I looks to me like the eyes were especially sharpened. To get that
effect you would make the rest of the image look over sharpened or
completely mushed up.. Though to be honest it's difficult to compare a
couple of jpegs when one is four times larger than the other., but just
for kicks I tried to reproduce it by playing with sharpening and
blurring the larger image then resizing it to the smaller size, I
couldn't even come close. Lets face it was somebodies little joke.
Which left the AP with egg on it's face.
Bob Shell wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
True, there are no absolutes. But for news photography, alterations
should be restricted to those that make the photo reproduce well:
curves adjustments, BW conversion, etc. No cloning should be allowed
and no modification of details to produce a different look. In this
case, the eyes were obviously altered to change the look of the
photo. I can't say for certain, but I believe the Times wold rule
out perspective control as well. But they probably wouldn't buy a
photo that was so distorted that it failed to communicate correctly.
As far as I'm concerned, any alterations the photographer wishes to
make are okay for fine art photography. For commercial photography,
any alterations the lawyers will allow (which do not include
drastically changing the appearance of a product) are okay. But the
news is the news. It must strive to be accurate.
Looks to me like an overall sharpening and increase in contrast was
made, and this caused the demon eyes.
Bob
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
