According to this, the photo was “enhanced.”
Now, they’re saying the white part was overexposed and this part was fixed. I’m wondering still if this is the first round of the backpedal, because I still can’t see a photographer getting that close-up of a shot of some luminary’s notes.
I’m still on the fence on this one.
Wow, I used the word “still” three times in that post. Yikes. :smack:
So even though CBS made the exact same mistake, Reuters will repeat it over something with a fraction of the importance?
All you’d need is a camera.
It’s like Ted Koppel said the other night (paraphrase): Everybody in Washington knows that when you make a mistake, the first thing to do is admit it. Everybody in Washington also knows that this advice is rarely heeded.
I know that all that’s needed as a camera, but it seems rather intimate, to get that close to take a picture of someone’s notes. Aren’t there security issues here?
I don’t see any plausible explanation for the photo being fake at this point. If it was inserted into the photo feed by hackers, why is its authenticity confirmed by Reuters and the photographer? They have no interest in helping out a hacker.
And why would the photographer create such a fake photo himself? He would risk ruining his career for no apparent gain. (Unlike, say, the 60 minutes episode referred to, where the journalists were apparently mesmerized by the prospect of a blockbuster story). Is he part of a diabolical conspiracy to undermine the President by insinuating that he has a weak bladder? I don’t see the motivation here.
Plus, snopes hasn’t steered me wrong yet, and they’re convinced its authentic (the story is labeled “Undetermined” only because they’re not sure if the entire note was written by Bush, which is probably an open question).
If we’re presuming a note that has been passed around, it is equally plausible that Bush wrote the “BATHroom” part, someone else wrote “Is this possible?” and Bush is answering that. Perhaps “Is this possible?” is how you tell someone like Bush that he has to hold it like a big boy.
If the correspondence is between Bush and Rice, then I have no problem engaging in some gross gender stereotyping by suggesting that the nicer writing probably belongs to the woman (who is also a well-educated professional) and the mixed case childish writing belongs to a man (who is also a semi-literate moron who has trouble speaking properly and hates him that book readin’.)
I’m having trouble keeping the threads straight here, but we’ve used the phrase “telephoto lens” in both. Wilking was probably very far away. If he’d been up close, really over Bush’s shoulder, he would have known what the note said and the process they used to bring out the writing would have been unnecessary.
Dodgeing and burning is a perfectly acceptable technique for photojounralism and doesn’t violate the jornalistic integrity of the photo.
Telephoto, telephoto, telephoto. A huge ass lens.
Aye, the photographer was with a bunch of other press folks in a balcony well away from the floor.
ivylass, there’s no “back-pedal” in saying that parts of the photo were digitally burned-in. Adjusting contrast, colour-correction, and spot adjustment of washed-out areas is standard practice. It’s not like it’s “enhanced” in some some creative way. You just pass the burn tool over the area and the contrast is improved by making dark areas darker. Here is an example of a couple of pencilled lines – the first one is untreated, and the second one is burned in, to make it more easily legible.
I’m sorry, I don’t think I’m making myself clear. I understand that the photographer was most likely not standing behind President Bush, shooting over his shoulder with his camera, and that he most likely used a telephoto lens. What I’m questioning is if it is ethical for a photographer to zoom in that closely on notes on someone’s lectern. At the very least, it seems a bit nosy to me. At the worst, could it be considered a security breach?
Nope. It was an “open session” meeting. Everyone there understood that there were legions of photographers from all over the world snapping away. It’s the members’ responsibility alone to ensure that nothing classified or double-super-secret is left out in the open. There are no special restrictions on
allowable equipment, and no censorship.
It’s the journalists and their editors’ responsibility to use their discretion about what they present to the public. Personally, I think it was a pretty gauche to run a photo featuring a banal note about a basic bodily function like that.
Poor taste (which I’m not above giggling over,) but not a security violation.
Thanks for clearing that up. I agree, it was a pointless photo.
God, that’s funny! 
