Photgraphic evidence always needs treating with caution. See this link:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21956_Reuters_Doctoring_Photos_from_Beirut&only

Oh heck, how could anyone have been fooled by that?? It is really SO painfully obvious. When has smoke ever looked like that naturally? I'm actually stunned that such a photograph could actually have made it live in the first place. Reuters issued a "kill" on the photoshopped image on sites like Yahoo, but it is not listed in their "corrections". I am just baffled by this. What is even the point? Do the added smoke and duplicated buildings really make the image more meaningful than the truth?

Most people would not, I'm pretty certain, look too closely at newspaper images, but would glance at them while reading the associated article(s). I'm sure the techniques of cloning and enhancing are widespread, especially in the digital age we now live in, which is unfortunate for anyone simply wanting the truth.

I find I am sceptical about most pictures ciculated over the internet, because of the technology available today. Pity one gets like that but guess it is a sign of the times.

I share the views expressed by aramis on this.

I'm very surprised that Reuters didn't spot the tricks. After all, they presumably have staff who have been trained to check photos carefully for authenticity.