DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Congressional Photoshop Disaster
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 35, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/05/2013 04:08:02 AM · #1
Never know what sort of amusement these folks will provide! Today it's a Photoshop disaster worthy of some good chuckles..

I wonder if being wildly taller than everyone else had anything to do with the four in the rear-most row being late for the photograph? ;)

' . substr('//i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130104060855-pelosi-photoshop-story-top.jpg', strrpos('//i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130104060855-pelosi-photoshop-story-top.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
01/05/2013 09:48:25 AM · #2
pelosi's explanation is why you can't trust politicians. she is the queen of creating her own reality then forcing it on the rest of us.
01/05/2013 10:05:37 AM · #3
This is why submission of photojournalism images for publication usually require (by the publication's editor) the unedited original images to verify authenticity of events. I think the photoshopped image is amateurishly done. It calls into question the authenticity of many photos. It's Photoshop run amuck.... creating images which never happened. This puts greater emphasis and value on images not fabricated.
01/05/2013 11:41:05 AM · #4
after thinking about it, considering how much money they already waste, it seems to me the best solutions would be to

1) hire out a software project to create a "courtroom sketch" and or "wall street journal art" filter for photoshop.
2) use that filter whenever a photo has been doctored.

at least then it won't come off as a bad photoshop job being passed off as something that really happened...
01/05/2013 12:04:51 PM · #5
Originally posted by Skip:

after thinking about it, considering how much money they already waste, it seems to me the best solutions would be to

1) hire out a software project to create a "courtroom sketch" and or "wall street journal art" filter for photoshop.
2) use that filter whenever a photo has been doctored.

at least then it won't come off as a bad photoshop job being passed off as something that really happened...

That's a FINE example of lateral thinking, Skip! Thumbs up!
01/05/2013 12:05:45 PM · #6
It's interesting that the comparison is based on two completely different exposures. Look at some of the poses of people in the "main" image. They are different. Obviously taken within a very short time, but different exposures. The added folks in the back row look like they were shot at a closer distance. They look a little off scale to me. Could just be the fact that they also look pasted in.
If this were a family portrait, who would care. But to pass this off as something that actually happened is, I think, ridiculous. If they didn't want to wait outside, why didn't they go inside to wait and re-pose when the rest showed up?
01/05/2013 12:11:39 PM · #7
Originally posted by kirbic:

If they didn't want to wait outside, why didn't they go inside to wait and re-pose when the rest showed up?

Cuz this is CONGRESS and they all had IMPORTANT WORK to do, duh :-)

That's basically what Nancy Pelosi said in the linked article...
01/05/2013 12:25:24 PM · #8
oh for heaven's sake -- what difference does it make?? So they were photoshopped in and weren't there for the actual shoot. How many group shots do you think have been done that way, and who cares if they were there or not? Should they be ashamed of the poor quality? yes. Does it matter that they were photoshopped in later and weren't there for the group shot? no -- who cares?
01/05/2013 12:30:08 PM · #9
This has all the makings of a right wing conspiracy theory. Beam me up Scotty.
01/05/2013 12:31:25 PM · #10
Can you imagine saying No to Nancy Pelosi? Can you imagine saying If all the people you want in this shot aren't here when I'm ready, then I'm not taking the shot? Hm? You'd never work in Washington again. Plus I have no problem with what happened. All the people couldn't be there at the same time. They photoshopped the others in. The purpose was a record of all the faces of the congresswomen in one photo. Not documented proof that they were all standing on those steps together at the same time.
01/05/2013 12:31:46 PM · #11
Originally posted by vawendy:

oh for heaven's sake -- what difference does it make?? So they were photoshopped in and weren't there for the actual shoot. How many group shots do you think have been done that way, and who cares if they were there or not? Should they be ashamed of the poor quality? yes. Does it matter that they were photoshopped in later and weren't there for the group shot? no -- who cares?


Because this type of photo should conform to PJ standards, for which this would *certainly* not be acceptable. Photographers have had their careers derailed for this type of thing in more traditional PJ situations. The photo purports to show an "historic" gathering of people that actually never took place.
01/05/2013 12:43:20 PM · #12
When it's the government or a government leader changing things, it does matter. Usually, it's for propaganda purposes.

Sometimes your face is added, sometimes you're removed.

With Photoshop, because you can does not mean you should. The word "fraud" comes to mind.

Message edited by author 2013-01-05 12:48:06.
01/05/2013 01:11:00 PM · #13
Here's the link to fourandsix, the watchdog site that exposes tampering. It's worth a look, there's some very interesting stuff there. Richard's examples source from there, but there's a whole lot more, including current images.
01/05/2013 01:19:38 PM · #14
Photo tampering has been a part of photography from the beginning, and yet we are still here.
01/05/2013 01:25:25 PM · #15
Originally posted by pixelpig:

Photo tampering has been a part of photography from the beginning, and yet we are still here.


Yes, it's true. This is not an epic disaster. But it doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to it.
Per your previous post, it's true that the photog was in a bad position. If I were in that spot (fat chance of that, LOL) I would explain to Ms. Pelosi the risk of doing what she asked, and perhaps suggest an alternative. If she persisted, I would do the shoot and provide the source images. I would decline to do the actual editing.
01/05/2013 01:32:17 PM · #16
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by pixelpig:

Photo tampering has been a part of photography from the beginning, and yet we are still here.


Yes, it's true. This is not an epic disaster. But it doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to it.
Per your previous post, it's true that the photog was in a bad position. If I were in that spot (fat chance of that, LOL) I would explain to Ms. Pelosi the risk of doing what she asked, and perhaps suggest an alternative. If she persisted, I would do the shoot and provide the source images. I would decline to do the actual editing.


Well, perhaps that's what happened. A second photog took the second shot. Someone else altogether did the editing. Someone who wasn't very good at it.
01/05/2013 01:40:11 PM · #17
Originally posted by pixelpig:

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by pixelpig:

Photo tampering has been a part of photography from the beginning, and yet we are still here.


Yes, it's true. This is not an epic disaster. But it doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to it.
Per your previous post, it's true that the photog was in a bad position. If I were in that spot (fat chance of that, LOL) I would explain to Ms. Pelosi the risk of doing what she asked, and perhaps suggest an alternative. If she persisted, I would do the shoot and provide the source images. I would decline to do the actual editing.


Well, perhaps that's what happened. A second photog took the second shot. Someone else altogether did the editing. Someone who wasn't very good at it.

DITTO!

this is a prime example of some *idiot* in charge directing an under-qualified underling "to handle it". i'll bet, though, if it was posted on fb, it'd get a 1000 likes and comments proclaiming it to be a great shot ;-)

my only beef with the photographer is the perspective. why he/she wouldn't have been on a ladder or step-stool is ridiculous.
01/05/2013 01:50:56 PM · #18
If the caption is Democratic Congresswomen of the 113th Congress it's no big deal.

If the Caption is Democratic Congresswomen of the 113th Congress Gather on Capitol Steps After Swearing-in Ceremony then it would seem to violate PJ guidelines, though I think the standards have some slack when it is a scheduled event like this as opposed to an "action" shot ... it's a portrait, not coverage of a news event.
Originally posted by Linked CNN article:

Pelosi said the photo "was an accurate reflection of who the 61 members - the Democratic women members of Congress are."


Message edited by author 2013-01-05 13:51:23.
01/05/2013 02:12:00 PM · #19
Nancy Pelosi's photog could've done a better job with this: Samsung Galaxy Note II commercial. The TV ad highlights the "best shot" feature of this camera phone, which allows users to save individual shots of a group, then combine them into one photo at the end.

I'm joking, but srsly it looks like any teenager with this camera phone could be a contender. At least on FB.

Message edited by author 2013-01-05 14:18:41.
01/05/2013 02:25:22 PM · #20
This is all fine and good, but the burning question on everyone's mind here should be why haven't we yet seen that image with godzilla in it????
01/05/2013 02:31:03 PM · #21
Well when Godzilla is elected to Congress, then things are very out of whack. For one thing, how do you get a group shot when Godzilla is so much taller than everyone else? There isn't a tall enough ladder to handle that.

Message edited by author 2013-01-05 14:33:04.
01/05/2013 02:36:01 PM · #22
Originally posted by PGerst:

...why haven't we yet seen that image with godzilla in it????


Ah, the burning question on everyone's mind!
01/05/2013 02:38:32 PM · #23
Originally posted by PGerst:

This is all fine and good, but the burning question on everyone's mind here should be why haven't we yet seen that image with godzilla in it????

Maybe Godzilla is a Republican?
01/05/2013 02:41:22 PM · #24
Originally posted by GeneralE:


Maybe Godzilla is a Republican?


Or a guy? ;-)
01/05/2013 06:29:19 PM · #25
Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by GeneralE:


Maybe Godzilla is a Republican?


Or a guy? ;-)

Well, in the version I saw, "he" laid about a hundred good-sized (7-ft) eggs ...

Message edited by author 2013-01-05 18:30:05.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 01:37:34 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 04/05/2020 01:37:34 PM EDT.