NY TIMES PHOTO MYSTERY: WHERE DID THE MIC STAND GO? UPDATEThe NY Times Responds

New York Times ^ | August 27, 2006 | NY Times

[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,"

[xkaydet65]

I've seen Springsteen swing upside down on one during a performance.

[pollyannaish]

Yes. What you are seeing is the combination of a very slow shutter speed and movement.

First of all, understand that a very slow shutter speed is still an instant in time and at any given moment there are things in a space that are moving quickly, and things that are not moving at all. When I discuss fast and slow, we are talking fractions of a second difference.

Now, when you take a photo in a low light situation, you must open that shutter a little bit longer, or you will leave a great deal of your subject in the dark and not get any detail. But the longer that shutter stays open, the more motion occurs and the more blur you will get. (This is why in old photographs subjects look so stiff. With the existing technology they had to hold COMPLETELY still for a long time to allow for the mechanics as well as allow for adequate lighting.)

This photographer wanted to capture the faces of the soldiers in the crowd, but they were in an area that was very poorly lit. Therefore, he used a longer shutter speed and sacrificed "no blur" for "illumination and therefore detail."

You can do this with a camera and a bicycle tire in your garage. If you spin the tire and have a very short shutter speed, you can make it look as if the tire is not moving at all. However, as you lengthen you shutter speed the spokes will blur and/or disappear depending on lighting conditions. These are the exact techniques photographers (as well as filmmakers and videographers) use to create what we generally call "time exposures."

I also want to mention there are other factors such as aperture and steadiness (tripod or hand held) that can also affect this...but shutter speed, in this case, takes the biggest responsibility.

NOW, regarding the pixels in Photoshop. I suggest you take any photo that utilizes blur (sports photography utilizes that technique a lot) and compare pixels. I would bet my bottom dollar that you will find the pixels in those photos bear many of the same characteristics as those in this photo in the blurred cord.

Finally, in classes we often teach students how to do controlled blur: Blur the background not the subject; blur the subject not the background; and finally put up with some blur to emphasize other things that may not be illuminated adequately by natural light.

In this case, the photographer chose the latter option.

[pollyannaish]

It wasn't/isn't a crummy photo. It was crummy lighting which is a big difference.

Personally, I think it is a very interesting photo because it gives us a look at what is happening from the soldiers pov, rather than an "observers" pov. At the same time, it gives us the opportunity to study the faces of the men and women, ok men, who serve our country, rather than focusing on the face of the "star."

All and all, a competent piece of photojournalism from my perspective. Not brilliant, but interesting. It tells the story.

[pollyannaish]

Great point, Par.

Best way to diminish our credibility is to make us look like idiots. There are REAL fakes, and real staged photos and a real Palliwood.

To use up our credibility on this garbage would be excellent psyops. Good catch.

I vote kitties.

[usmcobra]

Hmmmm I can spot a few that haven't been addressed

but the the real proof it is a shop is simple enough that a blind man could understand it, Strippers don't need microphones.

[untrained skeptic]

It would be nice if someone could post the article with which this photo appeared.

Unless there is something in the article to suggest it, I don't know why the reader would assume the photographer or article author was trying to portray this performer as a stripper.

The cord in the photo definitely looks strange, and I can understand someone wondering if it were edited and why. However, in the absence of something else I don't see why they thought the Times was trying to portray her as something other than what she was.

This does seem to be a bit of an overreaction, and I'm glad the photographer responded.

Hopefully that will set a new standard for the Times in responding to such questions about the validity of photos they use.

[EricT.]

I've seen Springsteen swing upside down on one during a performance.

Then it was custom built to support his fat, untalented ass.

[usmcobra]

American Strippers vs Islamic sensibilities, just another attempt to portray the many evils of the Bush administration.

[CFC__VRWC]

The photographer said he used the flash as fill - the girl's body caught the majority of the light from the flash and "fixed" her on the image. The mic cord, OTOH, because of it's size and color, would reflect back virutally none of the light from the flash, so it's image won't be fixed. It's lighting would come from the rest of the light in the room and it's movements will show up as a blur.

Another point that helps verify the photographer's claim - the narrow depth of field, which is the amount of the frame ahead of and behind the lens' point of focus that will be relatively sharp and in focus. You get shallow depth of field when a lens' aperture is wide open (i.e. at a low f-stop number), which you would do in poor lighting so you could use as fast a shutter speed as possible and reduce blurring.

There's nothing fake going on here - this photo is an example of trying to find the right combination of compromises to get an acceptable result in adverse conditions. I actually think he did a rather good job of it. It's hardly world class, but he did a lot better getting the shot than I probably would have.

[xkaydet65]

Not as talented as he thinks he is, not close, but he puts on a fairly good show when he follows Laura Ingraham's advice.

[dsc]

"Because the girl wasn't moving! Double Duh!"

The photographer said she was. Are you contradicting him?

[dsc]

Thanks for the explanations. For all I know, it could have happened that way.

[FreedomCalls]

The photographer said she was. Are you contradicting him?

What's the point of your argument here? Everyone has now conceded that while the dancer was moving her arm and the microphone cord with it, the rest of her in the photo was stationary, and this is not an example of photo manipulation. Are you deliberately trying to tarnish the reputation of those who post here at Free Republic? -- Or do you really believe that this is a manipulated photo? If so, file it away in your delusional files with the proof that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon, the Apollo moon landings were fake, the USAF flies alien spacecraft in Area 51, the Loch Ness Monster is real, Bush ordered the New Orleans levees blown up, the World Trade Center was brought down by hidden demolition charges, and that fairies live in a teenage girls' garden in England.

[dsc]

"Are you deliberately trying to tarnish the reputation of those who post here at Free Republic?"

Right now I'm mostly trying to figure out what you think you're talking about.

[FreedomCalls]

Right now I'm mostly trying to figure out what you think you're talking about.

Numerous people have pointed out to you that this photo is not manipulated.

[gotribe]

Her right hand with the cord was moving - out of the frame.

[FrankySwanky]

So - derfla5 puts "stripper" in quotes - nowhere in the story are the entertainers referred to as "strippers."

And anyone who knows even a little bit about photography can see quite clearly, without having to open photoshop or anything else, that the photographer's explanation makes perfect sense.

[dsc]

"Numerous people have pointed out to you that this photo is not manipulated."

1. I asked questions.
2. You apparently didn't read my note 72.

Your remarks are entirely disproportionate to anything I've written here.

[FreedomCalls]

Everything in the photo can be explained by the 1/6th of a second shutter speed. There's no manipulation involved. Time to move on.

[untrained skeptic]

Please provide some supporting evidence that the Times was trying to claim that this woman was a stripper.

Here's the article in the Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/world/middleeast/27morale.html?hp&ex=1156737600&en=0fe4da449e021a4d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

It's not overly complimentary to the performers, but it doesn't infer that they are strippers, and it's hard to see how something as subtle as removing part of a microphone cord would make a significant change in how people view that picture.

The faces you circle in your other post do not look cloned, they look like different people with military haircuts in a picture that appears grainy because you zoomed in too far for the resolution of the image.

The arm does not look photoshopped in. The pattern in the material changes where the sleeve joins the rest of the shirt in a normal fashion. The arm and shoulder look normal for someone of that stature with their hand on their hip in that pose. Go put your hand on your hip that way and look in a mirror and imagine adding a few pounds if necessary.

As for a curve in the blur, the curve in the blur would have to match the curve in the microphone cord as it moved. I would expect it to have a slight curve rather than being perfectly strait.