Author Topic: USA TODAY practices Photoshop, get's burned. (Read 3019 times)

karajorma · **Reply #40 on:** October 27, 2005, 05:02:08 am

Quote

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.

aldo_14 · **Reply #41 on:** October 27, 2005, 06:10:10 am

Quote

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.

vyper · **Reply #42 on:** October 27, 2005, 06:55:30 am

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.

Getter Robo G · **Reply #43 on:** October 27, 2005, 11:53:30 am

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...

Goober5000 · **Reply #44 on:** October 27, 2005, 01:16:34 pm

Quote

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.

WMCoolmon · **Reply #45 on:** October 27, 2005, 01:53:12 pm

Quote

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...

Google shows nothing, PPOR.

aldo_14 · **Reply #46 on:** October 27, 2005, 02:26:24 pm

Quote

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?

)

Goober5000 · **Reply #47 on:** October 27, 2005, 04:08:57 pm

Quote

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.

Deepblue · **Reply #48 on:** October 27, 2005, 05:12:36 pm

It doesn't.

I was just perpetuating a stereotype for the hell of it.

Kazan · **Reply #49 on:** October 27, 2005, 09:44:52 pm

i think even calling it a prank is being partisan - it was an error in touch up

Deepblue · **Reply #50 on:** October 28, 2005, 01:00:26 am

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."

aldo_14 · **Reply #51 on:** October 28, 2005, 06:53:01 am

Quote

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

Nix · **Reply #52 on:** October 28, 2005, 01:42:39 pm

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..

Flipside · **Reply #53 on:** October 28, 2005, 02:08:16 pm

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