Posted on 08/29/2006 11:29:15 AM PDT by Derfla5
The NY times published a photo the other day which looked like they had airbrushed out a "microphone" which significantly changed the meaning of the photo. I wrote the following letter to their corrections department.
The NY Times responded by sending me the photographers explanation which follows in the body of the comment below.
"Dear editor:
I think you owe your readers a correction and an apology for the altered picture on August 27, 2006 at http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/27/world/27morale2.html which suggestively led your readers to believe that it showed a "stripper" beginning her "strip" to entertain our troops. That is a misrepresentation. It is obvious that you airbrushed the microphone stand and mike out of the picture. You forgot to airbrush the cord the mike was attached to otherwise we would have believed what we were seeing was true.
The actual truth the "unaltered" picture with mike/stand would have told us was that it portrayed a female entertainer either talking or singing to the troops. Since "strippers" don't perform with microphones and stands on their stage, none of your readers would have thought that she was a stripper. But that "truth" would not have supported the salacious story you were trying to sell.
The fact you would have to misrepresent the image in the story makes the entire article highly suspect as to its truthfulness or impartiality. It adds more damage to the already damaged credibility of the once great NY Times. I suggest you publish a correction, apology and an unaltered photo ASAP.
Sincerely,"
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The actual truth the "unaltered" picture with mike/stand would have told us was that it portrayed a female entertainer either talking or singing to the troops. Since "strippers" don't perform with microphones and stands on their stage, none of the readers would have thought that she was a stripper. But that "truth" would not have supported the salacious story the NY Times was trying to sell ie "strippers entertain the troops in Iraq"
Great fauxtography it is '''mmmm yeeeezzzzz..
But, look at the guy front left, most prominent in his light-toned camouflage. Now, look at the man behind his left shoulder and note that his face is also blurred. Again, look at the very tall shadow running the height of the wall in the same position the mic should be and probably just to the right of where it should be.
I opened the photo in Photoshop and magnified it as much as I could.
It looks awfully strange to me. And if the cord is blurred because the girl was moving, how come the girl isn't blurred?
This photog is looking to be hired by Reuters.
"We need to pick our fights better. "
Better safe then sorry I say. And "strippers entertaining the troops" is far more controversial then "entertainers dancing or singing for the troops". In such a case, airbrushing a microphone out of the picture makes all the difference.
Again, I defer to those who are photo experts and if they believe that this kind of "exposure anomaly" can happen..then I wil back off.
But in the larger scheme of things I think we are only beginning to uncover the mountain of manipulated photos that exist in the media on any given day.
If it was such a crummy picture...why even submit it to print...
The girl isn't what's moving, the ~cord~ was moving. Notice that anything in the picture that was in motion also has some blurring. There's a guy clapping his hands and they're blurred too. The explanation makes sense.
Dumb story.
Because she's not moving. Duh.
"It was NOT Photoshopped."
I heard the assertion the first time. I'm not convinced yet. Can you give a convincing explanation for the appearance of the pixels in the "shadow," which is said to be the blurred image of the cord?
I would think that a mike stand would be a reasonable substitute for a pole if the stripper were a pole dancer, as most are today. This does not mean the girl was a stripper, just that the presence or absence of the mike and its stand is no eveidence one way or the other about the girl's performance.
Perhaps she's just being pretty and entertaining the troops, but there's nothing sexual here as far as I can tell, whether she did or didn't have a mic.
IMO
Better right than embarrassed. And-- nobody ever said it was "strippers", And-- the presence or absence of a microphone cord makes no difference whatsoever.
Save yer ammo for the real enemy.
Seeing this is your first day, we do try to avoid using explitives as much as possible. You may want to try "full of $%#@". We will all know what you mean.
We do not want to devolve to the subhuman DU level.
Where's the top half of the picture?
You might want to read carefully before you "duh" people. This is from the presstitute's purported explanation, reproduced above:
"Look carefully at the wall from that marine's head up to the top of the frame and you will see the blurred cable that was in motion because the dancer was moving it as she spoke to the marines."
I particularly invite your attention to the words, "because the dancer was moving."
That leaves me with my question unanswered: If the cord is blurred because the girl was moving, how come the girl isn't blurred?
I agree, no way is that motion blur, not when everything else is so clear. This guy knows his job is on the line and is doing a CYA.
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.