Please Tell Me ABC News did NOT Use Fox's Altered Pic of Trayvon

[K Gardner]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/zimmerman-wept-jail-court-appearance-murder-charges-trayvon/story?id=16123136#.T4eRiqvgHdI

The image of Trayvon in his hoodie is in the first few seconds of the broadcast, next to a newer picture of Zimmerman.

I hope it's my computer screen, or maybe a bad video, but I swear it looks like the altered image Fox News was using, where Trayvon's face looked dark and splotchy.

[LoTechGuru]

1. I have read that the darker photo is the original,

and that the lighter photo with the perfect skin is actually the photo-shopped one. It looks like the Miami Herald was the first to use the darker photo: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/22/2708960/trayvon-martin-a-typical-teen.html

[pinboy3niner]

2. Izzat you, Frank?

What you claim you "read" is exactly what posters at the Conservative Cave and other RW websites are claiming to absolve Fox and 'prove' that the lighter photo is the doctored one.

The problem with your link is, first, that it's not a Miami Herald photo at all--it's attributed by the Herald to Mario Tama / Getty Images. And second, it is NOT an original photo of Trayvon--it's a Getty photo of an image on a poster used in a protest--as even the Herald caption clearly indicates.

Your bringing the RW talking points here is appreciated...NOT.

[K Gardner]

4. Frank Taaffe.. Zimmerman's apologist neighbor who agreed with his

targeting of black males in hoodies.

[LoTechGuru]

5. OK, thanks. I'm not him.

[uppityperson]

12. With the reference in the other post, a different Frank.

A RWer jerk who stalks DU.

[pinboy3niner]

17. BINGO!

The poster in question showed up in one thread gushing all over nadin (who is a favorite target of the cavers):

44. Ah, are you in San Diego too?

48. Wow, that is impressive!
I just read a few of your article at East County Magazine, if you are the Nadin that I assume you are. Very nice work and a tip of the hat to you .

53. Well this is neat, I feel privileged to chat with you.
Take care of yourself and get better!

In this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002496900

Next, he posted to attack nadin, and had his post hidden:

This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide
Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #11)
Wed Apr 11, 2012, 03:19 AM

12. Could you please be more condescending?
Thanks for your brilliance.

A Jury voted 4-2 to hide this post on Wed Apr 11, 2012, 09:04 AM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.)

In this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002545114

iirc, that was just after a poster at the cave had suggested that someone's mole should visit nadin's thread.

UPDATE: The same poster now posts pics posted by Zimmerman defenders while noting that "the 'the pic was probably photo-shopped':

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=573072

When I suggested that the poster might be Franks's mole, I wasn't kidding.

[uppityperson]

21. Check out his avatar. POW/MIA.

[Kaleva]

6. I don't think there's any reason for such an over the top response.

The 2nd paragraph is an excellent response but I see no need for 1st and 3rd paragraphs.

[pinboy3niner]

19. I added a bit more context in # 17

I don't think it was over the top at all to challenge someone who brings RW talking points here. If anything, i was waaaaaaay too gentle.

[TorchTheWitch]

7. no it isn't

The original was one he used on either his Twitter or Facebook page that is not only the "unblemished" one but also shows a lot more of him than just his face. Neither of his Twitter or Facebook pages are available anymore, but the photo is the same one used here...
https://twitter.com/#!/trayvon_martin
though this one is a little darker and smaller. Several photos of him were pinched by the media from those places. Martin had lovely unblemished skin even in his color photos.

The original...



The photo that's much darker and blotchy came from a poster for the Hoodie March and was darkened a lot more...

[uppityperson]

11. thank you

[Honeycombe8]

15. I'm unfamiliar w/this pic argument, but what difference does it make?

They look almost the same to me. One is a tad darker. That is often the case when you make duplicates of photos. What difference does it make? He looks the same.

[Honeycombe8]

16. 1st time I'm seeing these photos. My take.

My take is...they look almost the same.

The top one looks touched up, to smooth the photo out. Like a company photo or maybe high school pics. The bottom looks like a COPY of a photo; the pic here is of a poster? So clearly that is a paper copy of a photo, which is going to be grainy and the color off a bit and not as clear.

That's what they look like to me. But I don't see why it makes any difference.

Also, there is something about the photo that's odd. The way the face outline is against the hoodie & hair. It seems like his face was taken from another photo and put in this hoodie photo. Like they made the photo for the poster, a hoodie event?

Where did the photo come from?

[BumRushDaShow]

18. You don't see the difference with these?

[Honeycombe8]

20. These are different to me, so yes, I more see the difference in these.

But it's just degrees of difference. The 1st pic in your post appears darker, like a paper copy of a photo. Not necessarily intentionally. Looks like when I made xerox copies on my copy machine of photos, with maybe the toner set to darker than medium. It's also grainier, and I can see horizontal white stripes on his nose. And it's so dark that you can't see his eyelids or much detail. It looks like a bad photo...or a paper copy of a bad photo.

The bottom one also looks a tad darker, but the difference betwen the two is greater than the post I responded to.

This I guess is pretty normal when copying photographs for distribution and putting on posters.

But what difference does it make?

[Iggo]

8. Wow. I read that, too.

Just now.

On an internet discussion board.

[uppityperson]

10. I don't know about that picture, but Trayvon was quite dark. Here's a couple other photos

[Fawke Em]

13. True, but the other photo is black and white

and looks to be in a well-lit department store.

That might make his skin seem less dark.

[uppityperson]

14. True. That lighter photo was over-darkened poorly, to either make it look more like

how dark he really was, or to make him look menacing. Either way, the darker one is the photoshopped one. News media aren't "supposed" to photoshop pictures, which I think we all agree on.

Trayvon was dark. That picture was light due to varied factors. Someone poorly darkened it for some reason.