poor use of Photoshop in the media
polycounter lvl 18
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060805/ids_p...W1jBHNlYwNtZXBo
I saw this today and was just stunned. Is someone wanting to make things look worse than they really are? What gives? Anyone have any other interesting examples? (appologies if the pic is gone- I'll try to post it elsewhere asap)
I saw this today and was just stunned. Is someone wanting to make things look worse than they really are? What gives? Anyone have any other interesting examples? (appologies if the pic is gone- I'll try to post it elsewhere asap)
Replies
looks horrible.
on the official promotional website for "Team America World Polic" the huge explosion in the background had those nasty little artefacts all over it and i used to show it aorund to people prouving my point that its a retarded idea to upgrade from ps 7 (which is perfect) to cs (which is slow and buggy) ... 2 month later they fixed it though and replaced it with a not artefact riddled explosion which marked the end of my anti Photoshop CS campaign ... so with other words i dont have postable evidence ^^
Killingpeople: Any chance of re-hosting it so people can see the photo?
More info:
[ QUOTE ]
A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs. The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage.
The photograph showed two very heavy plumes of black smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut after an Air Force attack on the Lebanese capital. Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors.
In the message, Reuters said that photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvience.
Reuters head of PR Moira Whittle said in response: Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut. Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures.
As soon as the allegation came to light, the photograph, filed on Saturday 5 August, was removed from the file and a replacement, showing the same scene, was sent. The explanation for the removal was the improper use of photo-editing software, she added.
Earlier, Charles Johnson, of the Little Green Footballs blog , which has exposed a previous attempt at fraud by a major American news corporation, wrote : This Reuters photograph shows blatant evidence of manipulation. Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke; this is almost certainly caused by using the Photoshop clone tool to add more smoke to the image.
[/ QUOTE ]
actualy lets all start fighting terrorism by stop listening to the news !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
some lol right here, folks
Also, Reuters digging themselves a little further into a hole of poor excuses:
[ QUOTE ]
The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under, said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters.
[/ QUOTE ]
The photographer has denied deliberately attempting to manipulate the image, saying that he was trying to remove dust marks and that he made mistakes due to the bad lighting conditions he was working under, said Moira Whittle, the head of public relations for Reuters.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's understandable.
One time I adjusted the lighting and removed dust marks on a photo of myself. It went from
Yeah Rooster, it's a tad worrying - all Reuters said was "photo editing software was used improperly on this image." - does that mean that in the cases it's been used properly, nobody noticed?
[/ QUOTE ]
auto levels, brightness contrast, removing dust and scratches, erasing UFOs....
http://www.20min.ch/news/ausland/story/27903311
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/
Might be worth a shot, just to keep the media honest.
Could they actually be sued for false advertising? I mean, if an image is used in support of something that they are marketing (news), and that image is falsified, could it be a misrepresentation of the product in question? I mean, if you wanted to learn about a car that you were purchasing, and they sent you a photoshopped image that misreprented what you were actually getting, you could damn well sue the car company.
Might be worth a shot, just to keep the media honest.
[/ QUOTE ]
considering most cars in those commerials these days are CGI rendered that argument has little basis in reality
Ryno, ideally news shouldn't be a "product"... it should be a public service.
We can dance and sing
When its said and done we havent told you a thing
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry!
Their business should be an accurate conveyance of the truth.
[ QUOTE ]
'never let the facts get in the way of paranoia.'
[/ QUOTE ]
fixed.
honestly i think some of you jump off the deepend quicker than the people on a UFO/conspiracy/paranormal website i visit often.