Friends of Darwin


He loves and she loves

Just Causes

  • Support_denmark

  • Marykay_1

Password required

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« The uses and misuses of artistry | Main | USA Today was "just doing what kids do" »

October 26, 2005


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Surely USA Today was engaging in a bit of Halloween trickery in rendering Condi with "gothic horror" eyes..as usual, we are just being paranoid../sarcasm level SKY HIGH

Yes, this is what the media is doing wrong, doctoring pictures. Oh yeah, there is that other thing they do, nothing. They have their heads so far up their you know whats that they have no clue what is going on in the world, which in turn means most americans have no clue.

What's even more outrageous...we've got the "third photo" that reveals everything.


I see tons of these sorts of things regarding AP, NYT, Reuters, ...
Has anyone ever seen something that affected a liberal?

See what happens when I actually work all day... I miss all the fun. Demon Condi will be haunting me now. LOL.

After the Dan Rather fiasco, you'd think that any news idiot would take more care when doctoring things like papers and photos! Sheesh - why do their parents pay for J-school anyway - can't even turn out convincing manipulators!

Actually I kind of liked the "demon eyes" photo. It said "Mess with me and I'll burn you to a crisp!"

The Internet and the Bloggers, the last great hope for America to avoid the Commissars predicted by Balint Vazsonyi in "America's 30 Years War."

Alteration of a photograph for political effect has a long pedigree in Stalinist Russia and in the pages of Pravda. It can be quite an effective method of trashing your opponent.

Love how they claimed it was the result of "brightening her face" - no, the pixels of her pupils were just painted white; I could probably do it myself with MS Paint if I had the time. If it was the result of "brightening", the rest of her face would have been lightened to a ghostly blur...

Really this is nothing more than the electronic equivalent of when I used to deface magazines as a teenager by whiting out people's eyes with an eraser - the kids at USA Today were just y'know, doing what kids do...

The photoprocessor could have simply clicked in the eyes to "set the white" and clicked in the hair to "set the black." Photos are routinely sharpened, which would heighten the effect. It is entirely possible that the processor did not properly select the pixels, which should be done carefully to prevent just such an occurrence, but the problem lies in not checking one's work to insure the least amount of change to the photo. I work in photoprocessing for a Gannett paper, and we try to alter the photos as little as possible, while still optimizing for the press.

Since we strive to change a photo as little as possible, the photoprocessor is likely at fault. It doesn't even have to be deliberate. Take it from me, we are not all left-wing liberals, especially not those of us in the blue-collar jobs, like production.

Nice try, pb, but no cigar. Her eyes are the *only* pixels affected, and a simple gamma correction was not the culprit- note that her earrings are not changed, and they were brighter than her eyes in the original.

The change was not accidental.

Nice. Thanks for sharing.

"Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards." - USAToday

Distortion, huh? OK, an honest mistake.

So I decided to see if I could make the same honest mistake.

Nothing. I couldn't come close to USAToday's error in editing. Then I tried something really sneaky - I made a big increase in the Brightness just to Condi's eyes and nothing else.

Pow! In 5 minutes this 'old country redneck has nearly exactly matched the efforts of USAToday's high-priced graphics editors. And to make sure that I didn't try to hoodwink anyone I invite any and all to see my work at http://commonfolkcommonsense.blogspot.com/

The comment by Grizz above hit dead on target: "Her eyes are the *only* pixels affected, and a simple gamma correction was not the culprit..."

Those clowns "brightened a portion of Rice's face" all right - they did it on purpose for the one and only reason of making her look like a hideous demon (or like the average Liberal).

But this was "honest mistake" - sort of like "Kerry honorably served". Maybe Dan Rather can determine if the photo was "fake but accurate".

I have the scoop on the photosphopping job on my site by a techie who knows his stuff.

It's worth checking out.

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Cold Turkey Cookbook

Look to the animals

  • looktotheanimals


Blog powered by Typepad