists a lot more than "I think it looks fake".
I find it interesting that the author of the article mentions Malcolm Gladwell, who has been accused of stretching reality (scientific studies) to fit his theories. It appears that author is taking a scientific approach, but the argument would be better supported by analyzing a number of photographs as opposed to focusing on one. It would also surprise me if the author was surprised that there may have been some alteration to reality as the act of taking a photo alters reality in and of itself and news, like it or not, is a story medium, subject to exaggeration. Surely there are more examples from which he can draw to make his case.
That's my point. He hasn't offered any conclusive proof yet the existence of the article is structured in a way that suggests there is something untoward to be discovered. Are we to assume that he wrote the article with the hope we'd read it and come away without any bias whatsoever?
The inclusion of the filters, despite them showing no significant manipulation, sets up the narrative that we are on our way to discovering how the pictures were faked.
If this were someone's Instagram pictures of their lunch that would be fine but we're talking about a respected photographer documenting a major news event. If there is something fake about the pictures then, yes, that needs to be uncovered. But not by amateur internet sleuths Googling pictures of blood to compare splatter patterns.
> we're talking about a respected photographer documenting a major news event.
Respected photographers have been duped before, and the post addresses this. I think jontas' assertion may be accurate.
> But not by amateur internet sleuths Googling pictures of blood to compare splatter patterns.
I'm sure there are valid criticisms of his analysis, but I'm not quite sure calling Dr. Krawetz an "amateur internet sleuth" is fair if his biographical posting is in fact true [1]. On the other hand, if his qualifications are exaggerated, then his findings are assuredly suspect.
My comment about sleuths was directed at other commenters in this thread.
I don't know much about Neal Krawetz, but his bio seems awfully inflated. Two of the books he's authored are about Ubuntu customization. It appears as though he's a relentless self-promoter. That kind of fits with the original article; he levels some vauge accusations while asserting that he's an expert all in the name of promoting his personal brand.
> It appears as though he's a relentless self-promoter.
That's true. The (linked) article is almost as much about analyzing an image on a hunch as it is about his giving talks and to whom those talks have been delivered.
On the other hand, there is a lesson in this: It's important to be critical of all media we consume.
> I ran this photo by a few other people: professional photographers and artists.
There is no information about who these professionals were, their affiliations, their experience or their expertise. I would rather be interested if this was a detailed post about the analysis of at least one of these professionals, and possibly more interested if they were not anonymous.
