Posted on 10/26/2005 12:53:24 PM PDT by ajolympian2004
Includes many updates by Michelle Malkin
***scroll down for updates...345pm EDT flash: THE PHOTO HAS BEEN REMOVED from USA Today's site with an editor's note...I'll be talking about more unhinged examples of Condi hatred next week. More details here.***
Check out the photo of Condoleezza Rice that was published by USA Today last week:
Notice anything peculiar about her eyes?
No, Condi isn't possessed; the photo was manipulated.
This news comes courtesy of From The Pen, which found a pre-doctored version of the Associated Press photo on Yahoo! España:
Ask USA Today's Graphics and Photos Managing Editor, Richard Curtis (rcurtis@usatoday.com), what the ^$%#@+! is going on.
***
I've emailed Mr. Curtis for comment and will let you know if I hear back.
Other blogger reax:
Mike's Noise compiles the MSM's scary Bush administration photo album.
Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee weighs in on photo ethics.
Scott Johnson at Power Line is reminded of Damien Omen II.
Independent Sources is reminded of someone else. Yikes. Also has a round-up.
The Anchoress: "The perpetual adolescents in the press are at it again..."
La Shawn Barber wondered what was up with scary Condi two days ago.
Instapundit: "Adobe's "fill flash" can sometimes do surprising things, but I'm not sure it could do this."
Roland at Steel City Cowboy defends USA Today.
Reader Pete writes:
It looks like what they did was use a Photoshop filter called 'unsharp mask.'It refers to an old photograph technique of offsetting negatives (or something like that) to emphasize the edges between colors or shades.
It's kind of like if you took a pencil to a drawing to darken the lines to
make it stand out, or 'pop.' I use it all the time to bring out detail in
soft photos, and it's used mainly for photographs that will be printed in a
newspaper or some other fuzzy format.
Problem is you can go too far and get what we're looking at here. Of course,
there could be some 'masking' going on (selecting only certain parts of the
picture) as the background guy is still fuzzy, and if we have masking and
unsharp mask happening, this was definitely a 'willful' professional job.
The only question is, was the 'doctored' photo intended to be used for print
only, and was it just an editing mistake that got it onto the web? It's
possible.
I've forwarded Pete's e-mail to Mr. Curtis and will let you know if I hear back.
More reader feedback from photog folks:
From Sarah W...
I apologize in advance if you have already received a thousand replies about this...
[Here is] the "real Condi" photo with "Unsharp Mask" applied globally. Note all details are sharpened. The eyes were masked in the USA today photo. Colors in the photo were saturated globally, but the eyes got special treatment.
From Steve I...
Michelle,
My first degree was an AA from the Colorado Institute of Art, and I have been using Photoshop for 10 years. That photo of Condi was deliberately manipulated.
One of your readers (Pete) suggested that it may have been the result of misuse of the Unsharp Mask filter. Not so. I copied the real photo of Condi to my desktop and put it through several iterations of the Unsharp Mask filter in Photoshop 5.5. No matter how absurd I made the settings (300%, 7 pixel radius, 1 pixel threshold), I could not duplicate what was done.
2 points:
(1) Any filter in Photoshop would apply to the whole image. The absurd sharpening would bring out her necklines, the stripes in her shirt, her lips, her nostrils, her earrings, etc. So the image was deliberately manipulated around the eyes.
(2) Notice how the pupils have been narrowed, like a cat's eyes. Sharpening would not alter the roundness of her pupils, only accentuate them. Another paint or erase tool is required to achieve that effect.
Someone did this deliberately.
From Jo S...
I wanted to comment on the reader who suggested the photo was the result of improper use of the unsharp mask filter. Not. This filter is used on all digital images to correct inevitable fuzziness, but there's no way it could produce the eyes in the doctored shot. No, to arrive at the published photo, someone had to go into the image, select the pixels in the whites of her eyes and make those pixels REALLY white. Stupid and deliberate, without doubt!
Reader L.C.:
I'm a feature film visual effects artist out here in Los Angeles. I work for a major visual effects studio, and have worked on a whole lot of major blockbuster movies which you have undoubtedly seen. I have almost 10 years of professional experience at digital image manipulation.
As others have said, this is definitely not an unsharpen filter, because only the eyes have been altered. And even so, if you isolated the eye areas with a mask and ran that filter you still wouldn't get the result shown in the USA Today image.
Not only is this an obvious attempt to give Condi "demon eyes," it isn't even a *good* attempt. If I assigned one of my artists to create a demon eyes effect for one of my films and that was what they turned in, I'd fire them. It looks like something a high school student would turn in. I doubt the photographer in question delivered the photograph in this altered state, simply because I imagine a professional photographer could do a better job. The whites of eyes aren't solid white like white paint, they have subtle gradations, and a photographer would know that. Any manipulation by a photographer would include these gradations, not a simple black-and-white fill paint job.
It wouldn't surprise me if this was something someone doing layout at the paper thought they would sneak in. Simply despicable, no matter how you look at it.
***
Unbelievable. Robert George points to another example of malicious photoshopping of a black Republican official.
A lot of readers and bloggers like Jeff Miller are reminded of Goa'uld.
***
Related:
Katherine Harris vs. the Photo Doctors
Time's photo distortions
That must've been when she was putting the ZOT on Senator Boxer the other day.
Condi is a Tok'ra operative and proof that the Stargate program is real.
Media once again gets caught red handed, should I say.....Staging the News????
Oh the gnashing of teeth, snarling, sneering and snot slinging had this been on FOX or a conservative website.
So damned typical.
I'd say the lady was pretty POed at someone. I have seen that look on my wife's face when I have screwed up. :-)
I was thinking she has a Goa'uld.
I don't believe anything else USA Today says, so why should I believe them when they give a lame explanation for their blatant dishonesty in this case?
Ga'ould?
Who says the MSM have no shame?!
They have at least a trace, evidently.
They;re so unbiased. Not.
No, they used the majic wand tool to select the whites of her eyes and changed it from an off white to a bright white.
bttt
Actual, unretouched photo.
Sad how the left wing media will resort to such nonsense to demonize the President and his staff.
I think it's funny in some ways. Here is a medium controlled by the liberal, socialist, "all-inclusive" party of the people; yet they can't stand the fact that a woman (who is not only attractive, but SMART too) can be Secretary of State....and a darn good one too.
Well, I guess I'll add the USA Today to my ever growing list of publications I won't read.
Condi Reich enjoys demonizing Israel, so I have no sympathy.
What? An unsharp mask and a brightness/contrast control filter just on her *eyes*?
Sure.
Hot damn. I sent the editor Michelle Malkin fingered on the deal a nice little email. Basically I said they should stick to reporting the news, not creating it. I also stated the internet is an open source for news and that these sort of distortions and manipulations will not pass without strong protest.
This is good news. Some snot nosed punk newbie out of journalism school thinks he/she's being cute and clever. Once the boss gets an email box full of attack mail I imagine that little snot nose is getting an earful.
So, an EDITOR is not in keeping with their EDITORIAL standards, eh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
