Skip to comments.
It May Look Authentic; Here's How to Tell It Isn't
NY Times ^
| January 24, 2006
| NICHOLAS WADE
Posted on 01/23/2006 10:05:37 PM PST by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: icwhatudo
Your post in response #2 has been removed because it contained a Getty image. Please do not post it again.
To: MediaMole
To: supercat
From Sox's brief day in the sun. Yeah, that's a leash. You can even see it in the unmanipulated original, since it crosses the "A" in "GOODYEAR" on his shirt.
This is back from when Sox still served a purpose in humanizing the Krintons. As soon as they left the White House, he was passed along to a secretary, since the Krintons had no use for him, anymore.
At least he was spared the "Buddy" treatment (which is the same as the "Vince Foster" treatment, BTW)...
23
posted on
01/24/2006 2:32:13 AM PST
by
gridlock
(It's not really a circus until Teddy Kennedy steps out of the clown car...)
To: neverdem
Remember when photographs didnt lie?
24
posted on
01/24/2006 4:06:50 AM PST
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
To: neverdem
some authors had yielded to the temptation of Photoshop's image-changing tools to misrepresent the original data. Cookbook for Flim-Flam
The pressure for cloning's so great
That a researcher might take the bait
And "doctor" his finds to mislead weaker minds.
Which proves -- greed is a strong human trait
25
posted on
01/24/2006 5:04:38 AM PST
by
syriacus
(GOVERNOR Jay ROCKEFELLER tried to wrest regulatory control of surface mining FROM the Fed Gov't.)
Comment #26 Removed by Moderator
To: neverdem
The NYT: "We are learning new technologies so we can prevent future boo-boos..."
Give this one to the NYT. It would be better for their case to imply that image fraud happens more on TV.
To: DaveLoneRanger
There have certainly been frauds on the evolution side of the debate, but it's very far from the rule.
What's more interesting about this article is that it's an example of detecting "design" in the sense of distinguishing manipulated pictures....
28
posted on
01/24/2006 6:52:25 AM PST
by
r9etb
To: neverdem
The advent of scanners really allowed this sort of abuse.
Journals should only accept photos -- but the trend is the opposite, purely e-submissions.
That's as it should be, tbut integrity of data is harder to guarentee.
In talking with friends the actual thing nowadays is that one can't believe anything in any journal necessarily.
29
posted on
01/24/2006 7:02:15 AM PST
by
tallhappy
(Juntos Podemos!)
To: neverdem; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; Baraonda; BereanBrain; betty boop; ..
What I find interesting, is that while pointing out the fraud, they still want to call them scientists. This is where we get evolution from.
30
posted on
01/24/2006 7:30:02 AM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: editor-surveyor
Ernst Haeckel, one of the early evolution advocates simply drew fake embryos to prove the (irrational) evolutionary theory of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
Darwin said Haeckel's pictures confirmed to him the proof of evolution more than anything else. Darwin never knew they were fake.
31
posted on
01/24/2006 7:43:17 AM PST
by
tallhappy
(Juntos Podemos!)
To: icwhatudo
LOL -- you beat me to it.
32
posted on
01/24/2006 7:46:14 AM PST
by
steve-b
(A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
To: supercat
Is that a leash?
NO, it's a leach, with a cat.
33
posted on
01/24/2006 7:59:57 AM PST
by
fish hawk
(creatio ex nihilo)
To: tallhappy
"Darwin said Haeckel's pictures confirmed to him the proof of evolution more than anything else. Darwin never knew they were fake." And these same fakes are still being foisted on our school children today, in the name of 'science.'
34
posted on
01/24/2006 8:01:18 AM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: neverdem
Not surprising. In my photos I've used the Photoshop contrast tools, but these are applied to the entire image, not just to part of it. I've removed fluorescent debris that would detract from an otherwise good image. I've removed lanes in a DNA gel photo (because they were on the gel but not part of the experiment or not relevant to that particular portion of the experiment), but not bands within a single lane. I think a basic rule should be this: if one adds something that isn't there to make it appear that it is or removes something that is there that invalidates the claim being made, then it's fraud; otherwise, it's cosmetic.
Making a composite photo of, say, several different exposures to show what's actually there across the field when there's not enough range within any exposure to show everything is okay if it's stated right up front. This is done in astronomy. Some very faint dust bands may show up only after a very long exposure which overexposes other parts of the field, obliterating detail. Combining various portions of the field at various levels of exposure to reveal the most detail is okay to do if you're stating that you're doing it and detail how it was done.
35
posted on
01/24/2006 8:01:35 AM PST
by
aruanan
To: Oztrich Boy
Never seen that - it's good.
36
posted on
01/24/2006 8:02:55 AM PST
by
freedomlover
(The only reason you are still conscious is because I don't want to carry you. - Jack)
To: Oztrich Boy
Wow! You've convinced me; that picture sure proves that dogs evolved from birds, and a good thing too, since it would be bad news if they were still flying. :o)
37
posted on
01/24/2006 8:04:08 AM PST
by
editor-surveyor
(Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
To: supercat
Yes, you can see part of it covering up the A in "YEAR" in the original photo without your contrast manipulation.. Clearly the cat was on a leash.
To: aruanan
I've removed fluorescent debris that would detract from an otherwise good image. The first time I saw someone "cleaning up" their gel about ten years ago now I was shocked.
I think it is still debatable whether "removing debris" electronically should be acceptable.
Matters not though as much much more than that is done now.
We simply now, cannot, literally, trust any article.
In some ways we are full circle and ultimately not trusting anything will be a good thing.
39
posted on
01/24/2006 8:10:52 AM PST
by
tallhappy
(Juntos Podemos!)
To: editor-surveyor
"What I find interesting, is that while pointing out the fraud, they still want to call them scientists. This is where we get evolution from."
______________________________________________
Remember its "science" if you propose a naturalistic explanation for the phenomena.....fraud or no fraud.
40
posted on
01/24/2006 8:35:04 AM PST
by
fizziwig
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson