These blatantly photoshopped images coming from various sources in The Media amaze me. They may truly just be mistakes, but there should still be at least some quality control. This immediately reminded me of the Reuters “potty break” image.
This isn’t about Bush though, this one’s all Condi. This photo of Condoleezza Rice was published last week by USA Today.
And then we have the original, which is now the image being shown on the USA Today link above.
I just want to know why. Why are photos that are obviously inaccurate being published by members of the MSM? Are they just having trouble finding employees that have even 20 minutes of experience with Photoshop or Gimp? Is there some breakdown in the editing process or are some editors just willing to let this stuff slide provided they get the necessary kick-backs?
USA Today did include an editors note commenting on the photo. I never realized when resizing a persons photo their eyes will become possessed looking. I’ll have to watch out for that phenomenon next time I’m touching up a picture to be printed. Here’s the editors note.
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 The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy.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.
So, the editor brightened a portion of Rice’s face. I haven’t looked in-depth at the photos, but after studying for a few minutes the brightness around her cheeks and forehead in the original doesn’t look much different from the brightness in the poorly edited photo. While there’s a very distinct difference in the brightness of her eyes. Check out FromThePen for some more on that.
At least they’re acknowledging that they fucked up. I still don’t see the reason for all the word play in the editors note. Michelle Malkin has a good round-up.
UPDATE: Samantha Burns (also linked below) has a very nice analysis of the photo.
Well, now what?
Work with Me
I'm available for hire and always taking new clients, big and small. Got a project or an idea you'd like to discuss? Startup plan but no developer to make it happen? Just get in touch, I'd love to see if I can help you out!
Leave some Feedback
Got a question or some updated information releavant to this post? Please, leave a comment! The comments are a great way to get help, I read them all and reply to nearly every comment. Let's talk. 😀