North Korea and photoshopping

<p>I noticed this in a news web site<br>

<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9956422/North-Korea-Photoshopped-marine-landings-photograph.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9956422/North-Korea-Photoshopped-marine-landings-photograph.html</a></p>

<p>Peter, this site has larger images and a full analysis.<br /> <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/03/is-this-north-korean-hovercraft-landing-photo-faked/100480/">http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/03/is-this-north-korean-hovercraft-landing-photo-faked/100480/</a></p>

<p>Full size original:<br>

<a href="http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/nk032613/nfull_64678129.jpg">http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/nk032613/nfull_64678129.jpg</a></p>

<p>It's a pretty decent job if the picture was photoshopped, but it doesn't appear to be from what I'm seeing.</p>

<p>The 1st picture shows 8 hovercraft in total with two already on land, while the 5th pictures shows 6 hovercraft but taken from an angle that appears to omit the first 2 to land which would appear on camera-right.</p>

<p>So the numbers seem to add up.</p>

<p>Looks shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few crazy tyrannical militaristic shops in my time.</p>

<p>Semi-srsly, the farthest and rearmost two look clone-stamped. And check the wake spray of the two blue-boxed examples - the second has a fake looking cutoff and blur around the spray to make it look slightly different. But the sunlight reflections are identical - they should be slightly different.</p>

<p>Lex, if they were shopped, how would one explain the 6 on the beach and none of them correlating with the first two on land?<br>

<a href="http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/nk032613/n05_64678128.jpg">http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/nk032613/n05_64678128.jpg</a></p>

<p>Lex I wonder how you can be so convinced of the images being shopped.<br /> If you look at the image showing <a href="http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/nk032613/nfull_64678129.jpg">eight hovercrafts</a>, the two in the far background are obviously different (look at the flags) and the similarities are not strange due to the fact that they show same model of craft, going in the same direction and at probably the same speed.<br /> Concerning the two hovercrafts on the beach, they are two different models, where one is equipped with radar the other not and one with three canon towers, and the other with only one.<br /> Anyway why the fuss? If the country can build one, they can surely also build 8 or 100. Maybe they are all false and the men of clay !<br /> That the regime is a dictatorship is obvious to most and they don't need photoshop to prove it.</p>

<p>Oh, the shopping may not have been to exaggerate the total number of hovercraft. It might have been done just to present a more pleasing formation, in case one of the craft happened to be out of the frame in the original photos.</p>

<p>And of course, combining different elements from multiple shots can get you different-looking flags and water/spray - while allowing the 'shopper to multiply the number of vehicles that appear in the final result.</p>

<p>Maybe Iran has been swapping PS technology for missiles?</p>

>>> Looks shopped.

 

Yes. The leading edge of the water being kicked up on the two craft coming in, for example...

<p>Yeah, the signature spray patterns are a dead giveaway. Honestly, whoever did this work was a hack. There are many people on this list who could do much better. Is that the best N Korea can do? Geesh.</p>

<p>I <em>love</em> Photoshop. Of course, my hair was still dark back then...</p><div></div>

<p>It looks all wrong, doesn't it? I live near the ocean, and at times it can have that hazy look to the air, but why is the same air so crystal clear on the land? It's because it isn't possible in reality.</p>

<p>Obviously cloned and as Sarah pointed out, the works was done by hacks.</p>

<p>I was surprised to see these comments today in the <a href="http://blogs.afp.com/correspondent/?post/Detecting-North-Korea%E2%80%99s-doctored-photos#.UVRbS45430c">afp.com blog</a>:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"It took more than 90 minutes of careful analysis to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the photo had been manipulated. (Using Tungstene requires a solid grip on mathematics.)"<br>

"The inescapable conclusion was that many elements in the image had been cut-&-pasted, albeit very skilfully. "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Skillfully? No wonder the news media have such a hard time spotting fake photos and stories.</p>

<p>Granted, using specialized forensic techniques to eliminate doubt takes time. But it probably took most of us no more than five minutes to spot the obvious signs of hack editing. I've seen better shops on 4chan and reddit. If North Korea wants to up its game in faking photos then need open access to the interweb so their trolls can study state of the art trolling.</p>

<p>Lex, I can tell you've probably never sued anyone or been sued. :-) </p>

<p>The settlement forbids me to discuss that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Skillfully? No wonder the news media have such a hard time spotting fake photos and stories.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On a similar note, I always want to throw something at the television when a journalist uses the term "mastermind" to describe some terrorist who plots an attack. These "masterminds" are usually pretty dim bulbs, IMO.</p>