Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Deepblue on October 26, 2005, 06:49:25 pm
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-19-rice-congress_x.htm
Note the editors note:
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 The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy.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.
Now, look at the original photo and the other original photo.
(http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/condi.jpg)
(http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/realcondi.jpg)
Hmmmm...
Their excuse sounds like BS to my alter-ego self.
-
total non-issue
-
LOL
I knew she was Go'auld ;)
-
But alas, I deliver on my word.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I knew she was Go'auld ;)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
total non-issue
So I guess the manipulated image of John Kerry standing next to Jane Fonda is also a total non-issue then, right?
-
goober5000: yes a mistake in a touch up is totally equivlient to photoshopping someone else into an image they were never in
-
Originally posted by Flipside
LOL
I knew she was Go'auld ;)
Quoted again for truthery. :D
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
So I guess the manipulated image of John Kerry standing next to Jane Fonda is also a total non-issue then, right?
I'd say the image of him shaking hands with a scientologist or a satanist or whoever it was would be a bigger deal.
However a bit of minor touch-up can add in many literal or subliminal messages to a photo. To illustrate my point, I direct your attention to exhibit A:
-
Originally posted by Kazan
goober5000: yes a mistake in a touch up is totally equivlient to photoshopping someone else into an image they were never in
As someone who knows how Photoshop works, I can tell you that you cannot get that image by accident. You have to specifically edit the eyes.
The disclaimer was nothing more than a CYA on behalf of the unknown mischief-maker. ;)
-
:lol: @ WMC, Yup, subliminal is fun, but sometimes you just need to get the message across.
It's possible that the Editor was trying to make Gondo (sounds like a muppet) look less stoned out of her brain and got carried away ;)
-
As someone who knows how Photoshop works, I can tell you that you cannot get that image by accident. You have to specifically edit the eyes.
I don't think he's arguing that it's a harder job to photoshop someone in, but that adding a person to the picture is a falsification with much greater implications.
-
and ooh.. wow they accidentally over whitened her eyes
the horror, the error!
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I don't think he's arguing that it's a harder job to photoshop someone in, but that adding a person to the picture is a falsification with much greater implications.
This is true. Perhaps a better comparison would be the bureaucRATS subliminable message.Originally posted by Kazan
and ooh.. wow they accidentally over whitened her eyes
It wasn't an accident. If it was, a similar sharpness/whiteness would have been applied to everything else. To get that effect on only the eyes, you have to deliberately constrain the effect.
The disclaimer even admits that the brightness was applied to "a portion of Rice's face". What it doesn't tell you was where the portion was located. ;)
-
But she looks so strong and resolute in the first picture. Frankly, I think it's an improvement. Nothing says good government like a black version of Ming the Merciless.
-
Nothing says good government like accidentally exposing the real power behind the crown..err... whatever.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v86/annorax/PowerbehindtheCrown.jpg)
-
Wtf is that? The aftereffects of a turkey swallowing a grenade?
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
looks like some dark, hooded figure that we're supposed to recognize.
-
The link is the Go'ald reference. I'm not going to go much farther less I completely ruin a show if people haven't seen it before, it's an SG-1 reference. Similar to the one with Palpatine photoshopped in.
-
can you say 'Anubis'?
-
It's Anubis, one of the worst Goa'uld around. He's hanging around somewhere... probably fighting Oma Desala. For the uninitiated:
http://www.gateworld.net/omnipedia/characters/links/anubis.shtml
Also, as for the pictures: :lol:
-
Thanks guys, I was going to keep the "uninitiated" in the dark :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by redsniper
looks like some dark, hooded figure that we're supposed to recognize.
Anubis. Got SG-1? :D
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Thanks guys, I was going to keep the "uninitiated" in the dark :rolleyes:
But... but... it just isn't the aftereffects of a turkey swallowing a grenade! Though I admit that would have been pretty funny if you photoshopped that in... aside from the fact that you found a picture of the aftereffects of a turkey swallowing a grenade.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
goober5000: yes a mistake in a touch up is totally equivlient to photoshopping someone else into an image they were never in
Wow that went right over your head.
This is clearly NOT a mistake in touchup. This is a deliberate alteration of the eyes to give Condi that "possessed" look.
-
Well, I don't know about the US, but satirisation, verbal or illustrated, of the ruling body, be it government or Royalty has more or less been an anchor of British society for hundreds of years.
-
Yes, but you wouldn't expect something like that in a supposedly unbiased news source would you?
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Wow that went right over your head.
This is clearly NOT a mistake in touchup. This is a deliberate alteration of the eyes to give Condi that "possessed" look.
yes because democrats are soo much the group that cares about that kinda stuff :rolleyes:
they applied too much lightening touchup to the white regions - you'll notice the earrings got lighter too
total non-issue
-
Looks like they enhanced the lines in her neck as well... to make them look more muscular...
-
She's actually a Hellspawn! :eek:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/Carltheshivan/7b7f2770.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Setekh
It's Anubis, one of the worst Goa'uld around. He's hanging around somewhere... probably fighting Oma Desala. For the uninitiated:
http://www.gateworld.net/omnipedia/characters/links/anubis.shtml
Also, as for the pictures: :lol:
It's goddamn Turkey innards.... :p
-
Originally posted by Kazan
yes because democrats are soo much the group that cares about that kinda stuff :rolleyes:
they applied too much lightening touchup to the white regions - you'll notice the earrings got lighter too
total non-issue
You are surprisingly ignorant for someone who proffesses to be of great intelligence. The earrings didn't get any lighter. You still think it was an accident. That's just pathetic.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
LOL
I knew she was Go'auld ;)
HAHAHAHA
greatuh i thought i was crazy.... crap man i was unique... i was crazy! LMAO!
:p
-
i think she had frost or snow burn on her cheaks, wasnt she on some vacation recently or out in europe in the alps or something? thats not sunburn thats Snowburn/iceburn. lol
-
Ah yes, so this is what politics has gotten down to.
The blatant truth is that if USA Today had done this as a conspiracy to defame Condoleeza Rice, it is possibly one of the lamest attempts in journalistic history to do so. If it was simply an error, than it was an error that has now been corrected.
And that's all. Can we shift back to more important politics now?
-
Originally posted by Setekh
But... but... it just isn't the aftereffects of a turkey swallowing a grenade! Though I admit that would have been pretty funny if you photoshopped that in... aside from the fact that you found a picture of the aftereffects of a turkey swallowing a grenade.
What I want to know now is....How many people Googled after reading that? ;)
-
I seriously considered it :p
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v86/annorax/PowerbehindtheCrown.jpg)
(http://deacon.warpedsystems.sk.ca/Images/dshad.gif)
So many sci-fi references. So little innovation when it comes to bad guys :D
-
Originally posted by Flipside
What I want to know now is....How many people Googled after reading that? ;)
There are no relevant hits for 'turkey swallowing grenade'.
Someone had to do it...
-
Originally posted by Kazan
total non-issue
Who cares. Let the republicans ***** and moan about it as if it was important. In the meantime we'll get more images like the ones on this thread and she'll lose far more credibility than the USA Today ever will from this.
After all everyone on this thread is going to think of Condi as Go'auld in the back of their mind from now on. :D
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Wow that went right over your head.
This is clearly NOT a mistake in touchup. This is a deliberate alteration of the eyes to give Condi that "possessed" look.
Liberal media bias!!!!1111ononeoneone
Seriously, you've had the 2,000th US soldier die in Iraq, millions homeless in Kashmir, a threatening flu pandemic, and the oil-for-food corruption report due; and your primary concern is what, that someone screwed up the contrast setting on a tiny picture?!
NB: Goob, you can get that effect running edge enhancement or sharpening. It'd also be likely they'd do it selectively on the foreground for reasons of clarity; in either case their explanation does say they specifically brightened the face, likely in order to make it stand out in the lower resolution version from the background.
-
Breaking News:
She's not even black, just really really tanned. This secret photo was taken after one "baking session".
(Gimme credit, it's a work day and this was done in five minutes)
Edit: Come to think of it, this looks ****e. :(
-
Micheal Jackson!!!!
Anyway, so Thunder pulls out His Devine Shadow... (nice)
Time to get creative...
In the meantime, Anubis? So THAT's Pres Bush's new speech writer! I wondered who the idiot was who got him to say, "I believe Humans and Fish can live together peacefully!" (what like we were at war with them or something? When did this happen?)... They play that on the morning radio here in PA all the time... :D
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
NB: Goob, you can get that effect running edge enhancement or sharpening. It'd also be likely they'd do it selectively on the foreground for reasons of clarity; in either case their explanation does say they specifically brightened the face, likely in order to make it stand out in the lower resolution version from the background.
I agree about that. But I don't agree that you can get that effect only on the eyes if you apply the effect to the entire image or even only to the entire face. The earrings and hairline would have the same jagged emphasized edge, and the skin would look speckled.
I invite anyone to run experiments using Photoshop and prove me wrong. (I'd do it myself, but I don't have access to it currently.) I'm quite certain that you can't get that effect on the eyes alone unless you apply the effect to the eyes alone.
-
Originally posted by Getter Robo G
Micheal Jackson!!!!
Anyway, so Thunder pulls out His Devine Shadow... (nice)
Time to get creative...
In the meantime, Anubis? So THAT's Pres Bush's new speech writer! I wondered who the idiot was who got him to say, "I believe Humans and Fish can live together peacefully!" (what like we were at war with them or something? When did this happen?)... They play that on the morning radio here in PA all the time... :D
Google shows nothing, PPOR.
-
Originally posted by Goober5000
I agree about that. But I don't agree that you can get that effect only on the eyes if you apply the effect to the entire image or even only to the entire face. The earrings and hairline would have the same jagged emphasized edge, and the skin would look speckled.
I invite anyone to run experiments using Photoshop and prove me wrong. (I'd do it myself, but I don't have access to it currently.) I'm quite certain that you can't get that effect on the eyes alone unless you apply the effect to the eyes alone.
Well, it'd probably be impossible to duplicate it anyways. However, that doesn't mean they didn't touch up specific parts of the face.
Albiet...why does it even matter? I mean, it looks odd (the original screwed up one), but that's about it. It's not like someone added little red horns and a tail, is it? Even if it was a deliberate effect, it's not really a meaningful effect - is there anyone who'd change their vote based on a 180x142 image? (if there is, they probably wouldn't be able to mastermind the process of voting anyways....or do they have machines that do that for you nowadays? :nervous: )
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Albeit...why does it even matter?
Meh. In the grand scheme of things, it was just a harmless little prank. I guess I got ensnared by all the petty bickering. ;)
-
It doesn't.
I was just perpetuating a stereotype for the hell of it.
-
i think even calling it a prank is being partisan - it was an error in touch up
-
No, it's not partisan to call it a prank. It IS partisan to call it an error in touch up.
I could not replicate that image without using specific selection tools to constrain the effects of any image adjustment to the eyes.
It's sad that you're not even willing to realize that this was purposeful. There's nothing partisan about accepting that fact. In fact, the whole thing would be quite humorous if you and aldo weren't saying it was "accidental."
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
No, it's not partisan to call it a prank. It IS partisan to call it an error in touch up.
I could not replicate that image without using specific selection tools to constrain the effects of any image adjustment to the eyes.
It's sad that you're not even willing to realize that this was purposeful. There's nothing partisan about accepting that fact. In fact, the whole thing would be quite humorous if you and aldo weren't saying it was "accidental."
It's more partisan to assume an apparent error is an attack then to just presume it's an error. Especially given that it's a harmless error, and you're trying to 'prove' it - or otherwise - by wholly assuming not only what tools they had and used, but also the original image quality, and the internal standards they adhere to.
If someone sneezes during a Presidental address, is it all part of a liberal conspiracy* to disrupt the government?
*exclamation mark, exclamation mark, one, one, eleven
-
Regardless if it was an error or not, everyone who works on photo touchups knows its better to work on a large image and scale it down. who in thier right mind would apply touch ups to such a tiny image? If that was done in the first place, then the photo editor is a total goofball. Lets see the image "enhancement" on the LARGE image. Better proof that it would be an intentional edit (more like defacement...). Thats probably why such a small image was released in the first place!
It IS an issue if people cant do thier damn job right.
Oh, unless Condi looks like that most of the time, couldnt they have chosen another image that doent show her looking so stern? Hmm..
-
I think that the really funny part of it is that Deepblue only posted this thread as a wind-up and it's already 2 pages longer than the thread that made him decide to post it ;)