Photoshop
posted by The Vidiot @ 9:13 AM Permalink I use it. And I'm good at it. (Pretty DAMN good at it I might add.) When I saw this retouched Reuters image, however, I had to scratch my head. It was so bad, so ridiculous that I thought "I'm embarassed for the guy that did it AND the editor who let it squeak through." I mean, I don't think I did anything ever that looked that bad even way back when I was first learning the program. And that got me thinking. "Why DID they let such a poorly done thing go through like that? Any idiot could see it sucked."I hate to be a conspiracy theorist (really I do) but I have to wonder if they're trying to discredit other images from Lebanon. Or make the populace suspicious of ALL photojournalism. I don't know the motivation, but there has to be something else to it. It was just a Really. Bad. Photoshop. Job.
Really bad.
4 Comments:
It's so obvious it seems like they are setting up to deny the other visual images of atrocities.
My theory above seems more plausible giving that all 3 are accused of doctoring, and deny it.
nice, huh? The "shoot the messenger" culture wen live in.
They are trying to get people to always question the veracity of the media.
Remember...it's all the NYTimes fault! ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home