File talk:Gandhi Boer War 1899.jpg

Image:Gandhi Boer War 1899.jpg|frame]]

It is a photograph. Source website has been provided while uploading the image, and that source, a reputable Indian newspaper, says that the image is a photograph dating to 1899. ImpuMozhi 02:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously not a photograph, regardless of what the "reputable newspaper" may say now or may have said back in antiquity. Its not even artistic realism - its more like a cartoon. In fact, two other young Ghandi photos appear to be actual fakes. This one at least is a genuine illustration. -Ste|vertigo 17:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claimed "photo" of Mahatma Gandhi said to have been "taken in 1899 when he was serving in the Indian Ambulance Corps during the Boer war." Source: http://www.thehinduimages.com:8080/hindu/photoDetail.do?photoId=2535921

This claim is disputed, due to the fact that the image is a cartoon. See talk page.

I don't see the point in these exertions. I have provided the source, which is indeed, a "very reputable" newspaper (italics to add to your scare-quotes) and one could reasonably expect you to provide something other than bare and repeated assertion. ImpuMozhi 18:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a lithograph to me, which were often made directly from photographs for the purposes of printing them in newspapers. (The Soviet Union continued to use this technology way after it had been outdated, which is why tons of Soviet-era pictures from even the 1960s have the same hazy, drawn look to them. In 1899 though it would not have been all that primative for cheaply reproduced photos, as I understand it, with my limited knowledge of the history of printing). All the same, I don't really understand what the debate is about. Does it being a lithograph or a photograph significantly change its copyright status? --Fastfission 15:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why it looks like a painting is because this was taken right around the time when photographs were first made. Naturally, photographs would look weird like this as opposed to roughly 110 years later (today), in which photographs have developed to look more realistic. Armyrifle 23:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armyrifle9, the image above it in the Gandhi article is from 1895, and clearly looks like a photograph. So it's still strange that this photo, supposedly from 1899, would look like a (photoshopped?) cartoon. Unclenuclear 05:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a very, very fake photo. The Sun or The Daily Mirror newspapers do the same thing today with a head superimposed on another person's body.--andreasegde (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get nothing on the alleged link to the source. --91.10.43.1 (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source seems to have removed the image,I don't know if this affects the copyright. I still hold the view that this is not a legitimate photograph, especially because it is on the page of one of the most influential and famous individuals in history. (Wannabekiller (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Photoshopped, amirite

This looks photoshopped. I can tell from the pixels and from having seen many shoops in my time.

[repaired?] the image was (badly) taken via a camera and retouched to fix it .. many older pics included the same "repair" work .. [vanity] because of the subjects wishes, or a painter did the photo work and felt compelled to "fix" it Waptek (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera#History —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waptek (talk • contribs) 22:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me it is pretty disgraceful that this is on the main page for Gandhi. On first sight it is clearly a fake/superimposed image, even from an admittedly non-expert point of view. I think this 'picture' should be at least removed from Gandhi's page, if not totally deleted. (Wannabekiller (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

It is probably just a sketch. If it is a "photograph" it was heavily "retouched" by hand, which, in this case, amounts to the same thing. Here is a real picture of the same subject, M.K. Gandhi in the middle row: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gandhi_Boer_War.jpg In any event, the subject image should not be regarded as a "photograph" for purposes of wikipedia as every meaningful feature you can see in it is the work of a human hand and not the product of photography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.140.219 (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]