This Is Not A Democracy, It's A Republic........
Very interesting Jenn...very interesting. Where does that cord go? 
Those guys sure look pretty happy though.
Nothing is photoshopped. The mic cord is blurred because of movement. Obviously.
Whoever did that editing must be a real amateur or they just didn't care. I'd opt for the latter.
That's too big a mistake for it to be subversive. The editor didn't every try to color match the edits pixels with the rest of the wall in the background. That's easy to do at 2000x using the paint brush in Photoshop.
"Nothing is photoshopped. The mic cord is blurred because of movement. Obviously."
I hope that was sarcasm.
But, exactly why would one want to photoshop the cord-in this instance? It's not like it's an Israeli bomb!
The cord was obviously Photoshopped out of this picture.
The question is: Why? For what purpose? There is none and it just doesn't make sense.
Is this photo shown how it originally appeared in print? If so, that's terrible.
However, Photoshopping art for publication, especially in newspapers, is extremely common practice. It's when a Photoshop job changes the meaning of the art that you need to look out for.
Yeah, but Pete, given recent circumstances, that any picture would be photoshopped seems a bit wonky.
Add to that the fact that it's the Times, and it makes me wonder what else they photoshop. And then that makes me think, if they are so retarded as to photoshop a pic, albeit poorly, after recent allegations of tampering,how about some of those "anonymous sources" they use all the time, are they real, or are they memorex?
Dishonesty and bias in the media is growing to epic proportions, and little things like this add up.
As for the "mic cord is blurred" theory, it doesn't work. See how nice and calm the women is. See how the cord is there, then just dissapears..... Duh.
Well, you can't get around Photoshopping newspaper art. Every single photo in a newspaper has to run through Photoshop, and many of them are significantly altered. In this case, had the entire cord been Photoshopped properly, you'd never know it was there.
It's a fine line/slippery slope on what changes viewers perception and what adds to it. Obviously, the point of Photoshop is to enhance newspaper art, not alter its meaning.
This is just a poor, poor job and I'm sure that photographer who was credited with the photo is embarassed today. They probably picked up the wrong image.
I think this is an isolated case that was magnified by its most recent mishap.
Speaking of mishaps, what the hell is wrong with that dingbat Kathryn Harris down in Florida? And you call me a moonbat. Just curious what your thoughts were, Jenn, Witness, etc...
Can anyone say REEEEACH...
This IS yet another example of photo manipulation at the hands of our wonderful media... BUT it does NO damage at all to anything but the photo-editors ego.
The only reason I can see for the lack of a complete photoshop job, was that they intended to crop the photo where they stopped... only to have someone else further down the line publish it without cropping anything first.
"Yeah, but Pete, given recent circumstances, that any picture would be photoshopped seems a bit wonky."
Wait... I thought Pete was the one who liked to disagree JUST to disagree. I could care less what the recent circumstances surrounding the BAD photoshopping of War time photo's... this does NOTHING bad except just plain look bad.
"Add to that the fact that it's the Times, and it makes me wonder what else they photoshop."
Try EVERYTHING. You will get a PERFECT photo about one time for every THOUSAND photos you snap. Color correction, retouching etc are so commonplace, to tell me that Media Organization XYZ doesn't have a photo retouch department would cause me to point out the utter stupidity of such a statement (after I stopped lauhging).
Oh and in case you're wondering, I do this sort of thing for a living.
"Oh and in case you're wondering, I do this sort of thing for a living."
Me, too.
Seeing as I don't work for a magazine like you Pete, I wouldn't have been aware that every single photo taken and printed was shopped as James points out.
Seems to me, it's one thing to enhance the appearance of a photo, and quite another to blatantly manipulate it by removing something.
"Wait... I thought Pete was the one who liked to disagree JUST to disagree."-James
Yes, that has been the case from day one. Pete seems to be in a good mood today, one could only hope he maintains this pleasant disposition.
Aw, come on, Jenn. I've always been fair about presenting my point of views. It's you all who immediately start trashing me and calling me names and resorting to anger that turns the tide.
So far, so good.
You'd be surprised: Some of the most intriguing photos ever taken are altered in some way or another. Especially now that we're living in the digital age and dealing with megapixels instead of a dark room. That's why it amazes me that people go buy a $500 digital camera at Wal-Mart and wonder why their pictures don't look like the ones in magazines or in the newspapers. You gotta Photoshop.
Just because this is a dead-end topic, here's the movie that's going to be a small start to the revolution:
http://www.911pressfortruth.com/
Nay, Pete - what you have to check out is a docudrama called, "The Path to 9/11." It begins in 1993 and goes on from there - that'll put you on the right track.
As for Kathryn Harris, I really think you have to take into account WHO she was talking to. There s precedence on both sides for this, but for some reason the MSM are magnifyng this one.
Since she's not my candidate, shes not my problem. The macaca guy is MY problem - and although I believe it was a made up word (he calles his niece micaca) I'm not buying the racst thing. But, hey - people will see racism if they chose to - whether it's there or not.
As far as photoshopping a picture - I think I'm ok with sharpening or brightening a photo. But adding or deleting something to a photo is fraud to me if it's for news purposes.
Since she's not my candidate, shes not my problem.
Unfortunately for me, she IS my problem!
Wel - I'm very sorry to hear that Jonathan - however, can you get past the part of WHO she was addressing?
I must repeat my premise that this is NOT unique. Others on both sides have used this platform before. I don't know why people clutch onto things that were not meant for them - and quite frankly, I agree with her. Why - because the OTHER side has been voting their morals and apparnetly they have none.
They edited the cord out because it was a distraction. It's obvious as hell where the cord WAS, it was just poorly done. Jeez. Pathetic.
I'm wondering if they photoshopped (When did that become a verb anyway?) her legs at all. Maybe thats what distracted the guy editing the mic cord.
And whats so interesting higher up beyond the top edge of the pic so that none of the guys are looking at those beautiful boots?
Actually Prying....I found it odd that they were looking at her face/hooters.
She's got killer legs.
WHAT?!?!? there's a cord? I didn't get quite that far.
Yeah - like they kill my eyes! I've got pretty good gams and all see is nocked knees and thick suff all over the place.Perhaps it's just an overall bad photo perod!
I had a booty like that once.....
F.Y.I folks, the next few days are moving days, so updates may be spotty at best.
I want to give a 'ten hut' salute to that!
But, the looks on the privates look authentic!
thanks for stoping by my blog.
I agree that there seems to be no point in having such a terrible photoshopping done here. It's strange.
In my day, Barbara Mandrell came to my ship. My senior chief was so excited that he stole the toilet seat that she sat on...
Yet 3 more reasons why Iadvocate for a more aggressive missle defense policy, and then openly share it with the isrealis. I would also kindly let Iran know that he wouldn't sacrafice half his country, he would sacrafice all of it. Any pre-emptive strikie on America or its allies would be returned ten-fold. Iran would cease to exist - forever.
I am also leaning towards a direct air assault on Iranina nuclear facilities. We don't have to invade, we are out of reach. Just dump our load and go.
Gah! Had the wrong comments open. Anyhoos, Jenn, if you could move it and delete this I'd be obliged. Or just delete both and I'll repost in the appropriate comments.
Thanks.
Maybe they want her to look like a stripper?
When a cord (or rope) is moved, it sets up a wave down the length of the cord. That wave does not affect all parts of the cord at the same time. If you tie one end of a rope to a post, and move the other end back and forth at the right rate (frequency) you will see parts of the rope moving drastically while the points at the dead spots in the waves are not moving at all.
What this young lady did was move the end of the mic just enough to set up a single wave, her body was not affected, the wave has not gotten to the floor yet, and the picture was shot at a slow enough speed to blur the cord.
No photoshop needed.
Hey, Pete...check out the looks on the faces of the "rednecks"!
Commenting by HaloScan
