Is this contest-winning photo a composite?

Today I came across this award-winning photo that someone claims to be a fraud. There is a lot of evidence and explanations in the link below:

http://www.hackerfacto​r.com …ves/549-Unbelievable.html

(just sroll to "And the award goes to")

What do you guys think? Is it a composite? Or is it original?
I think it can be a composite, but the result is perfectly achievable with some dodge and burning as well....

EDIT: just for comparison, this is a 2012 photo that won the Nat Geo contest and was disqualified because of a cloned plastic bag:
http://www.digitalcame​raworld.com …test-winner-disqualified/

I don't know if it's a composite, but like you say that lighting is a little too good to be true - very theatrical and I like it. For a contest I can see how that would be worth debating and rules need to be followed, but end of the day, if a picture tells a story and is captivating, I don't really care how the artist achieved it (okay I care, but wouldn't slight it because of it lol!). Whether we use lighting gear, reflectors, or other tricks of the trade to optimize our images, there's always some degree of light manipulation in a scene. It's a great capture any way you slice it.

EDIT: and I don't mean to be disrespectful of any of the subjects by saying the photo is "great" and that "I like it", I'm just commenting on the technical aspects of the photo. This is obviously a very powerful and emotional subject.

the photo doesn't follow journalism standards. there is no way that a camera would take a photo like that.

There's def some editing taking place and if your trying to capture the moment as it was this photo isn't a true presentation of the moment in time.

it doesn't stop it from being a good picture tho.

This quote is from the link the OP provided; it basically sums it up very well:

This year's "World Press Photo Award" wasn't given for a photograph. It was awarded to a digital composite that was significantly reworked.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #15931964
This quote is from the link the OP provided; it basically sums it up very well:

This year's "World Press Photo Award" wasn't given for a photograph. It was awarded to a digital composite that was significantly reworked.

Only it is wrong. The NPPA reviewed the RAW files and admitted that it has been dodged and burned expertly, it is not a composite image. Only a masterfully edited picture where no information has been removed or added. The feeling of the final edit is the same as the original image, only with a more aesthetically pleasing edit.

So the RAW files were actually submitted and reviewed? The article linked says the photographer forgot to bring them (with skeptical quotes placed around the word forgot, in the article).

Heavy RAW conversion but not a composite.

Let me try and prove it. I took the second reference picture and opened it in ACR to try and see if I could get a similar look as the first.

Here's what I got in about 10 minutes, ACR only. (screengrab to show no foul play)

Definitely not the same, but I'd say it's close enough not to crucify him. Notably, the shadows fall the same way as on the winning pic: sun on the right side shining on the left wall, but faces illuminated from the left and shaded on the right. Doesn't really surprise me: I saw the same in Italy. Narrow streets with a wall catching the sun and reflecting part of that as soft, diffuse light that seemingly came from the wrong side.

Tall poppy syndrome. As far as I'm concerned this is like all those 9/11 truth conspiracies where a guy with some 'technology' takes apart a video and finds a few vague discrepancies and then acts like the only person on earth who can see it.

I've taken a photo in a similar situation and it produced very similar, theatrical lighting effects, all you need is a well placed cloud so the light is diffuse. Chuck it through a few slight changes in camera raw and you can have that finished image. I'm unconvinced he even needed to break out a Lightroom.

Man scored some lucky lighting and now Cpt. I'm Smarter than Everyone Else is trying to take him apart on this blog.

Thomas Campbell wrote in post #15932019
Only it is wrong. The NPPA reviewed the RAW files and admitted that it has been dodged and burned expertly, it is not a composite image. Only a masterfully edited picture where no information has been removed or added. The feeling of the final edit is the same as the original image, only with a more aesthetically pleasing edit.

...yep. The original can be seen here:

http://blog.photoshelt​er.com …nt-and-the-truth-matters/

Not a composite. If you read the bloggers front page: he is now trying to redefine layers as a composite.

banquetbear wrote in post #15932270
...yep. The original can be seen here:

http://blog.photoshelt​er.com …nt-and-the-truth-matters/

Not a composite. If you read the bloggers front page: he is now trying to redefine layers as a composite.

Pussyfooting around the issue is what this blogger is doing. All digital files are a digital reproduction of the actual image. If you choose Faithful color over Neutral or Landscape, it will look totally different. If I switch color algorithm, have I deliberately set out to be untruthful? Have I doctored the image?

Blogger tries to be smart, and gets caught out. End of.

Plus the blogger is wrong about the sunlight. He commented that the sun is illuminating the wrong side of the people's faces - but he missed out on important facts. The tall walls on the (photo) right stops the sun falling on the (photo) right of the men's faces. However it does hit the light coloured wall on photo left.... which acts like a giant reflector and bounces it back at the men's faces. You can clearly see that this effect is most prominent with the men close to the wall and reduced with those further from the wall.

I will go with the WPP and their experts over this blogger
http://www.worldpressp​hoto.org …sen%E2%80%99s-image-files

...I just ran one of my photos through the bloggers "forensic analysis process."

The original:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/40982470@N04/8​741236792/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/40982470@N04/8​740108629/

Well I tried it with two images. One is a composite, the other is not. So which one is which?

1

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/alan-evans/8645364410/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/alan-evans/8741647260/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/alan-evans/8644269131/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/alan-evans/8741647102/

I would have voted for "inconclusive"

I particularly disagree with his his entire section of lighting on the buildings and faces. I find the assumption of how light is going to behave in that alley way very much an assumption.

Lastly, it IS an amazing photo, and very politically charged, so charged in fact that I'd rather not consider taking a side here.