Fox is photoshopping photos again[Du'ers need to attack fox on this]

[AnIndependentTexan]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134151,00.html

I know it is a fox link and I'm not wanting anyone to look at the story. I tried to see if I could get the picture, however, look at the first picture of Kerry and Chimp shaking hands. If someone can pull a direct link of that picture. The reason why I'm trying to point it out is they photoshopped it again. Notice how the monkey is at the same height as Kerry.

[cheshire]

1. Someone posted earlier two photos, not the same but yes * looks taller

than he is. Isn't that just like the wannabe.

[Gelliebeans]

2. do you think it might be the angle?

I don't know just a guess:shrug:

[cheshire]

4. NO

[zaj]

36. Yes, the SELECTED the photo because of the angle (no photoshop needed)

[demwing]

37. LOOK AT KERRY'S EYES

He's looking Bush in the eye in the original picture, and at Bush's tie in the fake

[Walt Starr]

47. And Bush is looking at Kerry's hair!

You hit it, it is photoshopped!

[Julien Sorel]

3. What was the one story with the headline, "Some voters flip-flop"?

Is it possible for Fox to be more of a Republican mouthpiece?

[cheshire]

5. NO I thing they have the market cornered. I heard on DU they were honest

last night about debate. I think RNCriminals got to them this morn.

[AnIndependentTexan]

6. Here is my findings from looking at the picture closely

I'm a web designer and have had a years worth of experience. One of my jobs recently was cloning photos. Here how I can spot it and it won't be noticeable unless you zoom in. Look at the right arm. You can tell the resolution and patchs of it don't match up.

What do I mean by resolution? Resolution is a result of pixelation. The more you blow up a item the worst the resolution gets. Blowing up a item also gives you a idea of pixels. Right arm was lengthen using the clone tool. You can also tell by the extending of the line. Plus another give away is the texture isn't the same on the right arm.

Also another thing I want to give away as lighting; but you can tell the back ground was cloned in as well because look at John Kerry's arm that is closest to Bush. When you blow it up to look at the lighting of the pixels this blue extends over Kerrys arm. The overlap of Blue indicates that the blue was cloned in.

Bush's whole suit was clipped out and then repasted. You can tell this by the pixelation difference from Kerry's suit and Bush. His hand is part of the picture, however, there places you can tell where Bush was clipped.

[progdonkey]

7. this photo?

looks just like a good angle for Bush to me, but something does look weird about the arm he's using to shake Kerry's hand....

[AnIndependentTexan]

12. if you zoom in you'll notice what I did

You can tell Bush is clipped out and then repasted because the resolution doesn't match Kerry. Most likely they took a high resolution picture. Then they blew Bush up just enough to allow the suit to cover the bottom. I'm guessing the blurred blue was caused from lighting effect. If they tried to clone it into the photo to cover up the lighting.

[progdonkey]

15. you're right about the arm

I thought it could just be the angle, but something was just bugging me about his arm. It seemed like his body and his arm were detached, or something, but after reading your argument about the arm lengthening, I have to agree with you; the forearm just isn't proportional to the rest of his body.

Are Republicans really this pathetic? (rhetorical question)

[OnionPatch]

30. yes

[HuskerDem]

17. I couldn't discern an inexplicable difference in the pixelization

But the light cast is all wrong, imho.

[AnIndependentTexan]

18. it is just a small little place almost missed

The context of the left shoulder of Kerry. I believe it is the left on which is closest to Bush. Look at where the shoulder meets the background. You see a blue patch. My concern with this element is that in one small part of the shoulder blade you see a line of where the suit meets the background. If you follow that line you'll notice that at one point the blue blur comes over that shoulder line. It almost blends in there where other pixels are clearly separate.

[AnIndependentTexan]

13. yes this one

[DemMother]

31. Look at where Kerry's eyes are angled; unless he's admiring

Bush's tie, I think he's looking at the place where W's face would have been.

[mitchum]

33. You are absolutely correct, DemMother

[zaj]

38. I just think its funny that Bush can't even look at him.

I still don't think it's photoshopped, but * clearly has emotional and self-confidence issues.

[girl gone mad]

42. What looks weird to me is Kerry's arm,

not Bush's.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

8. Not photoshopped, at least not by Fox

This same photo appears on the ap.org website. It was shot by Gerald Herbert. It's just the luck of the angle. I just looked through 50 campaign photos they posted from the last 24 hours and this is the only one showing the two of them together. Of course. :eyes:

[AnIndependentTexan]

9. trust me I have worked before with cloned images

Most were furniture and it wasn't very easy.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

10. The point is it's an AP image. FOX didn't clone it.

People should take it up with AP if they think it's cloned.

And trust me, I have been involved with commercial photoshoots for almost 30 years, and way back before puters you could make a shot jump through hoops if you wanted to, even w/o retouching.

[AnIndependentTexan]

20. That is why we need people who know this thing

I'm just pointing out things I've noticed. That is why I wanted other photo type people who know this type of thing to take a look. I'm no expert at photo shop; but these were things that I noticed. That is also the great thing about democratic underground most are open to other ideas. BTW, If proved wrong on this then that isn't a problem either. We can only find the truth by having a lot of others look and see what they think as well.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

22. I agree with you, but I think you miss my point

I'm not saying it's impossible the image was manipulated. It just wasn't manipulated by Fox. They got lucky and found an image that suited their purpose.

The image was shot by Gerald Herbert. Did he manipulate it? I don't know. Last Sunday I found a lot of good shots he took of Kerry in Wisconsin (I like to attribute sources, so I noticed his name). So I don't think he's partisan.

The image was sold to AP, who sells it to a lot of sources. Did they manipulate it? I don't know. This image is the only one they offer of the two candidates at the debate, so it could be that they're partisan.

I'm no expert at photoshop myself. I blew up the image and saw the pixelation you refer to, but I don't know what it means. I know that sometimes when I use photoshop I get pixel degradation on areas that I haven't even touched, and I don't know why it happens.

I think it's good to question things and find out if there's a story behind them, but I don't think it's good to attribute all evil to Fox, because it's just too easy. FYI, here is the image as it appears on the AP site, and below that is the image as it appears on the Fox site. Have fun with them, I'm going to bed. :)

[Brundle_Fly]

25. pixel degredation.

the pixel degredation is part of the JPEG process, JPES utilize a lossy format to make images smaller to transfer fast on the wire, way back in the salad days heres a snippit.

JPEG stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group, which is a standardization committee. It also stands for the compression algorithm that was invented by this committee.
JPEG is a lossy compression algorithm that has been conceived to reduce the file size of natural, photographic-like true-colour images as much as possible without affecting the quality of the image as experienced by the human sensory engine. We perceive small changes in brightness more readily than we do small changes in colour. It is this aspect of our perception that JPEG compression exploits in an effort to reduce the file size

basically said a file that has been jpeged is virtually impossible to honestly tell if it has been altered, the files information is skewed and messy....

like this, you cant tell this is a fake can you?



well maybe you can
(using photoshop since 1993)

[jmowreader]

52. Photo looks fine to me.

No photoshop work at all. The doting father, his space alien son...what's not to believe?

[parasim]

11. compare the image at this link

?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=27183890BFF566AB6EDE15EAACF3791FA9C30E9B9B114CE8

(i couldn't get this image to show in the post, for some reason)

to perhaps the image you are referring to here:
(it was one of images at the link that you provided.)



on edit: i'm not sure that is the picture you were talking about.

[AnIndependentTexan]

14. that image is also photoshopped as well

My reasons and results on this picture is pay close attention to the heads. When it is small you don't notice it because pixels are hard to tell. In this case it wasn't the clone tool that was directly used. The way the texture doesn't line up on the background of the wall proves a selection tool was used there. You have to understand photoshop and know what to look for on this one.

Bush head you can clearly see it. Zoom in on his head in any image previewer. You'll notice the blue does not match the same texture as the blue behind. This is a clear photoshopped photo as well.

[Brundle_Fly]

23. here I fixed it for cbs

;)

[Cogito ergo doleo]

35. Image is photoshopped

The left and middle images are actual. The faded one is the FOX image.

[TeeYiYi]

49. Good job Cogito. Thanks.

TYY:thumbsup:

[AnIndependentTexan]

16. If we have any other web design or photo editors can they take a look too?

look at what I've pointed out and see if you can spot anything else or the same

[gatorboy]

19. Go to this link. it has an AP shot of the handshake.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/041001/480/pd11410010140

This photo does show Bush's lack of height, compared to Kerry, a bit more than in the Fox photo.

[Swamp Rat]

21. OK, I did some photoshopping of my own, attacking the source:

[Brundle_Fly]

24. more fixing.

you know he did.


as for the other, probably a camera angle, there is 4 inches difference between the men, if the cam was up or down 5 feet either way and 30-100 feet away, it could look different either way.

[Swamp Rat]

26. Excellent! Did you make that pic?

Here's my latest, completed a few hours ago:

[Brundle_Fly]

27. I did indeed

I am making lots for the team.

[Swamp Rat]

28. Welcome aboard!

I'm working on an "alien lizard" theme... lurking freepers hate me! :D

[kodi]

48. oh man, you made my day with that pix.

it'll be around the world in a few minutes thanks to email

[Dem2theMax]

55. OK, you should give people a warning post a few posts up

so that we can be prepared! I literally just about peed my pants on this pic. Thank God the muscles still work or I'd be needing a new chair right about now. Not to mention clean clothing and a shower. LMAO! TMI? Too bad. You put the pic up, you gonna hear about the damages. lol. :)

I LOVE this pic. :bounce:

[noamnety]

29. photographer works for Washington Times

"Gerald Herbert is a staff photographer for the Washington Times since 1999"

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0112/herbert.htm

[noamnety]

32. you can see the photoshop hack job here

[SangamonTaylor]

34. great find...this photographer should be outed.

spread the word!!!!

[demwing]

39. Check Out Bush's " Shaking" Hand!

It disappears into Kerry's hand, the thumb is disjointed, AND IT ONLY HAS THREE FINGERS!

Thanks to my 15 year old son for that catch!

[sofa king]

46. They're giving each other the Mason's handshake.

[Cronus Protagonist]

40. Look, whether you think there was photoshopping on this or not, QUIT!

QUIT at least for a few weeks. We need the momentum and we need to bask in the glory of winning the debate. The last thing we need right now is a slew of stories about Internetteers claiming Fox retouched a photo.

Sure they do it all the time, as do almost all photographers and media outlets.

It's a non-issue. And, having analyzed it myself quite deeply, I can see no photoshop manipulation. The trick is all in the perspective of the cameraman, so Fox just chose the one pic that made them look closer in size.

This is clearly why there were so few cameras in the room - both sides want to control the imagery and the message.

It's a non-issue, let's not make it into one.

"So I don't worry about, and people shouldn't
worry about a draft. . . I think we're in good
shape, I really do. And, if not, we'll -- I'll address
the nation. But I don't see any need to right now."
- G. W. Bush (Source: The Whitehouse)

Fascism: We Report You Decide
http://cronus.com/fascism

You might be a Republican if...
http://cronus.com/quiz

Commentary by a Republican...
http://cronus.com/republican

The REAL Republican Platform...
http://cronus.com/platform

Bush's Illustrated Resume
http://cronus.com/bushresume

Isn't That Strange?
http://cronus.com/oil

:)

Remembering 9/11 - the dead, the survivors, the heros, the world's sympathy
http://brainscream.com/MP3/wtc-Roger_Waters_and_Waking_Born-World_Trade_Center_Tribute.mpg

[goclark]

41. Why do we always make things non issues?

The chances of them making a big deal about anything that we say is one in a million.

So, do we think it is photoshopped or not?

Is the issue compelling to some of our expert photoshoppers?


What would Rove do if the show was on the other foot?

[Cronus Protagonist]

45. I don't think it was photoshopped... I think it was a good angle on Bush

And even if it was, it would prove what? That Fox is biased towards Bush? I think we all know that already and can prove it based on a sounder footing.

But true, the chances of anyone really making anything of this is one in a million. Forget what I said. Carry on folks....

:)

"So I don't worry about, and people shouldn't
worry about a draft. . . I think we're in good
shape, I really do. And, if not, we'll -- I'll address
the nation. But I don't see any need to right now."
- G. W. Bush (Source: The Whitehouse)

Fascism: We Report You Decide
http://cronus.com/fascism

You might be a Republican if...
http://cronus.com/quiz

Commentary by a Republican...
http://cronus.com/republican

The REAL Republican Platform...
http://cronus.com/platform

Bush's Illustrated Resume
http://cronus.com/bushresume

Isn't That Strange?
http://cronus.com/oil

:)

Remembering 9/11 - the dead, the survivors, the heros, the world's sympathy
http://brainscream.com/MP3/wtc-Roger_Waters_and_Waking_Born-World_Trade_Center_Tribute.mpg

[noamnety]

43. The issue is not a kerry vs bush issue

It's a media bias/integrity issue.

During the war, there was a photographer fired for photoshopping his photos. This photographer needs to be held to the same standards. He won't be fired from the washington times, becasue he meets their standards for integrity, but AP shouldn't be accepting his work.

When CBS is forced to shut down any reporting critical of Bush because of an unproven accusation of photoshopped documents, we need to fight back, and show the public that photoshopping is beyond a shadow of a doubt being done by rightwing media. We need to expose the hypocrisy here.

Democrats are in the position we are, Bush was allowed to take office, because we always roll over on this crap, we allow republicans to control the media, we allow their media to blatantly lie, and we just shrug and say, well, you know, it happens, what can you do?

We know who is reponsible for this photo, they need to be held accountable.

[WillyT]

44. My Question: Will History Ever Forgive Us ???

Oh, Puh..leeze!!!

:puke:

[milkyway]

50. I am a professional digital retoucher. I've been working in Photoshop

since version 1.0 for a pre-press shop serving primarily advertising agencies. I have taken a brief look at the image mentioned in the original thread and also the image mentioned in post #11. My comments are not meant to be a final verdict.

First, the files we are looking at are low resolution web images saved in the jpeg format. The jpeg format uses a lossy compression scheme--that is, there is a loss of image quality by saving it in this format. This format is excellent at greatly reducing file size while maintaining good image quality. It does, however, leave artifacts that are easily seen when viewed magnified. It is necessary to create low resolution files for the internet (these almost certainly were created from larger files that were sampled down). Because of the low resolution, we need to magnify the image a few hundred percent to get a good look at it. But at that scale what we are mostly seeing are the artifacts created by the jpeg format. This makes it difficult to see if there was any retouching done to the photos.

There is nothing that I see that shows the image has been altered to make bush appear taller. That doesn't mean that it hasn't been, it just means that nothing stands out. If these images were a lot higher resolution and without jpeging, I could be certain. One area that I focused on was where the collars of the shirts meet the red stripe in the background. If bush were moved up, or Kerry moved down, the pixels at the edge of the collars would have originally anti-aliased into a different part of the background. Yet the edges of the collar properly fade to red rather than the blue above the red stripe or the dark blue below it. That alone is enough to show that if the image was retouched as suggested, then it was done by a very good, meticulous retoucher (and most retouchers are not that good). Likewise, bush's nose anti-aliases properly with the yellow star in the background with no trace of the blue pixels that would have been there if he was moved.

In post #32 Iwfern makes a good point about the wrinkles. It does look retouched. But it's possible this was just a product of saving it in the jpeg file format. Also, almost every image you see today has gone through digital image editing. Scanned images always need to be cleaned up, and other minor edits are done to most images. That does not mean the image was modified for the dishonest purposes suggested in this thread.

The bottom line is that it is difficult to identify artifacts left from retouching because of the low resolution of the file and the artifacts caused by the jpeg format. From what I've seen, it is unlikely that the image was retouched to make bush appear taller than he actually was in the original photograph.

[antonialee839]

51. We'll know for sure

when Fox posts their October 8th debate photos. Bush could be anywhere from 3 to 5 inches taller than Kerry. It will all depend on how badly Kerry spanks the dumb ass.

[Hot Water]

54. I think it's the angle also.

But it's a very minor issue in my opinion either way. Because the verbal exchange is what captivated and carved into stone finally, his IQ of an apple.

Furthermore, all the camera angles in the world are not going to be able to make him look the same height as Kerry in the next debate. There will be prostitutes on Pluto before they can do that in that one.

[AnIndependentTexan]

53. this is why I'm Glad others are looking at it as well to

I've only been working with photoshop for about a year outside of school. BTW, the college I went to was Art Institute of Dallas. I want to see what everyone else thinks as well; but I'm tempted to take the picture files and send them to some of the professors I knew pretty well.

One reason why I like Democratic Underground is we are open minded. I also think that it is going to be by comparing you're information and others that we will know the truth. We need more people in our field to take a look at these. I think I'm more interested in learning then anything else.