samclemens Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 check out the bottom right corner of this photo taken from the nyt web site. that is the worst cut and paste job i have ever seen. http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2006/07/2...LIDESHOW_4.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 That's pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 (edited) Yeah, lol, it's rather odd why the photographer (or whomever was responsible) would insert a black man's face. Surprised it isn't the mugshot of bleeding, Lebanese refugee escaping an Israeli airstrike. What makes it strange is someone actually put time into locating an appropriate headshot. They had to find a photograph where the lighting would appear consistent with its surroundings. It does accomplish that, but unfortunately, both the clothing and the extra inches visible behind his head gives it away. Edited August 9, 2006 by Flash Tizzle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 I am confused, are you saying this is an admitted doctored photo, or just speculating that is has been altered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 What's there to speculate? That photo needed some FLAVA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 01:18 PM) I am confused, are you saying this is an admitted doctored photo, or just speculating that is has been altered? He's speculating, although there really isn't much to debate. Look behind (and slightly above) the man's head. Or at the actual clothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 01:28 PM) What's there to speculate? That photo needed some FLAVA! hmmm, something is different... Edited August 9, 2006 by mr_genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Every photo is a doctored version of the events depicted. In a 360 degree view, the photographer pick a narrow slice to shoot. To further doctor the photo, by adding elements, should be labeled as such. This would place it at the same level as a courtroom painting. We know that is doctored and accept that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Why would the NYT, be anti-Israel? All NYT class-b share of stocks are owned by the descendants of Adolph Ochs, a jewish-german immigrant. Class B shares are not publically traded and vote for a majority of the board of directors. Its interesting how the "liberal media bias" changes to suit the argument of the day. Prior to this Israeli conflict, the liberal media was always the friend of the jews, or the jews were controlling the liberal media to advance their own causes. Now its the liberal media is against the Israeli's. Very interesting that the NYT would be considered anti-Israel, especially as the NYT has historically been controlled by jewish people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 QUOTE(Texsox @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 01:43 PM) Every photo is a doctored version of the events depicted. In a 360 degree view, the photographer pick a narrow slice to shoot. To further doctor the photo, by adding elements, should be labeled as such. This would place it at the same level as a courtroom painting. We know that is doctored and accept that. well, thats different than adding someone to a picture for political reasons. however, in defense of the NYT, that photo could be real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Wiconsin has black people at the school. Its just an unfair picture, they are taking a picture of the stands, when clearly all the black people are actually on the playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 What could possibly be the reason for putting a black man's head over a Lebanese woman's head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 01:55 PM) What could possibly be the reason for putting a black man's head over a Lebanese woman's head? Perhaps some intern at the Times tried sneaking one past the editors and it worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 01:52 PM) Wiconsin has black people at the school. Its just an unfair picture, they are taking a picture of the stands, when clearly all the black people are actually on the playing field. LOL, Plus that picture was used for advertising and marketing, not news. Biiiiiig difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) Perhaps some intern at the Times tried sneaking one past the editors and it worked. That's what I'm thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Aug 9, 2006 -> 01:58 PM) Perhaps some intern at the Times tried sneaking one past the editors and it worked. interns submit photographs for the NY Times to use? i doubt it, but if they do that's hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Who cares? This story (and offshoots of it) is/(are) getting old. So there's an agenda. Surpirsed? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 07:40 AM) Who cares? This story (and offshoots of it) is/(are) getting old. So there's an agenda. Surpirsed? I think not. Who sets the agenda and how? More likely scenario, there is competition among freelancers to sell photos. If the papers do not buy, you don't make any money. So they create a photo that will sell. The newspaper buys it, expecting it to be accurate, and they get duped. I know that worldwide conspiracy theories are way more fun, but I just can't take that leap of faith that all teh worlds newspapers are getting together to elect Presidents and publish lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 Any good photo editor at a newspaper should know what they are looking at. It's all about the "worst news possible" sells. That's the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) It's all about the "worst news possible" sells. That's the agenda. agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted August 10, 2006 Share Posted August 10, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Aug 10, 2006 -> 10:40 AM) Any good photo editor at a newspaper should know what they are looking at. It's all about the "worst news possible" sells. That's the agenda. That hits it on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted August 11, 2006 Share Posted August 11, 2006 Its not just Rueters under scrutiny for doctored pictures... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts