Bad Photoshop... Good Photoshop
Who says the media isn't above publishing doctored stories... Or stories that are out-right false? Can anyone say Dan Rather? Recent objections to staged photos at Qana are receiving little attention in Mainstream Media. I reckon they believe no one will notice the controversy if they simply keep quiet. But what does it say about such an organization? How can they ever be trusted again? Especially since Reuters has been caught yet again publishing doctored/staged photos...
For those of you who can't see what's wrong with the photo above-left, allow me point it out for you... Do you see the ripple-like repeating cloud pattern? This is amateurish at best. This is extremely bad Photoshop...
This is what Good Photoshop should look like...
Compare that to the original...
Good Photoshop...
Bad Photoshop...
Dan Rather got punk'd for peddling phony papers. Reuters gets punk'd for peddling phony photos... There's a pattern developing here, and I think it's only the tip of the ice berg
UPDATE: Monday, 9:15 pm
In fairness to Reuters, the photographer who shopped the photo was sacked, and his portfolio removed from their database. That's as it should be. But that only deals with the photographer. My bigget concern here is the photo's obvious-- to anyone with eyes --defects. I've worked with photoshop for 9 years now. This is obvious to me, and I can't imagine anyone not seeing it as well. Perhaps I give the average Joe too much credit-- I'll let others be the judge of that. Perhaps the guys in charge of approving the photo didn't really look at it... which raises even more concerns. Either way, Reuters was caught with its pants down. They've dealt with the photographer, and now it's time to deal with whatever issues allowed this to happen, and I suspect their doing that very thing even now. They need to ask themselves a few serious questions. And they need to be very honest in answering them.
I don't expect a public announcement detailing how they will ensure there's not of repeat of this. It would be nice-- the whole accountability thing... But I don't expect it.
For those of you who can't see what's wrong with the photo above-left, allow me point it out for you... Do you see the ripple-like repeating cloud pattern? This is amateurish at best. This is extremely bad Photoshop...
This is what Good Photoshop should look like...
Compare that to the original...
Good Photoshop...
Bad Photoshop...
Dan Rather got punk'd for peddling phony papers. Reuters gets punk'd for peddling phony photos... There's a pattern developing here, and I think it's only the tip of the ice berg
UPDATE: Monday, 9:15 pm
In fairness to Reuters, the photographer who shopped the photo was sacked, and his portfolio removed from their database. That's as it should be. But that only deals with the photographer. My bigget concern here is the photo's obvious-- to anyone with eyes --defects. I've worked with photoshop for 9 years now. This is obvious to me, and I can't imagine anyone not seeing it as well. Perhaps I give the average Joe too much credit-- I'll let others be the judge of that. Perhaps the guys in charge of approving the photo didn't really look at it... which raises even more concerns. Either way, Reuters was caught with its pants down. They've dealt with the photographer, and now it's time to deal with whatever issues allowed this to happen, and I suspect their doing that very thing even now. They need to ask themselves a few serious questions. And they need to be very honest in answering them.
I don't expect a public announcement detailing how they will ensure there's not of repeat of this. It would be nice-- the whole accountability thing... But I don't expect it.
from the mind of... Eric | 11:54 AM
12 Comments:
Can you point to some authoritative reporting on what you're talking about. I admit I don't go looking for such things, but you're the only person I've heard talking about faking images at Qana. What did Reuters do? What interest would it have in doing it? Why would it risk its reputation?
Er, you are trying to be funny here, right? I mean, seriously!
Reuters? Interest? Reputation?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
'Faking Images' as in staging the pictures taken. See my recent posts surrounding the Qana photos here, here, here, and here
I, for one, am insulted. If I'm going to be lied to, I want the fibber to put SOME kind of effort into it. Geez, I'm not a total idiot...
But, hey, I'm sure that while the photos themselves weren't 'accurate', the context of the subject matter was... *roll eyes*
And if that isn't good enough for you, go here:
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060807/2006-08-07T162044Z_01_L06301298_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-MIDEAST-REUTERS-DC.html
It's hard to find anywhere besides on the Blogs because Journalists tend to bristle at any suggestion that their work should ever be questioned, or held to any standard of truth or professionalism.
They would rather everyone simply swallow anything they tell us, hook, line, and sinker.
After all, we have a FREE press, you know...
elashley, you beat me to it. I was going to write about the same thing but you took care of it. The sad truth is that the media has been guilty of manipulating images and stories for years to fit its agenda. They just get sloppy once in a while and get caught. With the technology we have today it's laughable that this photo was presented to the public. Very very sloppy.
ER-- As to what Reuters did... they didn't examine the photos before they released them for print. The Qana photos, however, were not solely Reuters, but AP and Agence France-Presse as well.
Naturally these outlets deny any "chicanery" and they may very well be truthful in this as far as their own culpability is concerned. Here's a piece from the Associated Press which offers another perspective.
EU Referendum has the most detailed look into what the photos and timestamps "could" mean.
Then again, Reuters has had to issue another "Avisory: Picture Kill" for a doctored photo of an Israeli F-16. YNet.com has the story and another pair of interesting photos. Reuters agrees, however, that "tighter editing procedures" are needed, and will be applied to all photos coming out of the Mid East war.
As I've stated elsewhere... somewhere... here, I don't think this is merely a Reuters or AP or Agence France-Presse scandal, but rather, the mistakes made by these outlets are more indicative of a much larger problem within media... And I think I'll save that topic for a post of its own.
I finally saw this on the eviilll "MSM" last night. And I see your update.
I think y'all all see conspiracies where none exists regarding the media. Blogs will always "beat" the MSM to a story because, except for the talking heads who point cameras, show live footage and comment extemporaneously, the MSM actually does need a little time to confirm. As it did in this case.
I have hired and fired correspondents over the years. Sometimes you get a real stinker. The Reuters case is a particularly egregious example.
But there is only ONE common trait: The only thing anyone who would doctor a photo, or make up a quote, is out to promote is self.
I am ignoring the usual spew from Tug and the guffaw of D.Dad. I always mean what I say on this blog. :-)
What I'm wondering is, HOW is doctoring the smoke supposed to reflect poorly on Israel and help the terrorists overcome the world, as so many bloggers seem to think.
I don't know why the photos were manipulated by the photographer (not Reuters), but I don't see how it casts Israel in a more negative light.
The photographer obviously thought his efforts would paint Israel in a more negative light. You and I may not understand it... but there it is nonetheless.
"The photographer obviously thought his efforts would paint Israel in a more negative light."
Again, I'll have to concede that I don't have the psychic capabilities to know what the MSM nor their photog cohorts are thinking in their darkest of hearts.
The photographer probablyu was trying to make a more dramatic photo, which would increase its chances of being published: self.
Post a Comment
<< Home