[NYCFarmboy]

more of the same from the old line legacy media:









http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003780.htm


Really childish on USAToday's part.....they have since issued this on their website:

"Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...congress_x.htm

[Dakar]

I think you're reading into it a bit much.

[olePigeon]

Some guy did an Auto Levels on the picture, then slapped it on the webpage. I don't think it was intentional.

[moodymonster]

could well have thought the image was a bit flat and clicked on the eyes to define white. The modified image does have more definition than the unmodded one.

She looks a bit 'severe' in the unmodded pic anyway though.

[goMac]

Man, you've got it all figured out.

The leftist media will bring down the Bush administration by taking their pictures, coloring in their eyes white, and publishing them.

It's an evil genius plan.

[placebo1969]

Here it starts. Many Photoshop "experts" will submit testimony on: 1) how it was deliberately manipulated; or 2) how it was inadvertantly manipulated.

Any takers on how this will turn out?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Some guy did an Auto Levels on the picture, then slapped it on the webpage. I don't think it was intentional.

I'm not saying that it was done to intentionally make her look evil, but you can't make THAT picture look like that without doing extra to just the eyes. Broad adjustments like auto levels, unsharp mask etc. would have effected the whole picture differently.

[NYCFarmboy]

is it silly yes, but it shows the fear the liberals have of Condi, in that they have to seek to doctoring her photographs to demonize her etc.

interesting expose on the left's facination with racist cartoon caricatures of Condi:







From Rush Limbaugh:



This Condoleezza Rice business: you know, ladies and gentlemen, what is being done to her, particularly -- and it's not just articles. It's even worse here in a series of editorial cartoons, and I saw these editorial cartoons last night, and I've been eagerly waiting all day today to see if there's any reaction to their at all, and I didn't think there would be, and the reason I didn't think there would be is because every one of these editorial cartoons is in a big liberal newspaper, and every one of these editorial cartoons is drawn by a big liberal cartoonist. This stuff is grotesque. No American, certainly not a person of Dr. Condoleezza Rice's stature, should be treated like this. It is a new low. It is an absolute new low for the left. I'm gonna try to get a way to link to their on the website later today so you can see them if you haven't. The first one I have here is Oliphant. Now, I think Oliphant is syndicated. This is not Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe. He's a columnist.

This is the cartoonist Oliphant, and to the best of my knowledge, he's in the Washington Post. Let me describe this to you. It will be easy to describe. It is a single frame, single panel editorial cartoon. On the left, a very thin and gawky, long-nosed George W. Bush holding on his left hand a parrot, a parrot that is drawn to look like Condoleezza Rice. The exaggerations that are included here to illustrate Condoleezza Rice are just grotesque. Her hair, her lips, two buck teeth, her eyes, her nose and mouth are one unit, and they are about three inches long compared to the rest of her face, and Bush, as president, says to her, "How woodums wike to be secwetawy of state?" [sic] and the parrot that is a grotesque parody of Condoleezza Rice -- and it is racist and it is bigoted like nothing I have seen in I can't tell you how long. The parrot as Condoleezza Rice says, "Awwrk!! Ok, Chief! Anything you say, Chief! You bet, Chief! You're my hero, Chief!"

In the lower left-hand column, the two staple characters in Oliphant cartoons, I guess two little birds [one dressed as Uncle Sam] and one says to the other "Don't look to me. I didn't vote for him," and the other one says, "Neither did I." So the point of this is to make fun of and laugh at Bush's stupidity, Condoleezza Rice being a no-brain individual who's nothing but a step-and-fetch-it black, made to look like a grotesque parrot who does nothing more than parrot an idiot president, George W. Bush. It is grotesque. It is insulting. It is vile. It is angry. It is childish, and it is typical I think of what the left has become. They claim to be holy than thou. They claim to be above all of us when it comes to understanding the downtrodden and minorities. They claim to be the only ones that have the ability to have the compassion and understanding, and yet they get away with racism. They get away with bigotry. They get away with sexism, and they get away with homophobia -- and in the case of Condoleezza Rice, they get away with an attempted character destruction of a truly brilliant and accomplished woman who came from nothing to become the first black female secretary of state. You'd think they'd be applauding instead of making fun of her this way.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, this stuff that's happening in the editorial cartoons today is nothing new. It's just reached a new low. The left has consistently sought to destroy blacks that don't agree with them, blacks that have "strayed from the plantation," if you will. Clarence Thomas is just but one name that comes to mind. Now they are marching against Condoleezza Rice, and make no mistake about it: This is an effort to harm her ability to serve as secretary of state. Diplomats, people around the world will see these things and form opinions. Now, I know that Condoleezza Rice and Bush their dignity and stature will overcome all of this. That's not what I'm worried about. I'm not worried about anything. I'm just incredulous. I'm incredulous. I think what's happening here, folks, is that these people are so bummed. They are so distraught. They are just so out of whack over their loss of power and their inability to gain any ground back whatsoever that they are throwing caution to the wind and they no longer hide who they really are and what they really think and what they really think of certain people, and so they've always thought that black conservatives are a bunch a step-and-fetch-its.

They've always thought that black conservatives are worthless. Now it's time for them to illustrate it. We have the Oliphant cartoon we're going to link to it at RushLimbaugh.com and it will be momentarily when that's up there. You'll be able to see it. The next one is not new. It is an old one from earlier this year. It is a Doonesbury cartoon. I don't have the date of this cartoon, but you'll be able to approximate the date. This is a four-panel cartoon, a conversation taking place at the White House. Here is panel one. George Bush speaking to Condoleezza Rice. "Condi, what if I nickname Clarke 'Stretcher.' You know, because he's stretching the truth?" This is about Richard Clarke: "What if I nickname him 'Stretcher'?" and Condoleezza Rice says, "Not strong enough, Mr. President. I mean, this guy is the king of lies, sir. Do you know what he wrote about our first meeting?"


Bush says, "Of course not. It's in a book," meaning" Bush doesn't read. He's too stupid to read. How would Bush know what's in a book? Condoleezza Rice says, "He wrote that I gave him the impression I'd never even heard of Al-Qaeda." Bush says, "Had you?" and Condoleezza Rice says, "Oh, like you had?" and Bush says, "Careful, 'Brown Sugar.'" So in this cartoon you have -- this is playing off Richard Clarke saying Condoleezza Rice had no idea about Al-Qaeda; Bush and Condoleezza talking about it. The assumption is that neither of them had heard of Al-Qaeda, and they want to do something to destroy Richard Clarke, and when Condoleezza Rice insults Bush for also not knowing who Al-Qaeda was -- all this, of course, is total fiction -- he calls her "Brown Sugar." This is Doonesbury. Now, this has to be around the time of the 9/11 hearings. There is another cartoon by somebody named Danziger, but I can't tell you where this ran. I just have the cartoon itself, independent of any publication. It is Condoleezza Rice sitting in a rocking chair with her facial features once again exaggerated in a stereotypical fashion.

There are empty aluminum tubes sitting next to her that have smiley faces on them. She is holding one of these aluminum tubes and is attempting to go feed it with a bottle. I kid you not. She is barefoot with her legs spread, and she says, "I knows all about aluminum tubes," [sic] and then, "Correction: "I don't know nunthin' about aluminum tubes..." I guess this has to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and centrifuges and so forth. I really have no idea, but it doesn't matter. He's got some dumb black woman sitting barefoot obviously in a rocking chair trying to feed aluminum tubes with a bottle, saying, "I knows all about aluminum tubes." Once again: mocking black speech, making fun of it. These are the people that do not allow such things to happen. They are first. I'm sitting there looking at these cartoons and again I'm discussing myself, "Just what was it I said that caused a year-long uproar in the now-famous Donovan McNabb incident?" I don't care. Whatever it was, it pales in comparison to what's in the Oliphant cartoon yesterday, or actually was on the 15th.

This Danziger cartoon, and Doonesbury, from the Richard Clarke era. Now we go to the Daily Mirror, UK. The headline: "You Met the Monkey. Now Meet His Trainer -- The hard-line right-winger President Bush is making the world a dangerous place. If there were a monkey in the White House, and many reckon there is, then his trainer would be the world's most powerful person. In the case of George W. Bush, almost everything he knows about foreign policy has been learnt," l-e-a-r-n-t, "from Condoleezza Rice." Once again, mocking black speech, my good friends on the left. Do you realize how utterly pathetic and hateful you people are beginning to appear? Do you understand that everybody is seeing this? Do you understand that it doesn't take commentary from anybody to express how repugnant all of this is? It isn't sophisticated. It isn't funny. It may get you toasted at a Tina Brown dinner party, or a Sally Quinn dinner party in Washington, D.C. It may get you a back-slap from Arianna Huffington or Bill Maher but it is not gonna get you anywhere else.

You are going to be reviled. You are going to be disrespected like you have never understood it before because people aren't going to understand this. Blacks are not going to understand this. They have grown up thinking you're looking out for them. They have grown up thinking you care about them; you're gonna protect them; you're going to go out and make sure that people who make fun of them and bigotry against them and stereotype them are going to pay for it -- and who have you become? You have become the people you hate, except the mistake you're making is the people you hate never hated! What's happened here... You know what? If the truth be known here, J. William Fulbright and the Dixiecrats from the Old South who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have come back to life, and they live and breathe in the Washington Post editorial page as a cartoon. They live and breathe in the panels of Doonesbury. They live and breathe at editorial pages of the New York Times and the Daily Mirror and wherever else Condoleezza Rice is being besmirched and impugned today.

It's no different than the Dixiecrats of the Old South. Make no mistake, that's where the first opposition to civil rights took place. If it hadn't been for Republican votes in the Senate, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never pass, and this is another one of these big myths that the Republicans stood up. It was George Wallace and it was Lester Maddox, these white Democrats in the South that were the big obstructionists when it came to civil rights, and Lord knows it looks to me like they live and breathe again in the "sophisticated newspapers and magazines" of the left. This Oliphant cartoon, is truly, truly grotesque. No American should be treated this way. We have not seen caricatures of terrorists, we have not seen portrayals of people who murder Americans that match the way Condoleezza Rice is being portrayed today in the so-called mainstream media, which is obviously nothing more than a bunch of little babies with that noses out of joint crying every day, "Waaaaaaah-hah-haaaaah," because they can't figure out how to win elections and get themselves back in power again.

So they become a punch of petulant, immature little babies so no longer have the energy to hide their true bias, their true prejudice, and their true bigotry. It is they, my friends, who are engaging in the very behavior that they've always accused their enemies of behaving. If you look at this president, just had another female named to the cabinet today. The new education secretary is a female. Condoleezza Rice is the second black secretary of state consecutive. She's the first black woman. This country's face to the world has been a black man, Colin Powell, and now will be a black woman, Condoleezza Rice. You would think that these people, if they were genuine, if they were true, would be standing up and if they won't applaud Bush, at least applaud these people, applaud Condoleezza Rice, applaud Colin Powell, applaud the new secretary of education. They never applauded the (out-going) Education Secretary Rod Paige. He had to go get grief from the NAACP because he works for Bush.

Now, it seems to me that if the liberals are honest, and they really do want advancement and affirmative action and all this sort of thing then they would be praising these people and congratulating them and they would want their constituents in the black community to know that they're proud that this is happening. But, oh, no. No, no, no, no, no, ladies and gentlemen. They can't afford that! They have besmirch these people. They have to try to destroy the them. They impugn them. They grotesquely distort them as human beings and as Americans, and this is being done under the eyes of everybody in this country, black Americans included. There have to be some of them scratching their heads today, not understanding why the Washington Post would portray Condoleezza Rice this way. Or why this Danziger cartoon would portray her in this way.

This Mirror piece goes on to praise people like Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright. The New York Times today, "The Friends of George," does not even refer to her as DOCTOR Rice. "Our concern about Ms. [sic] Rice is not that she makes the president feel comfortable. It's that his national security advisor she seemed to tell him what he wanted to hear." How do they know? They don't know the slightest thing about what went on in there! They haven't a clue what went on with Dr. Rice. It's DOCTOR Condoleezza Rice, whoever is writing editorials at the New York Times. It is DOCTOR. Condoleezza Rice now joins an august group of Americans to be treated worse in the U.S. media than Yasser Arafat or Saddam Hussein or even Osama bin Laden, and, my friends, I am here to tell you that all this is going to do is further continue this spiral downward into abject irrelevance on the part of these people. They are moving there even faster than they were prior to the election -- and I, for one, applaud that. The lower they sink and the more obvious they make themselves the better for this whole country.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Somebody just sent me a note and explained this, the Danziger cartoon. It's a takeoff on Gone with the Wind where Butterfly McQueen said: "I don't know nothin' about birfing babies." I don't know nothing about birfing babies." That's what this is a takeoff on, with Condoleezza Rice, "I don't know nunthin' about aluminum tubes... "I don't know nunthin' about aluminum tubes..." That's just a takeoff on that. All right, I have just redirected all these cartoons up to the website. The Oliphant cartoon I think was either out yesterday or today. He's the most widely syndicated editorial cartoonist in the country, and I know his stuff appears on occasion in the Washington Post, and it's just... Well, wait till you see it and you can come up with your own ways of describing it. We're going to have this stuff posted at RushLimbaugh.com very, very soon. Keep checking. It won't be long and you'll be able to gaze upon these yourself. Here's a Al in Chicago. We go to the phones. Welcome, sir. Nice to have you with us.

CALLER: Rush, you are blowing me away. I've worked in the inner city of Chicago for much of my life. I'm from the Class of '51 such as you are. You know, the Puff Daddy, the Snoop Doggy Dogg imagery that the Democratic Party embraces is where they want Black America to be. I read Charles Murray's book "Losing Ground," and to me that was just an absolute perfect example of a man who understood what the welfare state has done to the inner city, and who was more responsible for that than the Democratic Party? Who has put Black America in the hole they're in? Rush, I am astounded by your knowledge and understanding. I have spent my life in the inner city, and you sit in the studio in, what, New York or Miami, and you have more insight or as much insight as a man who spent his whole life around Black America, who has great respect for them but knows that the Democratic Party has tread on them for as long as I have been around them. You are right on. Hole in one. Three-point play.

RUSH: (Laughing.) Ho! Can't do much better than that. That's very nice of you to say.

CALLER: I'm astounded, Rush. I am absolutely on the floor. You are so correct -- and I'm in Chicago. I mean, you know, the old song, "Won't You Please Come to Chicago?" Here's a city that has had no regard for black America but has owned the black vote for all of my lifetime by way of the Daley family, but they have no respect for a... You know, I love Sowell; I love Walter Williams. I've read their books. I have great respect for them, but do black Americans have any respect for their learned individuals? No! They want the Snoop Doggy. They want the bad dudes who end up in jail or shoot each other like last night, a fight in a concert –

RUSH: It's not even --

CALLER: -- go ahead. I'm sorry.

RUSH: It's not just the black voters of Chicago. I mean, that's --

CALLER: All over.

RUSH: In a way, because of what's been done to them, you began to say, you can almost understand it. What's outrageous is the people who set out to destroy them: U.S. senators who are Democrats, who try to destroy Clarence Thomas. Thomas Sowell, and you're right. You talk about role models: Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams. The list is long of any of these learned intellectuals who are geniuses and have nothing but clear understanding, for them to be ridiculed and marginalized as a bunch of basically Uncle Toms because they have sidled up with Republicans is also insulting. I had a black woman call me not long ago, and this was echoed by many other black callers, and it bounces off of what you said moments ago at the beginning of your call talking about how the welfare state has actually destroyed the inner city black family. She said it did so on purpose. She said the purpose of welfare state as articulated and drawn up by the Democrats was to destroy the black family so as to always keep them in a constant state of need. It was a call from Glen Burnie, Maryland, is where this woman was and she said the basic thrust of it was to rid the black family of the need for fathers.

The government would replace fathers by providing bread for the family. So black men didn't need to marry anybody and stay home because the government was going to be there, and then they began to pay these welfare mothers even more for each child they had and it was counterproductive to the whole thing and it destroyed the nucleus of the black family. And Dr. Sowell, I have talked to him about this, and I asked him, was it like this when you were growing up? He grew up in Harlem. He said, "No, it wasn't at all like this. Yeah, there was discrimination, and yeah, there was poverty, but our parents urged us to study and learn and compete with the kids in the white schools and that's what with did, but we had a solid familiar life built around the church," and, you know, I see a revival of that coming, Al, by the way, based on some things that happened this last election. The so-called values question that was so important in this election is reverberating more and more among the black community, particularly those who go to church.

[NYCFarmboy]

part 2 of Rush's comments:



CALLER: I support the voucher very, very much. Most of the black folks I know, the voucher they know is the only way out of the captivity that they're in.

RUSH: Okay, that's another good point, too. The school voucher program. The ones who really want this are black parents, because while these white liberals are sending their kids to segregated private schools that only a spare few could afford to send their kids to, they won't clean up the public school system out of fealty to the teachers unions and so inner city kids have to keep going to these worthless schools. Look at the dropout rate in New York. According to the New York statistics, half of the minority students, blacks and Hispanics will drop out long before long before nearing graduation, and these are institutions that have been under the control and dominance of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party for practically as long as I have been alive. I'm glad you called, Al. A quick time-out. By the way, Jeff Danziger is the cartoonist here whose work parodies Butterfly McQueen has Condoleezza Rice saying, "I don't know nunthin' about aluminum tubes..." is syndicated by the New York Times. So throw that in your hopper and consider it for what its worth.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/est...t.helpWin.html

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

is it silly yes, but it shows the fear the liberals have of Condi, in that they have to seek to doctoring her photographs to demonize her etc.

Yeah, that's right, Hillary — it's a vast left-wing conspiracy to make Condi's eyes look white.

The world is going to have a tinfoil shortage on its hands if you ever reproduce.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Yeah, that's right, Hillary — it's a vast left-wing conspiracy to make Condi's eyes look white.

The world is going to have a tinfoil shortage on its hands if you ever reproduce.

lol, the left hates being called for what they are.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

lol, the left hates being called for what they are.

Inept at adjusting photos?

Seriously, are you just trolling? How does overdoing the Unsharp Mask tool qualify as "demonizing" her?

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Inept at adjusting photos?

Seriously, are you just trolling? How does overdoing the Unsharp Mask tool qualify as "demonizing" her?

lol...uh huh.... if you are defending that as just a photoshoping mistake..you have had too much Cool-aid™ .

[goMac]

I really don't get this. How is making her eyes white demonizing her?

Last I checked my eyes are indeed white around the pupil.

I'm sorry NYCFarmboy. I think your tin foil hat is on a little too tight.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by goMac

I really don't get this. How is making her eyes white demonizing her?

Last I checked my eyes are indeed white around the pupil.

I'm sorry NYCFarmboy. I think your tin foil hat is on a little too tight.

uhhuh

[jhogarty]

OMG she is a Goahoul (sp - the "enemy" in Stargate series)!

Don't think the pic is such a big deal. But the constant cartoons and other negative dialogue about how she is just a puppet is irritating. (Please excuse my spelling errors). I'd love to see any one of the people who dog her go 1 on 1 in a debate with her.

J.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

uhhuh

Ummmmm.... Nope. Not seeing demon. Sorry. Looks like her eyes are too white, but eyes are... uhhhh.... white? All it looks me is that Photoshop had the tolerance set too high to catch the different whites in her eye.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

lol...uh huh.... if you are defending that as just a photoshoping mistake..you have had too much Cool-aid™ .

It was either a botched job of adjusting a photo or a botched job of demonizing Condi, because I hardly looked at that photo and thought, "OMGWTFBBQ, get that demon out of office quick!" I looked at it and thought, "Wow, that was really bad use of Unsharp Mask and levels adjustment."

You have still not answered my question: How does whitening her eyes and making the photo look a little overly sharp qualify as a smear campaign? I see Photoshop newbies do that all the time just because they're inept; I have never seen it used as a form of attack.

[NYCFarmboy]

well this thread obviously upsets the left as it draws attention to their treatment of Condi.

I think she will make an excellent President in 2008.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by jhogarty

OMG she is a Goahoul (sp - the "enemy" in Stargate series)!

Don't think the pic is such a big deal. But the constant cartoons and other negative dialogue about how she is just a puppet is irritating. (Please excuse my spelling errors). I'd love to see any one of the people who dog her go 1 on 1 in a debate with her.

J.

Aw, beat me to it. And it's Goa'uld.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

well this thread obviously upsets the left as it draws attention to their treatment of Condi.

I think she will make an excellent President in 2008.

This is the tin foil hat check reminder.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

well this thread obviously upsets the left as it draws attention to their treatment of Condi.

I think she will make an excellent President in 2008.

I rate this troll 3/10 for leading me on this long. It would have been higher if you'd started getting indignant rather than just repeating yourself a bunch.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

well this thread obviously upsets the left as it draws attention to their treatment of Condi.

I think she will make an excellent President in 2008.

You're ridiculous. "The left posted in my thread therefore I must be right!" No wonder you see a demon in that picture. You see alot of things I'm sure.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakar

You're ridiculous. "The left posted in my thread therefore I must be right!" No wonder you see a demon in that picture. You see alot of things I'm sure.

I'm kind of wondering who the Left is. I wasn't aware I was the Left. Considering I generally like Condi and all that.

I guess everyone starts to look like the Left when you live under a bridge all day.

[tie]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

is it silly yes, but it shows the fear the liberals have of Condi, in that they have to seek to doctoring her photographs to demonize her etc.

Actually, it shows your own paranoia about liberals and liberal conspiracies, liberal media, etc. Keep that tin foil hat on, and watch out — any day now we'll be finding WMDs in Iraq!

[Y3a]

WHY would they specifically Doctor her eyes?
The backgrounds are all the same.
I still stay it smells.
It was not a simple "Fix the photo" job that 'nobody' caught.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

more of the same from the old line legacy media:

She's an evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet."

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Y3a

WHY would they specifically Doctor her eyes?
The backgrounds are all the same.
I still stay it smells.
It was not a simple "Fix the photo" job that 'nobody' caught.

Why would they whiten her eyes with the intent to defame her? Nobody has explained that yet. It makes much less sense than "Some schmuck was trying to make the photo look better, noticed that her eyes looked particularly murky and specifically whitened that area to make her whites white."

I mean, it's not as though he turned them red or something. He just blew out the white, which has the effect of also making them look sharper.

[saddino]

de·mon·ize
tr.v. de·mon·ized, de·mon·iz·ing, de·mon·iz·es

1. To turn into or as if into a demon.
2. To possess by or as if by a demon.
3. To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.
4. To colorize or sharpen the area around the eyes so that they appear unnaturally white. (First usage: NYCFarmboy in forums.macnn.com)

[Rolling Bones]

Lucky her teeth weren't showing. They would have put in some fangs.

[Chuckit]

As a quick test, I just attempted to recreate it. I've got the exact same appearance by doing a very amateurish technique for eye-whitening that I've seen. Here's what I did:

1. Select magic wand tool. Set tolerance to 50.
2. Magic wand the whites of her eyes.
3. Fill with white.
4. Unsharp mask (radius 2.8, amount 24%)

Here's the "evil version":


Here's mine:


Pretty close, I think. So it can definitely be done naively.

EDIT: Got it even closer.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

As a quick test, I just attempted to recreate it. I've got the exact same appearance by doing a very amateurish technique for eye-whitening that I've seen. Here's what I did:

1. Select magic wand tool. Set tolerance to 50.
2. Magic wand the whites of her eyes.
3. Fill with white.
4. Unsharp mask (radius 2.8, amount 24%)

Here's the "evil version":


Here's mine:


Pretty close, I think. So it can definitely be done naively.

EDIT: Got it even closer.

That fact that you had to select the whites of the eyes directly kind of contradicts your point. Someone specifically adjusted the eyes and they came up with this by accident? Seems rather unlikely.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush

That fact that you had to select the whites of the eyes directly kind of contradicts your point. Someone specifically adjusted the eyes and they came up with this by accident? Seems rather unlikely.

How? I was arguing all along that the photo editor obviously wanted to improve the clarity and the eyes looked especially murky. I've seen people do eye-whitening this way before without any ill intent. It's the digital equivalent of using a Sharpie to get rid of red-eye — amateurish and unethical for sure, but people do it. I see no evidence it was intended maliciously (though nobody has yet explained why it would be malicious anyway). It's just noobish.

[jhogarty]

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Aw, beat me to it. And it's Goa'uld.

Ahhh, thanks for the correction.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

How? I was arguing all along that the photo editor obviously wanted to improve the clarity and the eyes looked especially murky. I've seen people do eye-whitening this way before without any ill intent. It's the digital equivalent of using a Sharpie to get rid of red-eye — amateurish and unethical for sure, but people do it. I see no evidence it was intended maliciously (though nobody has yet explained why it would be malicious anyway). It's just noobish.

Perhaps you are right, who knows.

[Weyland-Yutani]

At least Rule 8 wasn't violated.. that's the only good thing I can say about this topic.

cheers

W-Y

[besson3c]

Everything *has* to boil down to a left/right issue, it's so simple, but so true!


There are some people here who are WAAAYYYYY too partisan and emotionally invested. I find it rather pathetic.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

more of the same from the old line legacy media:









http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003780.htm


Really childish on USAToday's part.....they have since issued this on their website:

"Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...congress_x.htm

Dude?

Where are the frigging horns?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Everything *has* to boil down to a left/right issue, it's so simple, but so true!


There are some people here who are WAAAYYYYY too partisan and emotionally invested. I find it rather pathetic.

I think you're pretty right for a leftie.

[Pendergast]

Seems like she is not alone.

[OldManMac]

I'm a liberal, therefore it's my fault.

Some people need to get out more; the lack of sunlight is starting to affect certain areas of their brains.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

At least Rule 8 wasn't violated.. that's the only good thing I can say about this topic.

cheers

W-Y

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

well this thread obviously upsets the left as it draws attention to their treatment of Condi.

I think she will make an excellent President in 2008.

This "Leftie" thinks so, too. If she runs against Hillary, Condi gets my vote for sure.


<sarcasm>
Ooops. Did I spoil your little hate-fest. Try not to think i such general broad-brush terms.
You might discover most of the world doesn't think in strict binary terms of opposition.
</sarcasm>

[Chuckit]

I would vote for a pet rock over Hillary Clinton.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

more of the same from the old line legacy media:









http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003780.htm


Really childish on USAToday's part.....they have since issued this on their website:

"Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...congress_x.htm

Oh I think Condi does a good enough job of demonizing Condi without needing any help from the press.

[UNTeMac]

This about says it all.


(don't feed 'em)

[IceBreaker]

The "photoshop genius" that snaked her eyes should be fired.

There is no way that was not an intentional racial besmirchment of Ms. Rice.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by IceBreaker

The "photoshop genius" that snaked her eyes should be fired.

There is no way that was not an intentional racial besmirchment of Ms. Rice.

Are you serious? Racial?

Here's a generalization for all the kids out there that like them: Republicans are drama kings and queens.

[IceBreaker]

<doublepost>

[IceBreaker]

Originally Posted by besson3c

Are you serious? Racial?

Here's a generalization for all the kids out there that like them: Republicans are drama kings and queens.

What would have your reaction had been had the same thing been done to a liberal Democrat?

you'd be whining and moaning. your side got caught doing something really disgusting. obviously a raw exposed nerve has been hit here or you'd have not even commented.