Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Debunking USA Today's baloney about the Condi photo. See this ---->>>

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 12:31 AM
Original message
Debunking USA Today's baloney about the Condi photo. See this ---->>>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
1. Notice, too, how your background changes and theirs doesn't.
Pretty telling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Not really.
They simply applied the filter to a "selected area" of the photo while the OPer did not. It was probably altered so that her eyes would look normal in a printed newspaper.

I think she looks thoroughly demonic in the original photo (and most others), so what would be the point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. If they were only following "normal" sharpening & brightening
it would have affected the whole photo. Yes, of course, they only selectively worked on her image. That was my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Making a selection IS normal.
Edited on Sat Oct-29-05 01:04 AM by greyl
At least for professionals. :)

So there's no reason to imply that there is something fishy simply because a filter was applied to a selected area of the photo. It's absolutely normal and common to do so. It's no smoking gun.

A better case could be made impugning them if they'd used the original photo, because she looks like hell there to.

edit: furthermore, compare her earrings in the original and retouched photo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Regardless, the eyes are over the top.
And a "professional" would have caught it.

Hell, I'm a professional, too, and I would never have let this out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. Yes, it was a poor job.
Why think anything more than that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Hard to believe it was just "sloppy" workmanship.
It just doesn't seem likely that someone wouldn't have caught something THAT glaring (no pun intended).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. You may be right. :) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 12:36 AM
Response to Original message
2. Personally, I find this hilarious.
And not just because of the subject--it's just really funny that it happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Then maybe you'll like this...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I do indeed like it.
However, nothing quite beats the poetic simplicity of those glowing white eyes!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Maybe you should email those to her. She definitely needs a makeover
Maybe she could get some tips.
I like the Florence Henderson look for her during the day, and the last pic for that nite on the town look.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carolab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Give her the Karen Hughes 'do.
Edited on Sat Oct-29-05 01:04 AM by Carolab
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aimah Donating Member (598 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. Is that glitter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #8
19. Re; Karen's hair: pin a baby Jesus doll on it & be a creche for H'ween.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 01:05 AM
Response to Original message
10. When are they going to investigate licey?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
12. no matter how you look at it.. she is the Queen of the Dammed, vampire
bitch..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShockediSay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. Well, she's got over 2,000 dead soldiers she helped send to their graves
for no good reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-29-05 02:13 AM
Response to Original message
14. She still looks like one of those kids from Village of the Damned n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 08:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC