JohnnyBlood
Senior Member
Interesting read:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016167.php
Johnny
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016167.php
Johnny
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Hilary Photo Manipulated?
- Thread starter JohnnyBlood
- Start date
CanonnonaC
New member
think this is how she looks anyway! YUCK!
JClaude
Veteran Member
I am sure you are a super-model looking person.
JClaude
http://www.opusmeum.com
Personal Creative
--
JClaude
http://www.opusmeum.com
Personal Creative
I think that "former" White House Photographer is looking through rose-coloured lenses, or not considering the effects of the time that's passed since HE shot her.
The book IS proportionately sharp, particularly if you consider the degree of sharpness of the guy behind, who is much further from the plane of focus.
As for enhancing the "gold" jewellery and glasses typical of an older lady, SHE is the one who chose to wear them, so I'd see no reason to play them down.
To me the contrast on the face simply looks like too much face powder.
--
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/garyp
The book IS proportionately sharp, particularly if you consider the degree of sharpness of the guy behind, who is much further from the plane of focus.
As for enhancing the "gold" jewellery and glasses typical of an older lady, SHE is the one who chose to wear them, so I'd see no reason to play them down.
To me the contrast on the face simply looks like too much face powder.
--
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/garyp
Unflatering light and maybe oversharpening. I just saw Ellen Degeneres in full makeup under the wrong lights, and she looked about as wrinkled as Mrs. Clinton here.
Was this on purpose? Probably not concious, but the editor probably picked that particular shot because s/he preferred it. It does make her look different than the regular shots. Maybe that's why. Maybe the editor doesn't like the Senator.
Was this as bad as darkening OJ?
At least it wasn't as blatant.
Was this on purpose? Probably not concious, but the editor probably picked that particular shot because s/he preferred it. It does make her look different than the regular shots. Maybe that's why. Maybe the editor doesn't like the Senator.
Was this as bad as darkening OJ?
At least it wasn't as blatant.
Real Americans don't read the wretched Powerline blog. And by "real" I mean intelligent and patriotic.
John in Minnetundra
--
John in Minnetundra
JohnnyBlood
Senior Member
I can't say I know your political leanings and I'm can't say I know the political leanings of the PowerLine blog. I was merely doing a search of the word "photoshop" on blogs and stumbled onto that image.
Let's please keep politics off of these boards if possible. I use photography to escape from the real world; not to be reminded of it.
Johnny
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/
Let's please keep politics off of these boards if possible. I use photography to escape from the real world; not to be reminded of it.
Johnny
http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/
If you click the picture you don't have the oversharpened artifacts. She's not as young as she once was.
Desifinado
Leading Member
Click on the photo - it looks less over-sharpened in the original version than on the powerline site. Who's manipulating whom? Much ado about nothing.
--
http://joemasse.blogspot.com
--
http://joemasse.blogspot.com
Not being as blatant makes it worse.
Back in the 70s, when Pop Photography had a column dedicated to photojournalism, the columnist showed a contact sheet of a photographer's coverage of President Nixon during a speech. Although the sheet contained a number of flattering photographs of the by-then-generally unpopular president, the editor of the publication chose to show the least flattering to run in the newspaper.
Journalism has always had its lapses of objectivity, and subjective photo editing can be worse than photo manipulation.
--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
I read it.
See the Ken Rockwell thread about how much better Nikon does at in-camera processing. Also, visible luminance noise in OOF areas. Ok, Ok, seriously now; did the guy making the accusations have access to a higher rez image than what is on the linked site? How anyone could honestly make any kind of accurate guesses based on the tiny image posted. If the lens was telephoto, it was short since the guy's nose behind her head is still fairly well in focus. This would make a lot of difference in how much DOF was acceptable in sharpness of the title of the book. As far as sharpening, you can't sharpen what isn't there.
Regards,
Ernie
Regards,
Ernie
There are two angles to this.
I was working in the graphic design department of a leading UK paper for a while in the seventies. I couldn't help notice when a picture of Tricky Dicky bowling, with his foot overstepping the line (i.e. cheating) was dug out of the archives. The point was there'd been a picture of him cheating there for years. It was just never printed before, because people did NOT want to show it when he was considered great and good.
On the other hand, picture editors are often asked to choose photographs to illustrate the point of an article.
We covered one story about an African dictator who was at that time being particularly obnoxious and killing off opponents. Among the file pics we had were some of him blowing out birthday candles, some kissing babies, and some looking broody and mean. I'd contend that only a bad picture editor, or one who felt his readers would appreciate irony, would have used the cute photos rather than the broody and mean one.
Gary
--
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/garyp
looks at least somewhat manipulated to me. then again it's just a very poor shot, what with the harsh shadows emphasizing her wrinkles and making her show her age in an unflattering way. surely this was not the best shot they could get of her and was chosen for a purpose. btw, here's what a couple of min. worth of PS does to her. look any younger? yes, i was bored... 
--
http://kdn.smugmug.com/
--
http://kdn.smugmug.com/
Tom Rowland
Veteran Member
There are tons of images of Hill all over the place. I have seen some on news shows that make her look very young and others that make her look older. I suspect this one is closer to the truth and the PR flak ones that make her look much younger and better.
Cant remember where but I read on a political blog that a FOX news viewer was shocked that FOX always used the younger pix of Hillary. When he was watching PBS covering her he could not believe his eyes, she looked much older on PBS than on FOX. Bit of a suprise for me.
Can anyone link to a straight image of Hillary so we know what she really looks like.
Cant remember where but I read on a political blog that a FOX news viewer was shocked that FOX always used the younger pix of Hillary. When he was watching PBS covering her he could not believe his eyes, she looked much older on PBS than on FOX. Bit of a suprise for me.
Can anyone link to a straight image of Hillary so we know what she really looks like.
Dave Chrismer
Leading Member
The Powerline Blog site took a candid photo and overshrpened it to make it look worse than the original that was published by Time. If anyone is guilty of manipulation to further a particular political agenda, it is Powerline.
I'm sure that the picture was selected by Time for a very specific purpose. The featured quote is her thoughts on the Iraq Study Group Publication, which in that photo she happens to be holding up so that the cover and title are easily visible which makes it an approriate choice.
This was a close up candid photo that wasn't taken by her PR people. She is 59 years old, and that is how 59 year old people look unless you use photo tricks or photoshop to remove the signs of aging.
We should all be aware by now that the political game is sometimes overt and sometimes very subtle. There are right wing conspiracies as well as left wing conspiracies, but I doubt that Time published this as part of one. Anyone who is voting based on appearance ought not to be voting anyway.
I'm sure that the picture was selected by Time for a very specific purpose. The featured quote is her thoughts on the Iraq Study Group Publication, which in that photo she happens to be holding up so that the cover and title are easily visible which makes it an approriate choice.
This was a close up candid photo that wasn't taken by her PR people. She is 59 years old, and that is how 59 year old people look unless you use photo tricks or photoshop to remove the signs of aging.
We should all be aware by now that the political game is sometimes overt and sometimes very subtle. There are right wing conspiracies as well as left wing conspiracies, but I doubt that Time published this as part of one. Anyone who is voting based on appearance ought not to be voting anyway.
If he went of a low res web page image or newsprint then he is not looking at a good representation. One would have to look at a larger version to really be able to judge this.
Dave Chrismer
Leading Member
The political leanings of both are pretty obvious.
I agree that the comments made were crude and uncalled for, but this was a political post from the beginning. You can't post a link to a blog that talks about Time magazine being involved in a right wing conspiracy and believe that just because the word photoshop is mentioned that it is purely photo related and not political.
I'm sure there were many other photos that you stumbled on during your search that had no political implications.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum