New York Times Photo Mystery (Drudge): Where did the Mic Cord Go?

New York Times via Drudge ^ | August 27, 2006

[Darkwolf377]

girls wearing Cowboy boots rule!

If they did I'd be seeking work as a presidential assistant. :)

[EQAndyBuzz]

Who cares? :)

[Responsibility2nd]

"Is that a mic cord in your pocket, solder, or are you NOT THAT HAPPY to see me?"

[rintense]

It's a bad photoshop job. They try to make it look like a stripe on the wall, but the path of the cord goes right into that stripe, thus making it a terrible attempt at retouching.

[Atlas Sneezed]

In a related story, one of the guitar strings of Eric Clapton was found missing from a mysterious photo published of a recent concert appearance.

(This is obvious and stupid, and should embarrass anyone who says this is a fake.)

[Samwise]

ping

[4yearlurker]

Thats the first thing I thought when I saw the photo. I'm surprised the NY Slimes didn't Photo shop in a metal pole in place of the mike stand/cord!

[rottndog]

Who wants to look at a the stupid mic cord?

[rottndog]

Top row 2nd from the left.....does that look like a young Nancy Pelosi or what.....

[NCC-1701]

Only in my worst drunken and drug induced state of mind.

[DBrow]

I zoomed the pic way up and have this to contribute- the end of the cord just...ends, it does not fade out. Yes, there is a shadow that could be a blurred cord (It would be by far the fastest moving thing in the room, though; look at the clapping hands and if the woman is jerking the cord that fast, why isn't she blurred too?).

OK, lots have asked "why bother". Well, the blur or photoshop or whatever crosses two things of note. The unit patch of one of the guys up close, the round patch with the darker area around it on his left arm. The other thing it crosses is the guy in the rear, just over "unit patch's" shoulder. The jpeg blurring around this guy has been smoothed out compared to the rest of the background and he's a bit sharper overall. Could he have been 'shopped in, or had his face changed for some reason? Or was it important to change the unit patch? Doesn't his flag look funny, compared to the patch?


OK, I admit to stirring the pot. The mic cord is much closer to the camera than the clapping hands or (no doubt) bobbing and rocking soldiers. That means that a one inch deflection of the cord will have a much larger angular change with respect to the focal plane than the hands or heads, and that would mean a faster angular speed (it will cover more pixels, about 28 in this case). It would not take much to blur it if it's close, especially in a room with no special lighting. The shutter speed was probably 1/30 or slower. If the same movement was happening back where the over-the-shoulder guy was standing then there would only be a few pixels of blur.There actually is a bit of fan-out at the cord end but it gets lost in camo.

[azcap]

NOT a Photoshop. Clearly a long exposure blur. Look at the soldier on the left side 3rd row back. The guy who's head is tilted against his left shoulder to try to get a better look. his head is much blurrier than the guys around him. That is because it is a long exposure and he was twisting his head rapidly to get a better look. The other guys with clear views are motionless (for good reason) and are thus in perfect focus. the stripe on the wall is blurred from the black cord. if you wanted to a Photoshop it you would use what's called the rubber stamp tool and the wall would look perfect except under very high resolution examination of the pixels. You could probably find a lot of examples of disapperaing mic cords in evening concert/wedding photos, anywhere that the light level required a longer exposure.

[Liberty Valance]

Yep, the NY Slimes was trying to "Abu Grabe" this young lady's musical performance into a tawdry "Vietnam-era" burlesque show. Anything to make our troops (and by extension our President) look bad.



Tawdry? Raquel Welch aint tawdry. ;o)

[Professional Engineer]

I have no idea whatsoever why I was pinged.



LOL

[brewer1516]

I've been a photographer and have worked extensively in Photoshop. The pic is OK. The cord is just blurred due to a slow shutter speed. No Fauxtography.

[brewer1516]

Looks like somebody has been to the Institute of Official Cheer!

[newzjunkey]

Yikes! Is that Chelsea?

[newzjunkey]

Jessica Simpson is who came to mind. If they are her legs then she's clearly made it into the culture for those assets. It's likely thanks to her burger ad and the video for "These Boots Are Made For Walking" remake from the "Dukes of Hazaard" soundtrack.

[MosesKnows]

Where did the Mic Cord Go?

Who cares? Enjoy the message and ignore the messenger.

[FreedomCalls]

What the hell is the point of hiding the mic chord? You can clearly see the shaft of space where the chord was photoshopped out. My guess is that the chord was cutting an unattractive line across the middle of the shot and someone decided to edit it out. Maybe it's no big deal in the scheme of things, but it's symptomatic of a press that has no business mis-representing anything, no matter how small it it.

There's no point to editing it out, because it has not been edited out. It's just blurred from the slow speed exposure. There's no photoshopping here.

What it's symptomatic of are people who are all too quick to jump on the latest bandwagon long after that wagon has left the shed. You only hurt the efforts of people to find real examples of press misrepresentation by making false claims against unmanipulated photos. When challenged on their real misrepresentations they now have plenty of ammunition to point out all these false allegations to discredit their critics as a bunch of overzealous fanatics with little to no knowledge of photo manipulation who allege manipulation where there clearly is none.

You have met the enemy and he is you. It serves to help them cover real fakery.