Posted on 05/12/2006 5:02:31 AM PDT by Echo Talon
I was looking at the yahoo news photos like i always do and this one stuck out at me for some reason let me know if you think its "darkened"
Here is the source yahoo photo and caption here
Here is the source photo on Drudge here
It is quite common to adjust digitial photos. In fact the camera has all sorts of processing it does on photos based on your settings. Being able to minipulate and adjust an image digitally is one of the great things about digital photography. Of course, usually the purpose is to make the photos look better.
Um......What else is new?
There's a thread on this at DU. They're ticked that Yahoo airbrushed out his horns and tail.
I wonder whats wrong with the Yahoo editors eyeballs.
LOL! they don't need to fret Yahoo has them covered.
It looks like the pics were darkened and the color saturation was raised up a bit.
Kinda looks like they cranked the red hue up a bit probably to give him that red drinkers nose look.
But the photographer or his agency should be the one approving of any manipulation of the images. Yahoo does not get that "right".
It has been done deliberately in the past. Hunting for scowling and angry photos for the front page of newspapers.
And smiling shots of the other party.
When you photograph someone speaking, there will always be a few with odd lip twists and gaping jaws. That is why you take several, to get one WITHOUT those flaws. When an editor hunts specifically for those images, it is to serve an end as propaganda.
And it is (A) neither paranoia nor (B) a new trick. Watch the press corp do this to Jimmy Stewart in Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.
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.
