This should cause some more:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/155617-how-the-2013-world-press-photo-of-the-year-was-faked-with-photoshop

The fact that the photo was digitally manipulated what obvious to me, when I saw this photo in the news. And I wondered about that, if it was allowed now, to do that to a photo for a prize.

I can imagine that he put two or three layers of the same photo on top of each other, to get to the level of dark and light. I do that often to make something of a bleek image. I have no idea what is right or wrong in this case.

When I saw the lighting in the photo it made me think of the old paint masters in the 16th and 17th century. They too used over lighting and deep shadows to get to a dramatic scene. Not much wrong with that if it tells the story.

Having said that and then having another image of the same event to compare the WWP image....

compare with the one that won

I know, different part of the road, so no realy the right way to compare, but sure the light is much different.

And my remarks about the "great masters"..... well, they hardly ever did their own work without overworking it or having students fill in the blanks.... Still people run to the museum to gawk at a canvas full of plaint dots... and say it is a master piece that SPEAKS to them.

The photo in the WWP is an event that too place and it is speaking to the world.

I have another question all together. When was that photo published in a news paper for the first time?

...JPEG’s XMP block, which details the file’s Photoshop save history... can anyone make fart these days and don't be recorded?

So much info about the editing that was done, about the lightning, shadows, the pixels that were compared, but all that I can see are two little children, dead in their father's arms...

SICK!

Question American News Stations before you Question this. My poit is, Question everything.