Posted on 09/18/2005 4:08:02 AM PDT by Past Your Eyes
Can Photos Be Trusted? The web is crawling with jokes, hoaxes and more insidious fakes. Digital-image experts aim to develop foolproof detection tools, but until then, seeing is not believing
By Steve Casimiro
Related Articles: Can Photos Be Trusted? WEB EXCLUSIVE Can You Tell Which Photos Are Real?
Lance Corporal Ted "JOEY" Boudreaux Jr. was bored. It was the summer of 2003 in Iraq, the pause between the heavy lifting of the U.S. invasion and the turmoil of the insurgency, and you can joyride around the desert in a dusty Humvee only so often. Loitering at the back gate of his base, mingling with locals, Boudreaux says he scribbled "Welcome Marines" on a piece of cardboard and gave it to some kids, who then posed with him, smiling, for a snapshot. He e-mailed the picture to his mom, a cousin and a few friends, and he didn’t think about it again. Boredom moved on. That wasn’t the last of the photo, though. The image made its way to the Internet and fell into the hands of bloggers—Boudreaux says he doesn’t know how—except that the sign had been altered to say, "Lcpl Boudreaux killed my dad, then he knocked up my sister."
(Excerpt) Read more at popsci.com ...
Really! I hadn't heard that. They admit there was some "doctoring" but it won't be widely reported like the original nonstory was therefore leaving the original in the minds of the people. More dirty tricks. When Rathergate happened, our local paper printed a huge front page story of the program when it aired but when it was discovered right away that the documents were under scrutiny, they never printed that. I waited for about a week, no story, therefore leaving the original in the minds of the people. I tried to call the paper. They kept telling me I would have to talk to the manager. And of course he was either out to lunch, out of town, or in a meeting everytime I called. I wrote letters to the editor which were never published. In the end, our paper never published the truth. So alot of people were left with the original story which was a lie. Thats how the liberal media operates.
I didn't think it was him from the start, due to the difference in writing. I wonder why the White House press secretary doesn't come out and refute it and get to the bottom of it.
Although your term "photochopped" is much more descriptive and accurate, the correct term is "photoshopped".
A real fun web site for seeing the art of photoshopping is www.w1k.com. They offer theme contests for people to photoshop pictures. An example: the theme was "hair", and entries included hairy bananas, wigs on lizards, frogs, hair that made a rino look like a lion.
http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001137642 this explains reuters' story but it doesnt explain how there are 2 different writing styles for the center part of the note. They are clearly full of it. Hopefully they own up to it. Time for bed in NY. Good night or good morning.
In the modern era, photos are like any other form of information -- they can be trusted only if their source is known and can be trusted. It is now as easy to manipulate images as it is text, so the same basic rules apply to both.
On the Reuters "bathroom" photo, there's no credible evidence that it's a fake. Reuters admits to cropping it and enhancing the contrast, both of which are standard practice for news photos. To believe that it's completely fabricated, you'd have to believe that Reuters would be willing to chuck out its credibility and burn a photographer with a 30-year professional career, the last 12 years as a White House photog with a good relationship with and good access to the White House.
More importantly, what does the photo show? President Bush was in the UN Security Council, not somewhere he spends a lot of time. He asked his Secretary of State, the top diplomat in the country and someone who might be expected to know protocol, about whether it was appropriate for him to get up and leave the room while the session was in progress. It's a reasonable question to ask; you don't want to risk a move that another leader will interpret as a snub.
Snopes leans to the left. If something is indeterminate they'll defer to the left-leaning explanation.
I daresay if such a thing happened to DIRT ex-POTUS, we'd be seeing a smear campaign against the alleged perps, and a round of unreturned phone calls when Reuters jouralists went looking for info.
Someone sent me a photo last week of the "Bush family Vacation". The sender is a friend and a big Bush supporter and an avid fisherman himself, so I took the photo in the right vein. However, if that photo makes its rounds around the Net, there will be people who use it in the wrong way. My friend captioned the picture with "I like this guy better every day..."
The photo showed W and his father in fishing attire, holding poles, and displaying a big fish that they had caught. This image was superimposed upon a view of people in the background wading through waist deep water in the streets of New Orleans. There was even a skiff making its way through the streets.
The photo shop job was expertly done, and it looked like an authentic photo. I deleted it, because I didn't want it to go any further!
See #26. That's the photo I was describing that I deleted. No skiff. So much for eyewitness accounts!
Obviously my friend thought it was funny and a credit to the President. I thought it was designed to be mean.
This photo was published in our local paper. The editor grudgingly admitted it was doctored. He said rather snippily. "Of course its doctored. Bush wouldn't be that insensitive, now would he." Talk about a royal @$$hat!
I use PSP8 and really like it. I have found it to be a good strong program and can rival photoshop anyday. That having been said, I am somewhat upset that Corel bought them out.Corel is not big on support, where JASC was very prompt in replying to my emails.-------Bob
Oh, yes. If it was Clinton, Rooters would personally find out who did it. It would be fodder for the 24/7 news reporters for at least a week.
Thats reasonable but the fact all the pics of the president using a pen that day and a pencil in the photo plus the fact you don't actually see any other evidence it is Bush is questionable. Perhaps the note is authentic but someone else wrote it and the reporter thought it would be fun to attribute it to Bush.
I heard my father say that many times and it is probably the reason I am a skeptic now.
Because Condi already acknowledged that it was accurate.
FOTOG CATCHES W.'S POTTY-LINE VOTE AT U.N. (Not a fake, sez Condi)
I doubt the doctored Kerry photos swayed many voters. The type of person that despises Jane Fonda generally isn't the type of person that would agree with Kerry's brand of politics. If anything, all they did was provide a "See I told you so!!"
I don't know, but please welcome the newest soldier in the Viking Kitty force:
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.