Were the BBM fire photos manipulated? Here’s what MindaNews photojournalists say

DAVAO CITY – A photo released by the Presidential Communications Office (PCO) on June 18 showing President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. walking alongside a firefighter inside the fire-gutted San Francisco High School in Quezon City quickly gained traction online—not only for its somber tone, but also for the backlash it triggered.

Photo from the Presidential Communications Office

Some social media users claimed the image appeared too cinematic to be real. They pointed to its dramatic shadows, framing, and what they saw as suspicious lighting, calling it “AI-generated,” “staged,” or “edited.”

In response to the viral discourse, MindaNews consulted three of its own veteran photojournalists, Manman Dejeto, Toto Lozano, and Bobby Timonera, to assess whether the image had indeed been manipulated.

“It might be enhanced, but it’s not edited”

For former presidential photographer Toto Lozano, the photo does not show signs of tampering or digital alteration. While it may have been enhanced through adjustments in brightness or contrast, such edits are standard in photojournalism, especially when preparing images for print.

Enhancing a photo, Lozano explained, helps minimize ink bleed on printed material and improves overall clarity. In the industry, this kind of editing is routine and not considered deceptive.

Lozano then emphasized that the first step in assessing a photo’s authenticity is checking its metadata, though he added that some tools can erase or modify this data. 

According to him, cross-referencing with images from independent photographers assigned to the Malacañang beat is also one way to verify consistency. These photographers, though accredited, are not Palace staff, and their photos offer an important point of comparison when assessing whether a photo was manipulated for narrative purposes.

More importantly, Lozano said that those who insist a photo is fake should be able to explain how it was manipulated; not just rely on how it “feels” to the viewer.

“It’s not edited. The second photo shows they were really standing side by side”

For Manman Dejeto, also a veteran MindaNews photojournalist, the photo’s perceived strangeness may come down to lighting and angle, not deception.

He explained that in the original photo, the shadow falling on Marcos likely came from the firefighter next to him, partially blocking overhead light and creating the illusion of selective lighting or artificial enhancement. This can give the impression that the image is “staged,” especially when viewed in isolation.

Dejeto added that the second photo released by the PCO, which did not go as viral, offers a clearer composition: no cut-off limbs, balanced lighting, and a wider view of the scene.

“It’s just a better photograph,” he also said, pointing out that the difference lies in framing and technical execution, not manipulation.

A third opinion: questions on positioning and lighting

But for Bobby Timonera, editor-in-chief of MindaNews and a veteran photojournalist, the image raises enough visual inconsistencies to merit closer scrutiny.

Timonera said he was “50-50” on whether the photo was tampered, noting that some elements in the image struck him as unnatural.

He first pointed out the awkward positioning of the concrete structure between the firefighter’s legs in the first photo.

“Tan-awa ang concrete between the legs anang naka-orange. Mura sya’g in front of the legs, pero dapat likod sya,” Timonera claims.

He also found the light hitting the President and the firefighter too bright, considering they are both indoors, making them appear almost unnaturally lit and raising the possibility that the photo was composited.

But he acknowledged that using modern, high-end cameras (which Malacañang can certainly afford) with wide latitude sensors—meaning, can capture details in the dark shadows and the bright highlights of the picture—coupled with the photographer’s Photoshop skills, can certainly produce superior pictures that may look unnatural compared to images from old, low-end cameras.

Timonera refused to issue a verdict unless he gets a copy of the untouched digital file, knowing that compression algorithms applied by social media sites to save on storage space will alter the picture drastically. But he later veered towards authenticity after seeing similar pictures from photojournalists from several newspapers, even though their images are not as good technically compared to those of the PCO.

What the tools say

To supplement their assessments, MindaNews also ran the image through InVID, a digital forensics plugin widely used by journalists to analyze images and videos. The tool checks for visual inconsistencies and metadata anomalies that may suggest manipulation. However, the results were inconclusive.

InVID’s Double Quantization filter indicated that parts of the image may have been compressed differently from the rest; a common sign when foreign elements are added into a JPEG file. However, the flagged regions lacked the clear shape or structure typically associated with inserted objects, leaving the result inconclusive.

The JPEG Ghost analysis also raised questions. It highlighted recompression artifacts in regions of the photo that don’t align with natural edges or textures, which is a potential red flag for manipulation. Still, without clear patterns or consistent highlights, this finding could not stand alone as conclusive evidence.

In the BLOCK detection pass, the tool found disruptions in the JPEG’s 8×8 compression grid, which could suggest localized edits. But this method is also known to be sensitive to normal variations in focus or texture, requiring cautious interpretation.

The WAVELET transform further detected changes in high-frequency noise patterns, which is often used to spot pasted or composited elements. Again, though, these noise differences may also result from lighting changes or differences in surface texture, making this signal ambiguous.

Finally, the Copy-Move Forgery Detection (CMFD) flagged potential duplicated areas within the image, but these overlapped with natural features such as shadows and gradients. The software marked these as possible copy-move artifacts, but without stronger evidence, the result remained speculative.

So was it fake?

The viral photo of President Marcos in a fire-damaged classroom has prompted sharp debate. Visually, it struck many as too polished to be real. Technically, it showed signs of standard photo enhancement. Forensics revealed potential irregularities, but none strong enough to conclude the image was manipulated.

For photojournalists like Lozano and Dejeto, the image fits within accepted norms of post-processing and composition. For Timonera, some visual elements remain unresolved and worth questioning further.

In the absence of conclusive proof, the image remains questionable but not confirmed to be fake. (Allizah Keziah Manulat, Marithe Franchesca Lalican, and Zoe Hontiveros / MindaNews Interns)