Posted on 09/15/2005 2:26:16 PM PDT by antaresequity
Edited on 09/15/2005 2:35:33 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Uhh, why? If all they do is some bulk PQ tweaking---stuff that's basically the digital equivalent of the automatic color and white balancing they do at your local one-hour photo---why must it be disclosed?
Now that Reuters has stated that they routinely Photoshop
And this was a surprise to you?
I am not a tinfoil conspiracy nut, yet I do work with video media. It can be edited and manipulated. And it does get edited and manipulated. Do not believe everything that you see and hear as being the unadulterated truth.
Indeed, and that includes conspiracy theories.
ROTFLMAO
Condie wrote the top part and the President's handwriting is illegible.
The press is not very good at it's job. Condie is the one who needed to pee not the president.
So the President had to pee. So do we all.
No, the president is right handed.
I "enhanced" this photo using Photoshop and I think I see Buck Head sitting behind the president.
Ha, that is a good one. :>)
Try writing (sarcasm off) next time.
In all seriousness, I looked afterwards and saw that you'd been around FR since 1998, and then wondered how a person with that attitude ("He's so stupid, he doesn't even know how to write.") could still be here.
;-)
Wow. Didn't take long for this to hit the waves. Heard it on talk radio tonite.
According to this Newsbusters story on this fabled photograph, a Washington-based Reuters editor said that the type of Photoshop enhancement ("burning down") is not acceptable practice and would even constitute a firing offense. Earlier in the article, the person who did the manipulation---not the original photographer, but someone working in the U.N. press room---claimed that it was standard practice, so one is contradicting the other. So I could definitely be wrong that the Photoshopping was considered standard, acceptable practice.
The same article also quotes two handwriting analysts who say that they cannot say conclusively that the top text is not Bush's. In particular, one says that the printed text is consistent with his cursive (contradicting a claim Howlin made to me); that the word "think" is "definitely his"; etc.
The article also puts forth the suggestion that the upper text was written by someone else, such as an aide or Condoleeza Rice, as I have posited. The Condoleeza Rice angle is dismissed rather quickly based on that one handwriting sample of hers that we've seen on this thread---but this seems a shame, given the fact that the note text is printed and the lone sample is cursive. Perhaps had those handwriting analysts been given the Rice angle an a suggestion, they might have had an opinion about it.
The same article provides some other samples of Bush's handwriting as well.
Bottom line I think this article supports my general thesis that this photo was not faked, even though it may have been improperly manipulated.
{;->
The usually unflappable Rice was wide-eyed when she was shown a copy of the photo yesterday during a meeting with The Post editorial board.Thus, this story has been officially deprecated from conspiracy to defraud to simply another attempt by the MSM to embarrass the President."Oh, my goodness . . . there are no secrets," she said, laughing.
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.