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 ...
"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."
You're kidding right?
"The Shadow Knows."
nah its good to keep them honest
nah its good to keep them honest
Yep. My biggest issue with the picture is they don't show enough of the entertainer.
Mic stands are usually lightly constructed, with adjustable lengths held by simple friction. If worn even slightly, they are sometimes unable to hold up a microphone where you want it to stay...no chance of holding up a pole dancer.
Except the guy in the center clapping his hands are blurred as is a soldier who is standing just to the right behind her. She could have just jerked the cord when the shot was taken.
So everybody else in the room was standing stone still?
Exactly... most cruelly cropped. :-)
I read your posts, then looked again, and it looks to me like the man with the blurred hands could be a cut and paste. He looks out of place with the rest. Something about the shading as it relates to the rest of the crowd.
I challenge the best, er, dancer, to hang onto your average mic stand if its lengths are WELDED together.
Darn right dumb story.Who was looking at the mike cord?!
?
I would say that there is a better chance that someone who signed up today to post this is a troll than there is that the photo was altered.
The faces behind the cord, the blurred hands of the soldier clapping all point to the photog being the one telling the truth.
If you are a real conservative, you'll post an apology to the photog. Otherwise, it might be time to call the kitties.
Shutter speed of 1/6 second = VERY SLOW. <<< Unless you are an astronomer, in which case it's very fast.
The cable is in motion during that 1/6th of a second and moved several inches at a minimum to produce this effect. The singer's legs did not move very much if at all during that 1/6th of a second.
Hence, the cable appears to be gone in the photo, yet the singer's legs are not blurred. Although the right leg may be blurred a bit by motion.
Because the girl wasn't moving! Double Duh!
Answer this similar question: If you are a dog, how can you type your reply, because dogs don't have fingers? I particularly invite your attention to the words, "because dog's don't have fingers."
Well, I would be in a more receptive mode of the photographer's explanation if he would have provided the photo EXIF along with his explanation.
I dunno, the depth of field is fairly deep, and lighting pretty good indicating to me that his explanation doesn't necessarily ring true. (just my opinion). Look at the consistent width of the "blurred" microphone cable. Oscillation of only a portion of a cable of this length would have some sort of periodicity or oscillation, and not display a consistent horizontal displacement as the photogrophers explantion would imply.
I will agree that if this is a result of post processing, it sure is a careless and ham handed technique.
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.