« Exterminating White People | Main | Rove Not To Be Indicted; Libby Likely »
October 27, 2005
USA Today Caught 'Photoshop-ing'
It looks like yet another member of mainstream media has been caught 'Photoshop-ing.' Last week, USA Today doctored a photo of Condoleezza Rice, giving a demonic look about her. Michelle Malkin is keeping tabs on this story here and here.
USA Today has replaced the doctored photo, with the following explanation:
Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. 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.
I wasn't so sure it was simple brightening of a "portion of Rice's face;" any seasoned Photoshop user would agree. I decided to attempt to replicate USA Today's "brightening" to achieve similar results. The following screenshots and examples are from my efforts.
The USA Today doctored photo (Photo #1)
The original photo (Photo #2)
There was nothing to suggest that a general area around the eyes was brightened. Adjusting the contrast to the extreme showed no signs of doctoring outside the focused area of the eyes, with most differences likely attributed to existing JPEG compression, resulting in distortion and artifacts.
To emulate USA Today's doctoring, I had proceeded to focus on the eyes, and use the Lasso tool to draw a marquee around the specific area of the eyes.
I figured the next best way to only darken the darks, and lighten up the white of the eye was to adjust the curves.
From there, it still didn't quite look right, so I actually darkened the iris and around the eyes a bit, my end result is shown side by side with the other images, noted as photo #3 (click to enlarge).
As you can see, it was a concerted effort to add some white to the eyes with the act of "brightening" rather than specifically replacing pixels one-by-one (which when attempted, did not yield acceptable results). Using the Brightness tool, similar results were achieved, but only when brightening the white of her eyes only.
It seems pretty clear there was a specific intent to brighten the eyes, significantly altering the appearance of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Nice try, USA Today, but I don't buy your excuse.
Posted by Aaron at October 27, 2005 01:13 PM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
I'm guessing the portion of Rice's face they are referring to are her eyes.
Obviously, this photo shouldn't have been altered like it was or published like that.
Posted by Tom Shipley ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.pardonmyenglish.com//nav-commenters.gif)
at October 27, 2005 01:33 PM
Wonder what the motive and intent were....
Posted by Sarge at October 27, 2005 01:52 PM
Obviously to make Condi look like a demon. They are part of the left-wing media, after all.
They should be charged with a Hate Condi crime.
Next we'll see Bush photos with sinister mustaches drawn on his upper lip.
Posted by Tom Shipley at October 27, 2005 02:36 PM
I think it was an honest mistake and they quickly apologized. Besides, the USA Today is one of the most conservative papers in America. I'm sure they are no part of a left wing agenda.
Posted by leantotheleft at October 27, 2005 03:26 PM
Actually, next we'll see a pic of the V-POTUS giving a one-lip snarl to a committee....oh yeah, the AP did THAT yesterday. Not hard to find an unbecoming photo from one shot of a digital video.
Posted by Sarge at October 27, 2005 03:48 PM
"Not hard to find an unbecoming photo from one shot of a digital video."
It's not hard to find a photo of Cheney snarling.
Posted by Tom Shipley at October 27, 2005 03:57 PM
Find me one of him NOT snarling.
Posted by TRF at October 27, 2005 04:15 PM
I think it was an honest mistake and they quickly apologized.
They did apologize, but it can't be an honest mistake to do what Aaron did - that's the whole point of his demonstration. Unless you mean that it was an honest mistake on the part of the editors not noticing the dishonest mistake of whoever edited the picture.
http://radar.smh.com.au/archives/cheney.jpg
Posted by Richard Frankel at October 27, 2005 04:45 PM
Find me one of him NOT snarling.
Precisely the point. The AP et al like to show you pics of him from one shot of a digital movie file caught with a one-lip snarl on his face to make you think that exact thought. He's a nasty snarling man...see all these shots we get of him snarling.
...but since you asked.
Posted by Sarge at October 27, 2005 05:00 PM
It doesn't get any better thatn this....literally.
Posted by Russ at October 27, 2005 05:06 PM
I think that's the happiest i've seen Cheney.
My point is that he does that lip-snarl a lot.
If you watch him on say Meet the Press, his general demenor is of someone who needs to take a crap really bad but still has 20 minutes left with Russert.
Posted by Tom Shipley at October 27, 2005 06:08 PM
Hell, he acts like he's gonna crap in the chair and dare you to say something about it. He comes across as a wee bit surly.
Posted by TRF at October 27, 2005 06:18 PM
That was not an apology. By the way, I thought libs were compassionate people? How CAN you trash Cheney for his facial features? After all, he can't help how his lips curl . What do YOU two look like? Any flaws? Hmmm? I thought so.
Posted by Lisa at October 27, 2005 07:33 PM
>>next we'll see a pic of the V-POTUS giving a one-lip snarl to a committee.
Snarling is all he ever does.
>>How CAN you trash Cheney for his facial features?
Its out fault he always looks like he has shit underneath his nose?
Posted by Um Yeah at October 27, 2005 09:39 PM
Good to see UY still has nothing to say after 3 years of the same. Go on UY, beliueve yoiur lie.
Lisa's correct, THAT was not an apology. It's called a "correction." I don't think I've ever actually seen an apology coming from a newspaper.
Posted by Sarge at October 28, 2005 06:57 AM
>>beliueve yoiur lie.
bellevue Hospital?
Posted by Um Yeah at October 28, 2005 11:19 AM
Hallow...een Maybe? USA Today's fault lies in their attempt to improve on the photo. Were they trying to make her look demonic? Demonic=not very happy?
Putting aside accusation of negative comments re: facial features, neither Condi or Cheney are happy people. How long would the media need to wait for a smile?
Regarding media bias, this is just more of the same brought to you by MMW. Kudos to Aaron. Has there ever been an apology or lack of bias here?
Posted by Russ at October 28, 2005 11:33 AM
bellevue Hospital?
Is THAT where you escaped from? They want their resident megalomaniacal pathological liar back...the men in white coats are coming for ya. Didn't think yoiu ever had anything to say.
Posted by Sarge at October 28, 2005 01:02 PM
Russ, you are not a happy person. Full of hate and anger. There are plenty of "happy" looking pics, if the MSM cared to show them . They don't.
Posted by Lisa at October 28, 2005 03:02 PM
:-) am too!
Posted by Russ at October 28, 2005 03:07 PM
anyone who thinks this was done purposely needs to take off their tinfoil hat.
this was sloppy color correction, nothing more.
Posted by mattk at October 28, 2005 03:35 PM
Lisa, it isn't "just" MSN, all the networks are hard pressed to find a smile in the Bush admin.
Was just watching "CNN" and W's response to the indictment, and even he wasn't smiling. He's off to Camp David for a mini-weekend vacation which means his ratings will be up a bit by Monday.
Posted by Russ at October 28, 2005 03:57 PM
>>They want their resident megalomaniacal pathological liar back.
This by far the most clear case of projection ever.
Posted by Um Yeah at October 28, 2005 05:25 PM
err Russ, I didn't say "MSN", I said "the MSM". MAIN STREAM MEDIA. For the love of Pete!
Posted by Lisa at October 30, 2005 11:21 AM
where can i download MSM?
Posted by mattk at October 30, 2005 06:51 PM
mattk doesn't beleive the MSM really exists.
Posted by MJohnson at October 30, 2005 09:08 PM
This by far the most clear case of projection ever.
First off, you' have to understand "projection" in order to charge someone with it. Secondly, you are the only one here that not only think you're omnipotent, but have also claimed so.
mattk doesn't beleive the MSM really exists.
No, not unless we've very clearly proven it exists.
Posted by Sarge at October 31, 2005 10:30 AM
"Russ, you are not a happy person. Full of hate and anger. There are plenty of "happy" looking pics, if the MSM cared to show them . They don't."
Ok Lisa, my mistake. I jumped on the anti-liberal train and mis-read your comment, which was easy to do since you seem to think all media is bias to the libs.
For the record where do you go (which site) to see the "happy" pics?
Posted by Russ at October 31, 2005 03:43 PM
Google images does an OK job at it....IF you care to actually look.
Posted by Sarge at October 31, 2005 04:05 PM
I don't take direction from "dumbshits." Maybe you are that stupid! Read her comments before you react.
If they have "THEM" but don't "SHOW" them, where does she "SEE" them in the "MSM?" Just like you, she engages her ass before her brain.
Dare I tread? What would be your definition of "happy", as in "W's happy cabinet/staff photos?"
Posted by Russ at October 31, 2005 04:46 PM
>>you' have to understand "projection"
I do. And?
>>but have also claimed so.
Where?
Posted by Um Yeah at October 31, 2005 06:07 PM
WHO is "engaging" their "ass" before their brain? O.K., once more Russ. I said that "there are plenty of happy-looking pics if the MSM cared to show them." "They don't." Do you understand? The MSM! That DOES leave some other sources. Then you go and say "If they have "THEM" but don't "SHOW" them, where does she "SEE" them in the "MSM?" I DON'T,that was the point! Grrrrrr!
Posted by Lisa at November 2, 2005 09:55 AM
Grrrrrr, If you don't see them then where the hell are they? You are starting to sound like Rummy. First, lets discuss the pics you don't see. Secondly, on which MSM location do you not see them? Last, yet not likely, where is a better than google location to view the pics you don't see.
Posted by Russ at November 2, 2005 11:58 AM
thanks for the compliment[soundng like Rummy]. The answer to your burning question; NOT in the MSM!!!
Posted by Lisa at November 2, 2005 12:20 PM
You're quite welcome. I did get a glimpse of Cheney attempting a smile on MSN.
Posted by Russ at November 2, 2005 10:23 PM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.
