W-W-What Photo Bias. . .

Posted by: MattMac112

W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 01:14 PM

". . . You're just 'seeing' things. . . "<br><br>Gotta love it when the liberal media apologists have it shoved back in their collective faces and the bastards pulling this crap finally are getting their hands slapped . . . <br><br>From USA Today:<br><br><blockquote>"Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards."</blockquote><br><br>Michelle Malkin retains the photoshopped version, originally published by USA Today . . . <br><br><br><br>Here's the origianl, undoctored version, to which USA Today has now changed . . . <br><br><br><br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 01:22 PM

She's still scary looking.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Gotta love it when the liberal media apologists have it shoved back in their collective faces and the bastards pulling this crap finally are getting their hands slapped . . . <p><hr></blockquote><p>Gotta love it that you can pounce on something so small in the grander scheme and drool like a puppy with his first bone. <br><br>[color:blue]My, My Baby Blue . . .</font color=blue>
Posted by: sean

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 01:34 PM

so, USA Today made the editorial change? they policed themselves?<br><br>um, great. <br><br>the bigger story here is that michelle malkin had nothing better to write about. i have no doubt that liberal hacks are having a field-day right about now with a multitude of stories about republicans in trouble. <br><br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 01:39 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Gotta love it that you can pounce on something so small in the grander scheme and drool like a puppy with his first bone. <p><hr></blockquote><p><br>EDIT: I removed my original comment. I post something about the liberal media getting caught and the editors having to release an editorial disclaimer. You want to make it personal as per your above comment. I won't get pulled down that road with you, Lea. Take your personal shots . . . <br><br>Meanwhile, this photo bias crap is finally surfacing, and I love it. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.
Posted by: sean

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 01:44 PM

your second photo looks photoshopped. <br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: steveg

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 01:46 PM

Looks like a Claritin Clear ad. <br><br>She looks pissed in both versions. Smile, Condi. Veepdom may be right around the corner. <br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 01:48 PM

<font size ="3">Captains Log: Liberal AP photo bias #14,657 - Condi Rice Photoshop job</font size><br><br><br>As usual with these posts, I don't get it. I can kinda see that the sclera of her eyes is a bit washed out. Is that it, or what should I be noticing between the two that is "liberally biased"?<br><br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 01:54 PM

i think the intent was to use some distraction to get the second photo displayed so that they could have a photo of condi looking too pale on the record. her face looks flushed from the stress the white house is under, i'd guess. anyway, it worked perfectly . (shrug)<br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: Llewelyn

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 01:54 PM

And there was me thinking it was a promo shot for her appearance in the Stargate TV show.<br><br><br>- This is gonna get pretty interesting. <br>- Define "interesting". <br>- Oh, God, oh, God, we're all gonna die..
Posted by: steveg

You don't think... - 10/26/05 01:55 PM

<br><br>Nah. Couldn't be.<br><br><br><br><br>Could it? <br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 01:58 PM

"... the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards."<br><br>Somehow, I don't think the editor would release a statement saying the "distortion" doesn't keep "with our editorial standards" if it was just an "honest post processing 'oopsie'. <br><br>In other words, stop being an apologist, sean.<br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: You don't think... - 10/26/05 01:59 PM

I don't think so . . . As far as I know, Michael doesn't play the cello. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: polymerase

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 02:11 PM

What I find strange is that suddenly yoyo is too busy to post?<br><br><br><br>I got a copy of the original. There is something weird about the dude in the background. Is that Carl Rove?<br><br><br><br><br><br>(__*__) <-- circular sig when standing
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 02:58 PM

I don't see what the fuss is about. I agree it's a dumb looking photo that should have been caught in proofreading, but I've seen worse mistakes. I'm not sure about malicious intent though.<br><br>Scale the "original" image to the same size as the "altered" image, and run the sharpen brush across her face to sharpen her muddied features, and that's what you get. Exactly what you get. Malicious intent or not.<br><br>The "experts" on that Michelle Malkin site who responded are disappointing, to say the least. Unsharp mask doesn't necessarily need be applied to the entire image, you can selectively sharpen with the lasso selection, or use the sharpen brush.<br><br>Either they're lying about photoshop to make USA Today look bad, or they're untrained in photoshop, which mean's they're lying about being experts. <br><br>Which is it?<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 03:03 PM

I go back to the editor of USA Today issuing a statement saying the altered photo didn't "keep with thier editorial standards" ... Looking at the two photos, this wasn't a "aww gosh, shucks" error. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: lanovami

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 03:11 PM

"was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards"<br><br>If it were, indeed just a goof, would they have worded it any differently?<br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: steveg

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 03:35 PM

<br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 03:37 PM

You can go back all you like, it doesn't change the fact that a simple swipe of the sharpening brush across her eyes before posting deadline is exactly what happened. The unfortunate artists working in such places don't have but a scant minute or two to do their work, and mistakes happen. Mistakes always happen.<br><br>As long as I've been working in this industry I've seen stuff get printed that I can only shake my head and wonder how it ever made it past a proofreader, film maker, plate maker, pressman, die cutter, and get back to the customer... who othen didn't notice glaring obvious mistakes, so the mistake gets printed again and again!<br><br>You can try to claim malicious intent, but that simply makes you look like a liar. That avoids questions asked of him.<br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 03:38 PM

Damn steve, did you pirate a copie of the Photoshop PL? (Pinko libbie).<br><br>:)<br><br>
Posted by: steveg

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 03:41 PM

I always use Photoshop liberally<br><br><br><br><br> *rim shot* <br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 03:43 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You can try to claim malicious intent<p><hr></blockquote><p>Try? That's exactly what I'm saying. If it was just a simple error, why would the editor post a statement at all? Why is a "corrected" version now in place of the Photoshopped photo? Wouldn't the editor of USA Today just leave the original photo? <br><br>Nahh ... They got their hand slapped and it's about damn time. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 03:59 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>If it was just a simple error, why would the editor post a statement at all?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Because they are basically legally bound to do so. Papers print retractions on every single thing they change, be it text or image. Otherwise they've opened themselves up to lawsuits.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Why is a "corrected" version now in place of the Photoshopped photo?<p><hr></blockquote><p>Some dumbass with nothing else to do probably sent them an email bitching about their "liberal tendencies."<br><br>I'm sorry, do you honestly think the editoral staff at USA Today were gathered around the big conference table guzzling Starbucks Coffees and chewing Nicorette gum, wringing their hands saying "We've got to make Condi look like SATAN!!! BWAHAHAHAHAH!" ???<br><br>Step back to reality. If that's their intent the unaltered photo does a much better job of it.<br><br>Anyhow I emailed whats her face about the "experts" she had emailing her about the photo and why they're wrong. Let's see if she prints my email on her site. Somehow I doubt it. That whole bias things works both ways.<br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 04:02 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Why is a "corrected" version now in place of the Photoshopped photo? Wouldn't the editor of USA Today just leave the original photo? <p><hr></blockquote><p>Why? Probably because a bunch of people just like you started bitching about nothing as if it was intentional and demeaning and biased and blah, blah, blah...<br><br>Sometimes its just easier to shut people up so you can go back to doing your work.<br><br>I've seen some incredible photography by the AP of Shrub over the years that really make Shrub look good. Some of them may have had the perfect touch of Photoshop editing for his skin tone, hair, etc. I should start bitching about it to the editor that they are making him look too good, so they must have a conservative bias!<br><br>Jesus Matt, of all things you post on this forum, the AP photo bias saga is by far the lamest.<br><br><br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 04:04 PM

Damnit, I spend an extra minute or two checking my email while I write my post and you beat me to the same punch! Now I see why Sean doesn't bother with capital letters. It takes too much time!<br><br><br>
Posted by: SgtBaxter

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 04:05 PM

Hahahaha!!! <br><br>All your posts belong to me!<br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 04:07 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I'm sorry, do you honestly think the editoral staff at USA Today were gathered around the big conference table guzzling Starbucks Coffees and chewing Nicorette gum, wringing their hands saying "We've got to make Condi look like SATAN!!! BWAHAHAHAHAH!" ??<p><hr></blockquote><p>Sarge, did I say that I thought the editorial staff at USA Today was gathered around the big conference table guzzling Starbucks Coffees and chewing Nicorette gum, wringing their hands saying "We've got to make Condi look like SATAN!!! BWAHAHAHAHAH!"? <br><br>Nah. <br><br>However, it was probably someone trying to be cute, which is why they retracted and reposted the photo and why they issued a statement. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 04:10 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Why? Probably because a bunch of people just like you started bitching about nothing as if it was intentional and demeaning and biased and blah, blah, blah...<p><hr></blockquote><p>I should hope that people riased the bias issue with the editor at USA Today. I'm glad they listened and responded. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Jesus Matt, of all things you post on this forum, the AP photo bias saga is by far the lamest.<p><hr></blockquote><p>And just think, you've made it far enough to see them get their tit in a wringer over it. Good for you, Trog. <br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.<br>
Posted by: Trog

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 04:14 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>you've made it far enough to see them get their tit in a wringer over it Good for you, Trog<p><hr></blockquote><p>Not at all. That would be, good for you, Matt. You are the only person who actually gives a damn about it.<br><br><br>
Posted by: Carlos

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 04:27 PM

That's a convenient apology, but it just doesn't wash. <br><br>There are numerous examples of the tilted media altering photos to make Republicans and conservatives look less than flattering. It's also a photo selection bias issue...there are 10,000 photos of Condi Rice from that session...yet USA Today just by chance happens to pick the one of her scowling. <br><br>The mainstream media is a largely liberal, leftist DNC propaganda machine. This is just a symptom of that problem. <br><br>
Posted by: MattMac112

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 04:37 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Not at all. That would be, good for you, Matt. You are the only person who actually gives a damn about it<p><hr></blockquote><p>Then I suggest you stop bitching about it if, you know, you don't give a damn.<br><br>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *<br>I [censored] bigger than you.
Posted by: lanovami

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 05:40 PM

Ah, yes. This is the kind of repartee that keeps us coming back. <br><br>We are what we repeatedly do. -Aristotle
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 05:56 PM

Now, now. Surely you're misreading.<br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 06:17 PM

There is some of we guys as woik, ya no <br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
Posted by: Celandine

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 06:21 PM

As WHAT?Deep-Cover on the WH Staff? <br>(Can't fool me! I'd know those eyes anywhere!)<br><br>NOC NOC, who's there?<br><br>
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 06:23 PM

Good think you're not a reporter, or I'd have to put you in jail. <br><br><br>. . . . . Here's lookin' at [color:red]you</font color=red> kid.
Posted by: DLC

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 06:39 PM

Whats the problem... she's from the "village of the damned" isn't she?<br><br>I don't get USA today. <br><br>Looks to me the only thing they touched were the whites of her eyes, the "stern" look was her original.<br><br>You have to realize all of us have sat and watch her LIE in photo ops and on News programs... so USA can't do her more damage than she's done herslef.<br><br>why don't you direct your displeasure to the clowns and screw-ups in Bush's administration ..... starting from the TOP?<br>They have done this to themselves , Matt.<br>Iraq, deficits, coverups, leaks, ...etc<br>NO ONE else did it to them.<br>Wake UP, man.<br><br>David (OFI)<br>
Posted by: Celandine

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 06:41 PM

I did as you suggested: and you're absolutely right.<br><br>Copying the image to disc and simply sizing it up using <br>"Preview" was all that was needed to reveal everything that <br>had been done to the photo.<br><br>The weird thing is, is that it confirmed my first impression:<br>It was just an clumsy PS Job done in the effort to IMPROVE<br>"The Dragon-Ladies" appearance.<br><br>All the stray hairs had been smoothed or removed, the eyebrows<br>are cleaned up, he gave a bit more definition to the lips, smoothed<br>the wrinkles softened the scowl, smoothed "the pursed lips", took <br>away the blotchy complexion and defined the cheekbones with a fresh <br>tweek of blush.<br><br>The part he blew was the eyes. That's where you can tell that he<br>lacked experience. <br><br>I have no doubt that allowing an inexperienced person to touch-up <br>the photo was the reason for the apology of (not being up to regular <br>standards) was all about. <br><br><br>
Posted by: sean

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 07:17 PM

i saved the image and opened in preview. i then sized it to my huge monitor. the photo is clearly very pixelated at that point. obviously bias. <br><br>--<br>"I am mindful that diversity is one of the strengths of the country" --president bush on 9/27/05
Posted by: bird

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 07:25 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Ah, yes. This is the kind of repartee that keeps us coming back<p><hr></blockquote><p>You betcha <br><br>
Posted by: KateSorensen

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 08:31 PM

Ditto! Quick wits with fast, sharp, witty replies are great entertainment. I am serious. I love it. Oh, the trolley leaves the tracks occasionally, but calmer wits manage to get it right back on four wheels . . .<br><br>Not to mention Bird's graphics . . . <br><br><br><br><br>KateMate
Posted by: polymerase

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 08:37 PM

That sure looks a lot like Cheney snearing but he looks cuter than the veep.<br><br>(__*__) <-- circular sig when standing
Posted by: bird

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 09:54 PM

Dick is out with Ken Star and the boys, some kind of powwow about a picture of Condoleezza Rice <br><br>
Posted by: bird

Re: W-W-What Photo Bias. . . - 10/26/05 10:09 PM

Hey Kate Always good to hear from you....<br><br>