I just came across this interesting page:
Some great examples of Soviet photo doctoring.
Nifty, yet chilling.
Very SDMB.
How the hell did they do that?
Here’s a website inspired by the fascinating 1997 book The Commissar Vanishes by David King, which gives a bunch of example of this.
The people that doctored the photos were also eventually executed, so it will remain a secret forever.
All those things in Photoshop that you do by clicking on a paintbrush icon, they used to do with an actual paintbrush. Likewise, “cut and paste” also used to be considerably more literal.
Probably they printed it out as large as they could, used scissors, glue, and a paint brush to modify it, then took a new photo.
Bingo
Also keep in mind that these photos were disseminated to newspapers, a medium that even today doesn’t reproduce especially sharp photos, so a lot of the tampering would not be evident when seen in newspapers.
Shit. Because of this thread, I went back in time to Soviet Russia, brought my lappy, and taught the Ruskies PhotoShop. Stalin really dug the clone tool. Then I showed him the healing brush – he just about shit. Does that make me a communist?
I’ve done airbrush photo-editing, and the image in the OP isn’t that difficult. It would be a lot harder to remove one of the guys on the left, since you don’t know what’s behind them.
It’s basically the same skills as Photoshop (except there’s no “undo”).
In Soviet Russia, negatives come to you.
Just going through the photo’s and have looked at the first two and must say I am not convinced they are the same pictures. They may be the pictures that were included in a set.
Picture 1. Original- In the background a hill or dome is visible that is not there in the remastered. Also, in the top right corner more of a building is showing in the original.
Picture 2. The people are seen from different angles (slightly) and revealing different parts of clothing compared to the remastered version. If you look at the gentleman fourth from the right in the front row in one shot he has his jacket open, one shot it is closed.
I don’t think this proves anything much.
In the days of the Soviet space program, there was intense debate in the West, about how many cosmonauts died in space accidents. Several photos were released showing groupsof cosmonauts, later, the same photos came out, but this time missing a few people. The speculation was that the missing men had been los in unreported accidents. There was a good book written about this, which is out of print…it was called “Soviet Space Hoax”-anyone ver seen it?
If they went to such lengths to doctor photographs for propaganda purposes, why did they keep the originals archived? If they really wanted to change history in this manner, they should just have destroyed the negatives.
The dome is there, it’s just overexposed. In fact, all of the background is overexposed in the “after” shot, which isn’t inconsistent with printing the photo, doctoring it, then taking a picture of the doctored piece.
I don’t see any differences that can’t be explained by incorrect exposure of an altered print. The man’s jacket is the same in both shots, except in the bottom one it’s a little darker so the shadow detail is more difficult to make out.
Try the second picture- fourth guy from the left in the back row. Looking in different directions in each picture. Slight, but enough.
And in the first picture you have ignored the building top right.
The third AND the fourth person seem to have different head positions, and I can’t explain that, other than to say that ALL of the faces look to have been “touched up” in the second shot.
That’s just differences in cropping.
Yeah- I am not getting too carried away by it all.
The disgraced, eliminated person might one day be rehabilitated and brought back into favor.