Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: More Doctored Photos  (Read 10828 times)
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« on: July 07, 2008, 04:43:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Doctored photos are big news lately. The latest example can be found here:

     http://photoshopnews.com/

If this wasn't so scary, it would be funny.
Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2008, 09:39:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Doctored photos are big news lately. The latest example can be found here:

     http://photoshopnews.com/

If this wasn't so scary, it would be funny.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206288\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Fox News?
Not the "fair and balanced" guys!
Surely they wouldn't lie. Would they?
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2008, 09:53:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Not only the teeth yellowed and the hair moved foreward (for a lower forehead).

Also heads stretched, noses and chins enlarged, so it looks like caricatures.

America needs better laws to protect individuals.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1417


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2008, 06:20:55 AM »
ReplyReply

And heavy bags added under the eyes. Nice job, Fox News. If you don't like the truth, just distort it. Sheesh.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
Petrjay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2008, 08:37:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Fox's twisting the truth to suit its right-wing extremist agenda isn't exactly news. If they displayed an ounce of objectivity, now that would be news.
Logged
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2008, 10:15:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Since they aren't really a legitimate news organization (since they have no journalistic standards), and are really more like a tabloid rag, I'm wondering if we're being too harsh on them. Maybe we shouldn't expect any more from them than we can expect from, say, the National Enquirer (I hope I don't get sued by the National Enquirer for comparing them to Fox "News").

P.S. I'm being just a little bit sarcastic here :-)
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 10:15:54 AM by Mort54 » Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2008, 10:41:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Looking at those pictures, I think it's awfully hard to make a case that there was any intentional distortion. "Yellowed" teeth? Look at the shirt the guy is wearing. That whole shot has a greenish cast in the Fox frames, not just the teeth. How do we know where that green cast came from? It could be from the video capture process that produced these examples, and may have not been present in whatever it was Fox broadcast at all.

And exagerated features? Look at the frames people! They're square. I don't know about your TV, but mine is 16:9. Things are going to look really distorted when you compress a 16:9 frame into a square, and that certainly didn't happen on the Fox broadcast.

Then look at the source of the complaint: MediaMatters.org. They are funded exclusively by left-wing activists. You have all been baited into a political statement, which has nothing whatever to do with "doctored photos."
Logged
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2008, 11:25:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Looking at those pictures, I think it's awfully hard to make a case that there was any intentional distortion.
No, it was obviously intentional. Look at the hair lines. In the first cases the hairline is lowered, and in the other, it's raised. Those aren't just color changes - those changes required the use of the clone tool. It's hard to see how these are anything but intentional.

As for the aspect ratio, the Fox News logo looks correct, so I don't see any aspect ratio issue.

As for the source - well, I think the source is obvious - it's Fox news. MediaMatters just caught them in the act. The only people being duped are the american people, by the likes of Fox News. Sad but true.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 11:31:32 AM by Mort54 » Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2008, 11:54:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Since they aren't really a legitimate news organization (since they have no journalistic standards), and are really more like a tabloid rag, I'm wondering if we're being too harsh on them. Maybe we shouldn't expect any more from them than we can expect from, say, the National Enquirer (I hope I don't get sued by the National Enquirer for comparing them to Fox "News").

P.S. I'm being just a little bit sarcastic here :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206415\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I actually agree with this.  I hope no one is bothering to prove that Weekly World News faked their Bat Boy photos.
Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2008, 03:04:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, it was obviously intentional. Look at the hair lines. In the first cases the hairline is lowered, and in the other, it's raised. Those aren't just color changes - those changes required the use of the clone tool. It's hard to see how these are anything but intentional.

As for the aspect ratio, the Fox News logo looks correct, so I don't see any aspect ratio issue.

As for the source - well, I think the source is obvious - it's Fox news. MediaMatters just caught them in the act. The only people being duped are the american people, by the likes of Fox News. Sad but true.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ok, let me see if I understand your argument. A well-known left wing group claims that Fox News did some evil "photo doctoring." So the evidence offered is some sort of video capture that can't possibly be a completely accurate reproduction of the original Fox feed, since it's a square frame. Those images that supposedly came from Fox had to be altered, or they wouldn't be square. Either they were cropped, or they were compressed, but we don't know which. Who did what altering, and when? I take it you're willing to believe one very biased organization complaining about the bias of another organization?

And, the "doctoring" was done to make these guys look...what? Fox viewers would have gone along with whatever these two reporters said before, but some evil Fox photo editor went and made their teeth yellow, and that now sways public opinion. Everything would have been fine, but those edited harilines have changed the course of human history. Gee, if I saw those Fox images, I'd have to think those reporters must be mutant space aliens with forheads like that. No space aliens on the editorial staff! No yellow teeth!

Of course I can see how you might be outraged. No traditional news outlet ever tried to take out a sitting president with National Guard letters from the 1960's that were mysteriously printed in Times New Roman. No, Fox is the only source of news bias out there.
Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2008, 03:08:04 PM »
ReplyReply

A bit late for April Fools...
Logged

Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2008, 03:17:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A bit late for April Fools...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206485\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Foolishness knows no calendar...
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2008, 04:13:50 PM »
ReplyReply

There are such things as doctored photos in news reports.  Back in late '63 and early '64, when numerous org's ran the "Oswald" backyard photos, many of the copies had differences such as sidearm present or absent.  The 3 best-known of the backyards in different poses had the same exact face, obviously pasted in.  It's merely amusing that "they" would do that, but then such well-respected pundits as Michael Baden and Vincent Bugliosi swear by the fakes that it turns reality on its head.  MTV really institutionalized the reality tricks when Infinity bought them, and right-wingia was so ordered by ClearChannel (an Orwellian term if there ever was), that Fox is just a comic-strip version of the true masters that preceded them.  I worked down the block from Fox for 3 years.  Major scum.
Logged
Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2008, 05:21:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ok, let me see if I understand your argument. A well-known left wing group claims that Fox News did some evil "photo doctoring." So the evidence offered is some sort of video capture that can't possibly be a completely accurate reproduction of the original Fox feed, since it's a square frame. Those images that supposedly came from Fox had to be altered, or they wouldn't be square. Either they were cropped, or they were compressed, but we don't know which. Who did what altering, and when? I take it you're willing to believe one very biased organization complaining about the bias of another organization?

And, the "doctoring" was done to make these guys look...what? Fox viewers would have gone along with whatever these two reporters said before, but some evil Fox photo editor went and made their teeth yellow, and that now sways public opinion. Everything would have been fine, but those edited harilines have changed the course of human history. Gee, if I saw those Fox images, I'd have to think those reporters must be mutant space aliens with forheads like that. No space aliens on the editorial staff! No yellow teeth!

Of course I can see how you might be outraged. No traditional news outlet ever tried to take out a sitting president with National Guard letters from the 1960's that were mysteriously printed in Times New Roman. No, Fox is the only source of news bias out there.
The scariest thing about the US neocon movement is the extent to which ordinary citizens buy into their propaganda. It reminds me a lot of Germany in the 1920s. Read into that what you will. If you can't recognize the extent of doctoring done to those photos (which is blatantly obvious to any objective viewer), then I can't help you (and no one else can either).

The first photo in particular has a lowered hairline, enlarged ears, enlarged chin, enlarged nose, bushier eyebrows, gaps added between teeth, darkening under the eyes, and yellowing of the teeth. This has nothing to do with aspect ratio, and is a result of photoshop manipulation, plain and simple.

It has been suggested by a number of news sources that Fox tried to make the first reporter look more "jewish". Yet another connection to 1920s Germany. The New York Times has taken exception to what Fox did, so this isn't just coming from MediaMatters. In fact, if you Google this, this is being picked up by more and more news organizations.

When a so-called news organization starts doctoring photos to further their own partisan right wing agenda, people should start sitting up and taking notice. This is very sad and scary stuff.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2008, 05:22:36 PM by Mort54 » Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
Petrjay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2008, 07:06:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I actually agree with this.  I hope no one is bothering to prove that Weekly World News faked their Bat Boy photos.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206442\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can assure you that there's absolutely no need for the WWN to fake their Bat Boy photos. Bat Boys are a common sight here in New England; the Boston Red Sox have employed them for many years, and as far as I know, the little guys have served with distinction without posing a threat to the populace.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2008, 04:58:37 AM »
ReplyReply

This seerms to be the Knickers in a Twist department today, so allow me to contribute.

First of all, I would love to have my hairline dropped - any hairline would be a welcome event in my book. Or on my head, come to think of it.

Right-wing devils. In the Sunday Times of 06.07.08 we have a charming little story by Rod Liddle where he tells of the fortunes or otherwise of the new Mayor of London, the Conservative Boris Johnson (time for all true lefties to cry boo!), whose chief political adviser, James McGrath, was let go after 12 days in office, and I quote  "was kicked out 12 days ago for having replied rather brusquely to a black journalist who said that some Afro-Caribbean people who were affronted by Boris´s electoral victory might return to their country of origin as a consequence. ´Well, if they want to go, let them go,´ McGrath replied - and was promptly sacked for "racism" as a result. Quite a lot of peopple were appalled by McGrath´s peremptory removal for having said something which was not, by any stretch of the imagination, racist at all."

Terrible people, those right-wingers, killing off their own to placate those weeping liberals and their minority electorate. But then, somebody here wanted "scary stuff," is that scary enough?

Funny, too, how the right wing seems to have cornered the popular take on evil intent. Cast you minds back to Stalin and his millions of "disappeareds", to the numerous countries around the world whose leaders bought into the leftist fantasy of forced equality (from the muzzle of a gun) regardles of how different the obvious reality is between people; look no further than good old Britain and ask yourself why there is no longer any auto indusry there beyond some foreign-owned marques on the edge of extinction. The reason is always the same: industrial relations where a workforce was led by a Marxist minority pulling all the strings and being able to do so because of worker apathy. I know about this from my own first-hand experiences working in industry before becoming a photographer. Such leaders were never about "worker interests", they were about the destruction of a nation´s industrial and economic base. And they were pretty damn succesful.

So, let´s try to keep a sense of balance: all parties manipulate the "truth" to conform with what they want it to be; it is up to the sentient rest of us to try and keep them ALL in check, though how we will be able to continue to so do with only the increasingly powerless vote on our side is in itself cause for a certain alarm.

Rob C
Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2008, 07:15:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I watched the unions destroy the rubber companies in Akron Ohio, where I worked in the 1970's.  Left-wingers they were *not*.  What all of that is is simple - a struggle for survival, or as Ron Hubbard would say - to *increase* one's survival potential, albeit at risk of ruin due to overreaching.  But these forgeries are not the same - sure, Fox wants to increase their control of the public mind, but their evil propaganda will pollute the spiritual landscape for many years past its "usefulness" (like the racist propaganda of slave times), and we will all suffer for that.  Let us appreciate the competitive struggle for life, but let us denounce the liars and forgerers before they ruin the future, before it has a chance at its own life.
Logged
Petrjay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2008, 09:38:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Rob, we weren't talking about British Conservatives. The current crop of extremists in the U.S. who brand themselves conservatives are as different from British and Canadian Conservatives as American football is from British football. Despite holding power for many years now, the radicals have built nothing, solved nothing, and have failed at virtually everything they've attempted. (which of course is not their fault - the mythical liberal media are to blame) All that's left now are the death screams of the so-called neoconservative movement as its day mercifully nears its end. Driving out or marginalizing the voices of moderation can only ensure the doom of any political or social movement, (at least in the U.S.) and these folks have done their job admirably.
Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2008, 09:59:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The scariest thing about the US neocon movement is the extent to which ordinary citizens buy into their propaganda. It reminds me a lot of Germany in the 1920s. Read into that what you will. If you can't recognize the extent of doctoring done to those photos (which is blatantly obvious to any objective viewer), then I can't help you (and no one else can either).

The first photo in particular has a lowered hairline, enlarged ears, enlarged chin, enlarged nose, bushier eyebrows, gaps added between teeth, darkening under the eyes, and yellowing of the teeth. This has nothing to do with aspect ratio, and is a result of photoshop manipulation, plain and simple.

It has been suggested by a number of news sources that Fox tried to make the first reporter look more "jewish". Yet another connection to 1920s Germany. The New York Times has taken exception to what Fox did, so this isn't just coming from MediaMatters. In fact, if you Google this, this is being picked up by more and more news organizations.

When a so-called news organization starts doctoring photos to further their own partisan right wing agenda, people should start sitting up and taking notice. This is very sad and scary stuff.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My point was not that the photos aren't different, but that there is no reliable source of information here that proves Fox did it for some nefarious purpose. Media Matters is a commtted anti-Fox organization, and based on those two little jpegs, we can't know who did what when. I have no reason not to believe Media Matters didn't do the manipulation entirely on their own.

And the distortion is so extreme that it's impossible for me to belive it was an attempt to do some sort subliminal message sending. Why would you need to alter a picture of two people, when you're already running a story decrying something they've written? What would these images have done to change the message the Fox story was sending otherwise?

Those "Jewish" comments are outrageous and paranoic. For that to make any sense at all, you'd be suggesting that Fox veiwers are so reliably anti-semitic that making somene look "more Jewish" would be likely to turn them against the individuals in question. That's absurd, and proves whoever came up with that putrid ccmplaint doesn't know the first thing about Fox, or its viewers. And its competitors "take exception?" The old guys complain about the new guy who's taking away their business. Wow, who would have seen that coming?

The sad and scary stuff demonstrated by this controversy is that an advocacy group like Media Matters can generate a tempest over nearly anything, and legions of sheep will follow them without stopping to think if the accusation even makes any sense. You keep making all these Nazi allusions, yet what is your continued demonization of Fox, and their "partisan right wing agenda?" Seems like nothing too different to me than the same kind of blind chauvinism we're supposedly getting from Fox.

I've been interviewed for a number of TV news stories, by Fox and the other big TV networks. If you've ever spent much time around these people, you'd quickly realize that there is no such thing as an objective news organization, and probably never has been. Getting all wound up over something like this is kind of like arguing over football, or whether Ford is better than Chevy. Or whether MFDBs give a "3D" look...
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2008, 10:55:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm surprised they didn't have the two pictures doing a "terrorist fist jab".
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad