What is Digg?112 Comments
- tdogg241, on 10/12/2007, -8/+85GoldYoshi:
Tin foil is on sale at Walmart this week. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+63In the Lebanese cityscape "Smoke and Mirrors" photo, that is the worst use of the Photoshop Clone Stamp tool I have ever seen. That person should have been fired based on this alone.
- bpmox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+64they removed it because it was an eyesore. It looks like a pole is growing out of her head. It's a non-important element that's hurting the photo and they can't reshoot it.
- DeFex, on 10/12/2007, -2/+62wow the soviets were pretty good at manual photo editing. they could work for the national enquirer!
- hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+63And truthfully, the pic didn't really need doctoring. He darkened the smoke and added a bit of extra smoke. It's not like the photo needed that. The city was on fire, if you can't make a good photo out of that with out resorting to Photoshop, you need to pick a new career.
- crash331, on 10/12/2007, -0/+56Because it's rather distracting. I bet that photographer cursed like a sailor when he got home and developed it.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+41Yep, although it was called AirbrushShop.
Prior to that, cavemen used to alter cave paintings using RockShop. The mammoth that Gronk killed singlehandedly was actually much smaller that was seen on the cave wall. - kiiwii, on 10/12/2007, -6/+46In Soviet Russia, photo edits you!
- ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39That photoshopping on that smoke was absolutely craptacular. That has to be one of the WORST clone jobs I've ever seen. Someone needs to teach him about soft edged brushes, the opacity setting, and cloning from multiple places.
- pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38Look directly above the woman's head.
- cocoamix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+36Still my favorite:
http://www2.jsonline.com/news/state/sep00/uw21092000.asp - Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41Looks more like a freelance photographer trying to make his work look more dramatic to me, but it depends on whose side you're on really.
- CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30If they weren't very good at making other people disappear, they themselves would disappear.
- kutza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27I think the Kent State photo was altered because it looked like she was screaming due to a huge nail in her head.
@DvS01 Couldn't agree more. Did that thing actually get published?... - biuku, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27The Reuters photo from Lebanon is a joke. Most 13 year olds could ID the stamp tool in that. They should teach news-types basic photoshop skills to pick out that stuff.
- greatromance, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24***** Photoshop work on the Middle East picture. Like Peleken said, do it right if you're gonna do it at all.
- KSOVII, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31godofpumpkins, you misused an apostrophe in "Asians", so you probably shouldn't be correcting others on that.
- XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17There has to be more than that!
- marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16A time for a photo editor worry:
Stalin asks you to remove yourself from all the photos. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@hipnerd
I agree, it looked more dramatic prior to the manipulation. The altered one looks...stupid. - ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14What's kind of ironic is that I think it actually makes it look like LESS strikes. Sure, there is more smoke coming from the one place, but the first photo looks almost like there's smoke coming from some buildings in the background, but's it been cloned over.
Also, I missed it at first, but he actually cloned several buildings, including one ghost building floating in the smoke. - MadNuke, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Found the Snopes article for you:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/natural/iceberg.asp - SpectreBlofeld, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Alright, I've been staring at the Kent State photo for about five minutes trying to figure out what the hell was changed. Anybody wanna clue me in?
edit: ok... after looking again... it looks like a pole or something behind her head was removed... what is that? was it something important? - DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13This is where two worlds collide. On the one hand, you have journalistic integrity and, on the other, you have artistic integrity. If this photograph was meant to maximize a reaction from it's viewers, then the pole can be removed. If the photograph was meant to document an important historic moment, then, under no circumstances, should the pole be removed. As a journalist, it is imparitive that information be conveyed in both factually acurate and as unbiased as possible.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@logicbomb
No, I said he should have been fired based solely on his poor use of the Clone Stamp tool! - selrahc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I think the smoke one is pretty recent...
- darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9However, the second image that is used for the composite with the soldier's hand up in the air is more threatening than the original where the weapon is being head with the finger not on the trigger and the solider appears to be standing casually. It is hard to tell from the picture, but the weapon appears to have a sling in which case the first picture would be how you would in a casual matter were as in the second picture the weapon is braced a bit more in perpetration for possibly firing it.
- tehbored, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13In Soviet Russia, photographs airbrush you!
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Of course, now you have to ask yourself: What pictures have you seen that were doctored by talented people and can be passed off as genuine? In a world of spin and photoshop, who can you actually trust?
- rbk303, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9where's the one of Lee Harvey Oswald holding the rifle? the one where the shadows are completely wrong? that's a classic.
- WikiEasy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Journalistic integrity?
LOL that went out ages ago when Walter Cronkite started the downward trend of commenting on news rather than just reporting it. Most news on TV nowadays is nothing more than brain-washing entertainment, aimed at grabbing your attention with outrageous headlines. This altered photos article is just a mere distraction from the REAL problem.
News should be boring, unbiased, without any injection of personal opinion. It should cover both sides fairly, despite national agendas. And those stupid news commentary that's becoming popular? They do nothing but destroy all credibility of TV news. - ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7what's faked in that video? I watched it and couldn't really tell.
- rouslan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Back in the Soviet era innovation, technology was low. For example, at a electronic parts factory workers had to manually write the value down on each part (!!) and package, instead of automatically printing it. And this was done up to 1991, not in 1900. People there really worked hard with a lot of manual labor-automation was not heard of. Cheap, free labor was also harvested from political prisoners in Siberia. People were really stimulated to work-there is a reason why the USSR, East Germany, Cuba kept winning the olympics. So doing a complicated, repetitive task was no problem, especially when it was important the government.
- CrushThemTorg, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Nothing ruins a good shot like a pole jutting out of someone's head, or a railing coming out of their chest. But, damns, removing it like that was colossaly unethical. There's no such thing as artistic integrity when you're in the news, it's only acceptable to edit a photo to bring it in line wiht what you saw no matter how ugly it may still be.
But damn, I'll bet that was a bad day for the photog: Going back to only discover that his best shot gets ruined by a damn fencepost.
Well, that, and the kids murdered by the National Guard probably was a downer too. - strabes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Those are some of the worst photo manipulation jobs ever. Granted, they didn't have photoshop but come one. That smoke one is terrible.
- MadNuke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8How about the famous fake iceberg, featured on the posters of many science classrooms as a real phenomena:
http://defiant.corban.edu/gtipton/net-fun/iceberg.JPG
Don't believe it's 'shopped? Check http://www.snopes.com - drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11@evil-doer
The soldier is doing what he has to do to try and keep himself and everyone else alive. Too many want to look at that picture and scream out "look at the soldier trying to kill a man with an injured child!!! What a monster!" The sad truth is, soldiers are fighting against a force that does NOT follow the Law of Armed Conflict. They have shown again and again how they will use innocent civilians and protected structures ( Mosques, hospitals, schools, etc) to carry out a hostile action. I can guarantee you, when the area was secured, EVERY person in that photo would have been seen by a medic and given whatever help they were needed. - cresswga, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@hipnerd - I think the point of his manipulation was that it made it appear like there had been more strikes than there actually had been.
- nepawoods, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@KSOVII
"godofpumpkins, you misused an apostrophe in "Asians", so you probably shouldn't be correcting others on that."
And in "your's" and "apostrophe's", and "Im'" - it was obviously deliberate. Damn you people are dense (you and the 8 people who dugg you) - WraTH017, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Seems like the ministry of truth has been hard at work altering the past and present. Fascinating stuff
- racer108, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Can someone explain the second one, Water way to go? It doesn't even look like the same photo. Ex:http://farm1.static.flickr.com/171/414867304_964129ce72_o.png
- albatross5000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Just remember. These are only the people who got Caught. I'm sure most image manipulations are done with more care.
- econofast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It looks like the "original" is slightly more cropped. You'll noticed that the man all the way on the left looks "closer", on the original version. Also, you see more of the trench coat.
I'm guessing the alteration was done on a different print, that was done with more of the negative. Also, in the original, everything looks horizontally stretched (or the altered is horizontally squished). Notice how much thinner Stalin looks in the altered version.... - DevilDogs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm with econofast on this one. At first, I thought they just re-shot the picture, but a picture that's cropped more, and stretched out to fill the size desired, would make things look closer. The original appears to be cropped closer than the altered one. The differences in the sizes of the men give it a way. My guess is, with it cropped and the commissar removed, it would be more noticeable because any imperfections in the airbrushing would also be enlarged.
- marinist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That was ridiculously bad.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@evil-doer
You don't expressly say it, you insinuate it. You first start off calling people "moonbats" and then proceed point out the fact he has a weapon aimed in the general direction of a man with a child. You give the impression that the soldier didn't have a reason to do so. This is what we call spin. It's what your doing. Stop putting ridiculous spin on your comments and you probably wouldn't have been dug down. - crimson117, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There were two photos...
The first was of a man hunched over and holding a child and looknig at a soldier, with the soldier in a relaxed peaceful posture with both feet on the ground.
The second was of a solder in an active pose - one foot up showing movement, his arm out defensively or commandingly at something, and the same man with a child way in the background paying no attention to the soldier at all.
The photoshop work made it look as if the soldier standing in the defensive active pose was reacting to a dangerously nearby man approaching with a child in his arms. In reality, that didn't happen at all.
If I had to judge, yeah the photoshopper tried to create a conflict that wasn't present in the original pair of photos. But I still can't speak to his motivations... either he was trying to show that the soldier should be respected because he can dutifully protect a crowd of civilians, or that he should be despised for being defensive when his only enemy was a father and his injured child. - Tarnum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The soldiers at 00:47 - some of them are cloned.
- Ogopogo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Simon Wiesenthal Center was caught using an altered photo on their website.
See: http://www.air-photo.com/english/1999_mark.html
alson see: "Retrospective Analysis of the Auschwitz-Birkenau Extermination Complex"
at: http://www.stormfront.org/solargeneral/library/www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/Brugioni1.html - racer108, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Look closer at the shooting one. In the first one his gun is pointed at the kid. In the second one his hand is out.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
