Comments on: Another Adnan Hajj photoshop?

By: Jack

Jack — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:46:28 +0000

Jack…

lol, okay that made my day!…

By: Kini

Kini — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 09:42:06 +0000

(see: Condi’s devil eyes).

Only when she wears those stiletto boots!

YEAH BABY YEAH!

By: Mark Jaquith

Mark Jaquith — Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:44:05 +0000

The original looks washed out. If I took the photo I’d mess with the curves. I don’t think I have a problem with such edits, as long as they are applied uniformly. Obviously if someone is masking part of the image and applying an effect only to that portion, that’s a different matter (see: Condi’s devil eyes).

By: LegendHasIt

LegendHasIt — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:25:33 +0000

Yeah, I ‘ditto’ the boosted saturation on the center one done for making the version on newsprint halfway decent.

The one color photo of mine that the local newsrag printed was so muddy and blah looking on news print compared to on the computer monitor and on photo paper that I wished I’d boosted saturation by a hundred percent and brightness / contrast by fifty percent.

By: Sticky Notes

Sticky Notes — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:24:34 +0000

Whoops – some of that comment referenced the other ’shopped’ picture.

By: Sticky Notes

Sticky Notes — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:23:17 +0000

I looked thoroughly, on Aug 6, at the picture you now have posted….

http://stickynotes.squarespace.com/journal/2006/8/6/heres-what-i-found.html

I believe the shots were done in immediate sequence. A slight turn of a tripod. You’d never get the alignment otherwise.

I think the Brazilian color might be batch processing of pix for the web.

By: The Jawa Report

The Jawa Report — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:00:51 +0000

Fauxtography: Israel Attacks Miami…

The colors are so bright on this Adnan Hajj photo, my first thought was that it must be Miami’s art deco district that was hit by the Zionist aggressors. Debunking here. But seriously, I’ve talked to Allah about this one……

By: Lamonte Thomas

Lamonte Thomas — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:30:46 +0000

Well, I suppose I could argue that the changes were necessary for publication in a newspaper — where the production processes do tend to make low-contrast images very muddy. If I were the managing editor in that case, I would insert a ‘contrast and color enhanced’ note in the caption. That may have been done; I can’t tell from the reports…

By: Old War Dogs

Old War Dogs — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:59:44 +0000

Another Adnan Hajj photoshop?…

It’s Monday. Gonna be all day. I’m on my 3rd cup and I still don’t feel smart enough to know who to blame for this one, but something fishy’s going on. Check out Randy’s post here and Allah’s discussion of…

By: james hooker

james hooker — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:59:07 +0000

This, and it galls me to say it, doesn’t bother me. In fact, I think I prefer the “cranked” version. It reminds me of some of the WWII color photos. I got an opinion and an asshole to boot. Don’t we all?

By: S. Weasel

S. Weasel — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:50:46 +0000

Darkened the smoke but lightened the buildings is contrast adjustment. I think the picture with the cranked up hue is an editorial mistake, but not an ethical one. The icons for Photoshop’s dodge and burn tools are designed to look like the tools we used to use for the same functions in the darkroom. Because manipulating images for brightness/contrast/color/cropping and scratch and dust removal has always been an acceptable practice for news photos.

By: High Desert Wanderer

High Desert Wanderer — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:57:59 +0000

Tweaking color/contrast/brightness and such is generally considered an acceptable manipulation, isn’t it?

I think that depends on the Media outlet, but there is a line you can’t cross there too. There is a big difference between manipulating the lighting on a whole picture, and manipulating small areas of a photo. This one seems to have darkened smoke, but lightened buildings. I doubt that wold be acceptable in any major media outlet. (In theory at least)

By: Pablo

Pablo — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:51:45 +0000

Tweaking color/contrast/brightness and such is generally considered an acceptable manipulation, isn’t it?

By: RightWinged

RightWinged — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:47:13 +0000

I’m crashin’, but anyone have any thoughts on the other images by “Stringer”?

By: Niko

Niko — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:35:11 +0000

Saturation +40, Brightness +20, but the smoke doesn’t fit. I think both pictures are ’shopped.

Still, it’s far from a fraud. Color/contrast correction is standard procedure at the photodesk as long as the emphasis/composition of the photograph isn’t changed. I don’t see the latter applying here.

By: Snapped Shot

Snapped Shot — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:31:45 +0000

Somebody likes destruction…

RightWinged and Allahpundit have spotted another Adnan Hajj photo which might have been doctored. I’d concur with Allahpundit’s interpretation of events, though—it’s more likely that the color balance was adjusted by an editor at this point, than…

By: shooter

shooter — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:26:11 +0000

Exact same image, just dulled down for gloomy effect. Look at the telephone lines in forefront of image…exact.

By: RightWinged

RightWinged — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:17:57 +0000

Point taken Allah. As I say in my post, I’m not sure which was shopped… I only leaned in the direction of the Times one because it is darker which is the Hajj style, but I do also point out how cartoonish the colorful Brazilian paper version looks too. I agree that without Hajj’s history, I would point the finger at them… but (even ignoring Hajj’s now known history) this Brazilian paper would have to be pretty stupid to add those colors in. Just weird, but I agree it does look more like that is what happened.

As for BrunoMitchell, yes there isn’t real deception here, at least in the message, but I raise the issue only to point out the ‘honesty in media’ issue raised. If they are willing to photoshop such pointless crap (even the original hajj ps wasn’t much worse than the real thing) why should we trust anything they put out?

By: BrunoMitchell

BrunoMitchell — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:08:50 +0000

Sorry, but this one is much ado about nothing. NO real deception here at all, at least in my opinion.