I was on the BBC website today, and I saw this photo:



To me it looks "fake", does anyone else think so too? It looks more like a painting than a photo to my eyes. I think it's something to do with the colours.

Look alright to me, a larger size would be nice though. No doubt it's been massaged a little, but I doubt if it's had too much done to it.
Can you be more specific about what it is that's bothering you about it?

Well it's hard to describe really.

I think it's the greens. It just looks too "rich"

The sky looks seriously bright, most of it is white rather than blue. Yet the grass is pure green, and doesn't look that bright at all. The soldiers don't seem to look right to me - almost as if they are posing infront of an image.

The thing is, everyone's displays are slightly different. This is, personally, what I hate most about photography online. What I think looks awesome on my display won't look anything like it on yours. I've been having this at work lately. It annoys me. I want to shove an colour chart at them and tell to take another look when their display matches it.
Anyway.
The sky could just be hazy and slightly overcast - it's still got some blue in it mind you.
I'd imagine there's a fair bit of dust blowing around as well, so that'll affect the colours.
The greens, maybe they are that green. It's a different country, the light will be different, and so will the wildlife.
I'd imagine that the photographer has also probably lifted some areas for clarity, if they knew that the end result was going to be a tiny box on the BBC site.

Apparently, BBC guidelines let it be known that it’s a sacking offence to tamper with an image. I can’t find a source on the on the site at the moment.

EDIT: I’ve asked Rory Cellan-Jones - BBC tech correspondent on Twitter. He does answer questions and responds to comments, so if he’s paying attention, I may get a link to the guidelines from him, or at least a 140 character reply

OK - a staff 'journalist' or photographer is not allowed to manipulate a photograph in any way. However, if that photographer was self-employed and sold his pic on, then he would have to agree to the rules governing 'used' pics which are far more lenient than the newspapers staff rules...

Without access to the original it's impossible to tell (to a degree).

Al

More often that not if the greens are a little greener (for example) it would suggest the levels have been played with a little wouldnt it? A bit of contrast here, a bit of somethingorother there.

The colours certainly look saturated, but that could just be an attempt to make a small image stand out on the website. The sky often looks that white when the sun is high in the sky, especially in hot climates. And as for the soldiers "posing" - I think they have other things on their mind.

I really just think they've just saturated the colours a bit. Without seeing the original Press Association image it's difficult to tell.

I'm no suggesting that they are posing, or that the photo is fake.

I'm just saying that to me the photo looks like it could be.