Posted on 08/28/2006 5:14:42 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
You would think that Reuters learned its lesson about publishing to the world photos doctored to create a false image. After all, they were caught with multiple false photos from Lebanon, and had to take down more than 900 images from one stringer. Reuters promised it would have "experienced editors" look at all such photos in the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
But anybody have a link that goes in depth?
(adminmoderator, this belongs in the sidebar, right? The other ones did)
For anybody interested, here is the first photoshopped image
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1678623/posts
And the second
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1678852/posts
I thought that Reuters canned Adnan Hajj? Apparently he wasn't the only one?
The flag isn't white. As bloggers have noted, the contrast on this photo has been punched up to turn light blue into white. The UN helmets which are actually light blue, seem white with slight shadows. The "white" flag is actually a back-lit, blue, UN flag. Confirmation of the doctoring of this photo is that the background of the poster in the upper right has entirely disappeared, so its black words seem to float in a "white" sky.
Errr, This is for the second photoshopped image. Sorry.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1678950/posts
Am I the only one who thinks the photo is hilarious?
Yeah, you can see the washed out UN logo on it.
The part that looks photoshopped to me is the entire tank; looks like it was artificially just set in there.
Brightness turned up to the point that the blue flag and helmets of the UN personnel appear white. Clearly doctored photo.
Unfortunately, though those items are not white, the net effect of what was done in this foolish cease fire is raltively accurate. We should have not only let Israel continue to destroy Hezbollah, we should have encouraged it until it was well and fully done.
Needs more keywords.
What is this "photoshopping" buying them?
I think it's possible that Reuters played with the brightness on this one. But I don't think it's quite accurate to say that it was actually doctored. Because of glare, etc. it's not unusual to alter brightness before publishing a photo. It is possible that due to the glare of the sun this is the way it actually appeared and darkening it would have made everything look black.
The photoshopping isn't "buying" them anything per se.
But this is the liberal media we're talking about. I'm honestly surprised we don't see photoshoppery on other topics as well, not just from lebanon.
I'd go so far as to say that the editors at reuters noticed this as well, and didn't care. They want this type of crap getting published, look at all of their pro-hezbollah articles. The entire media is infested and saturated with it.
It's like a bad episode of the matrix.
Personally, I think the author is getting paranoid.
Nope.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1690813/posts
"A French" United Nations vehicle drives past a photo of Hizbollah leader .... Nasrallah, in Tyre...." .......That explains it, the flag is white!
"What is this photoshopping buying them?"Good question.Nothing as far as i can see.But perhaps they see the UN as a joke-like the rest of the world.
I'm not sure it is doctored.
It appears more to be lighting (sunlight) that gives the impression that the flag is white, rather than intentional doctoring.
We have... and it's most likely that inumerable images have been radically altered on ALL topics... if not flat-out 'created'. It's amazing what a trained, retoucher can do in Photoshop... in high-end advertising, you can earn a good living at it.
I agree, this is crying wolf. I think it should be removed from Breaking News.
I think it's "fake but accurate".....:)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^You can see the photo is shooting into a tough light situation. The open sky on the upper right most likely made the aperture close way down resulting in a dark picture.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's not open sky. As Armor over at NB noted, that's not sky.
I've never seen the sky with clean writing on it. Have you?
It's got arabic writing on it, then it says "AL JANGUS", whatever that means.
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
also Keywords 2006israelwar or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
I'm more worried about Israel's doctored military apparatus.
Bush Derangement Syndrome is proven to prevent learning from past mistakes in 99.9% of journalists and dems.
how so?
Washed out UN seems more appropriate!
All I see is little red x's.
I can't believe no one caught this. "A French United Nations vehicle". A white flag. Whats the running joke about France???????
Not only is it doctored...its a joke at the French military. Or France itself.
 |
| Sometimes I think people get their panties in a wad for the sake of that wedgies feeling. So what? This guy smiling at a white flag or a UN flag makes no difference to me. When I first clicked onto this thread, before I read the part about the smile directed to the white flag, I simply couldn't find any part of the picture that made me think anything other than this guy looks like a kid. The photographer probably saw the connection, took the shot and had to lighten it to get Nasrallah to even appear. Lightening the photo makes the image on photo paper look like the image the cameraman saw. That is not dishonest. It's no more dishonest than a photojournalist using a telephoto lens, or a polarizing one, or a sketch artist doing the graphic. Sometimes I think people need a bit more Zoloft in their lives..
|
Yeah, to us it's a non-event. But I think, to the average hezbo/hezbo- supporter on the street, it accomplishes what the propagandist/photographer intended.
The marquis of Nasrallah on the side of the building is pretty dark compared to the rest of the photograph. I'm still a novice in Photoshop, but it looks to me as if the contrast was pumped up so Nasrallah's face wasn't in the dark. It resulted in washing out the rest of the image.
As to the words hanging in the sky, I'd assumed they were letters on posts. You don't see them often in the US anymore but they're still around.
^^^^^^^^^^I have taken thousands of pictures, edited them in photoshop, yadda yadda yadda I wont bore you with the details....^^^^^^^^^^
I don't doubt your experience, and that does appear to be sky, however I've never seen writing like that any time I've looked up.
If anything, it looks like it's a separate banner. Note the orange bar inbetween the nasrallah photo and what appears to be sky on the right.
Yellow writing doesn't appear in skies, but it does on wall/banners.
^^^^^^^^^^Save it for the real thing.^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah, I have to agree. However, with all that Reuters and other lib media outlets have done up until this point, you can't blame people for overscrutinizing.
I'm not sure, but it looks like the photo was taken in the early evening maybe 30 minutes to an hour before sunset. You will notice that no direct sunlight is on the tank, but there obviously is behind it. Take a look some day when you are out driving around and you will see that the lighting can do weird things as sunset approaches.
Don't get me wrong, it doesn't surprise me at all to find out that Reuters, AP, etc. are doctoring photos. I'm just not sure about this one.
Changing the contrast is not doctoring a photo. Everybody needs to calm down.
This is on the intellectual level of DU posters noticing that a sitting President has a bulge in his jacket during a debate and concluding that Karl Rove was moving his jaw muscles with electrodes.
|
| ^^^^^^^^^^Save it for the real thing.^^^^^^^^^^ Yeah, I have to agree. However, with all that Reuters and other lib media outlets have done up until this point, you can't blame people for overscrutinizing. You sir are a true gentleman, open to criticism and thinking rationally. We need more like you. |
Plus, I'm just not seeing what benefit they would derive from "washing out" the blue helmets and flag in this. The last thing the left wants to make people think is that the "glorious" UN would ever surrender.
It's now obvious that the photographer screwed up his f-stop settings and the original main subject image, the vehicle, was underexposed due to back-lighting. He should have known better if a pro and opened up a couple stops OR used his EV compensation dial. But he didn't so it was done in the lab, washing out the blue. (its still funny hough, French & 'White' Flag)
A first year Photo student knows about the evils of back-lighting and light meter readings
Something like this? I found others with even fewer supports, but they were too big to post. Between blurring in the distance and jpeg compression I could see how the supports would disappear.
The brightness was changed in order for the image of the chief hezzie to be visible. Since the flag was backlit, the sunlight was coming toward the camera. I'd wager the poster's features would be dark and indistinguishable and obviously Al Reuters couldn't let that stand, hence the change.
Or he may have had it properly exposed on a digital camera. Digital cameras' maximum value is much more defined than film. If the light blue (RGB = 133, 151, 193) got twice as much light as it should it would be RGB = 266, 302, 386. However, the pixels are limited to 255 so you get RGB = 255, 255, 255 or pure white. Film doesn't have such a sharp maximum, so it will still bluish.
Generally on digital cameras I underexpose the picture slightly because I can later brighten the picture to get it to look good. If it is overexposed then colors can be lost which cannot then be recovered by darkening the picture.
That's the half amazing part. *laughs*
I appreciate that.
Non-event.
When a camera's aperture / shutter speed is set to capture detail in a relatively dark area, the brighter areas are overexposed and washed out of color, or even completely burned out to pure white. The exact opposite of when you take a picture on a bright day & the person (because he's in the shade) is nothing but a dark shadow. The photographer as focusing on dark areas (the poster of Nasrallah, the heavy equipment), while bright sunlight was shining on the helmets & flags.
In this case, it looks like photoshop could have been used to darken the helments & flag to make them look blue (the UN logo would have been clearly visible), but they didn't.
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.
