|
|
|
October 26, 2005
The eyes have it!
As PhotoShoppers go, I'm hardly a professional. ("Self taught hack" pretty well describes my limited skills...) But this apparent photo doctoring of Condoleeza Rice intrigued me:
And I found myself even more intrigued by Glenn's question: Adobe's "fill flash" can sometimes do surprising things, but I'm not sure it could do this. I'm so backward that I don't even have Adobe "fill flash" I thought I'd try it myself with the primitive software I do have. I had no idea whether this exercise would work, and I decided to spend no more than five minutes, because I just wanted to satisfy my curiosity. I started with this original JPEG file from Yahoo:
I opened the above (along with USA Today's BMP version with the gleaming white eyes) in Paint Shop Pro version 6, used the dropper to select the white color, and once I had done that I used the primitive "fill" feature (by selecting the icon which looks like a little pitcher of paint), to add white. I then saved it as a BMP file, and shrunk it to the same dimensions as the USA Today picture. Here's they are, side by side (mine's on the left):
How'd I do? I think I might need to add a tad more white, and maybe do a little retouching on the eye to the right, but I think mine is a little more on the subtle side. Probably not good enough for the MSM. When they say they want to see the whites of their eyes, they mean it! MORE: Because I know I'll never get a job with USA Today, I also did an Indymedia version:
FINAL THOUGHT: It's incredibly obvious to me that USA Today's picture was doctored. What surprises me is that they don't seem to mind being blatant about it. UPDATE: Caught, um 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 The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy.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.A fine, lawyerly answer! (And I'm so into unnatural appearances that I brightened the same portion twice!) posted by Eric on 10.26.05 at 10:14 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2949 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The eyes have it!:
» stargate sg-1: infiltration (an evolution original episode) from evolution
STARGATE SG-1: INFILTRATION [Scene: The “gate room.” Soldiers are busily scurrying around, preparing for a departure. The alarm sounds, and the gate begins to rotate. Col. O’Neill (Richard Dean Anderson), Maj. Carter (Amanda Tapping... [Read More] Tracked on October 26, 2005 05:21 PM
» Richard Curtis and Evil-Eyed Condi from Myopic Zeal
USA Today has doctored a photo of Condi Rice. From the Pen has the before and after shots, as does Michelle Malkin. Mike says it’s more free publicity for Adobe. UPDATE: USA Today corrects, with this comment: Editor’s note: The photo o... [Read More] Tracked on October 27, 2005 08:24 AM
Comments
Your comment makes me think that USA Today might unwittingly be making people like her all the more. Eric Scheie · October 26, 2005 11:02 AM For the Indymedia version - you need to give her just a hint of fangs at the corners of her mouth. Mike Heinz · October 26, 2005 12:35 PM I like the red-eye version best. Particularly if you could put horns on the sides of her head. And maybe just slap her head onto the body onto Paris Hilton. Or maybe Hilton's head onto Rice's body. Something like that. John · October 26, 2005 12:59 PM "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." - USAToday Distortion, huh? OK, an honest mistake. So I decided to see if I could make the same honest mistake. Pow! In 5 minutes this 'old country redneck has nearly exactly matched the efforts of USAToday's high-priced graphics editors. I even put it up on my blog for everyone else to see. Those clowns "brightened a portion of Rice's face" all right - they did it on purpose for the one and only reason of making her look like a hideous demon (or like the average Liberal). But this was "honest mistake" - sort of like "Kerry honorably served". Shamalama · October 27, 2005 01:03 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Holiday Blogging
• The right to be irrational? • I'm cool with the passion fashion • Climate change meltdown at the polls? • If you're wrong, then so is God? • Have a nice day, asshole! • Scarlet "R"? • Consuming power while empowering consumption • Shrinking is growth! • My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
What a woman! Those are the kind of eyes that Ayn Rand had, the kind of eyes Camille Paglia has, the kind of eyes that drill right through you. Never underestimate the power of a woman. I love Condi.