Slashdot Mirror


Photographer Fired For Digitally Altering Photo

bewert writes "A sign of things to come? Is this kind of thing happening without anyone catching it? This short article notes that war photog Brian Walski was fired for combining elements from two photos to make one with 'better composition'. Here is the 'Editor's Note' detailing the transgression. It's not really highlighted on their front page ;) I wonder how often this type of Photoshopping is done without anyone noticing it? To paraphrase Pink Floyd, "Mother, should I trust the government?"..." Another submitter points out an article examining digitally altered magazine covers. Slashdot has done several stories on unnoticeable digital alterations; here's 1, 2, 3 old stories to peruse.

14 of 662 comments (clear)

  1. What will O'Reilly say? by Drunken+Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Great, this is just what we need: another reason for Bill O'Reilly to get his panties in a twist over the LA Times.

    He already seems to think they are actively aiding the Iraqis by spreading propaganda, and this surely won't help sway his opinion.

    --
    Have you been stalked by Seth today?
    1. Re:What will O'Reilly say? by nomadic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Despite a tremendous expenditure of willpower, I just can't bring myself to give a damn what Bill O'Reilly thinks.

    2. Re:What will O'Reilly say? by Eccles · · Score: 5, Funny

      any one watching Fox news has probably never heard of PBS let alone watched it.

      ...and they'd probably have trouble spelling it too.

      <Rimshot>

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    3. Re:What will O'Reilly say? by Spamlent+Green · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is splitting hairs, but that's probably a British soldier, not an American.

      Biggest clue is his rifle: it's a 'bullpup' configuration, where the clip is inserted behind the grip.

    4. Re:What will O'Reilly say? by The+Dobber · · Score: 3, Funny


      Did anybody notice Waldo in the doctored photo?

    5. Re:What will O'Reilly say? by TKinias · · Score: 2, Funny

      scripsit p51d007:

      I've been conservative all my life.

      Well, thank God! We need more conservatives. I've had enough of these whiney, ``I have rights'' republicans. I mean, come on! Elections indeed. Typical Freemason nonsense. Give me a good, Catholic king, and for God's sake get the education system out of the hands of those state employees. I hear some of them aren't even baptised.

      --
      In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
  2. How about Taco? by vivek7006 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Only after the altered photo appeared Monday did editors notice that some civilians in the background appeared twice"

    OK now fire Taco next time he posts a story twice !!

  3. Where's Waldo? by Ridge · · Score: 5, Funny

    I looked for 20 minutes and I couldn't find him anywhere!

  4. the ny post does this and the front page by meatbridge · · Score: 5, Funny

    they photoshoped the heads of wiesels onto the bodies of the french and german government. photoshop has no place in news gathering.

  5. What about Bert? by Chibi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait, if this is fake, then is it possible that Bert is not evil?!

    --
    If all you have are silver bullets, everything looks like a werewolf.
  6. Fixing this problem... by rmdyer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Every camera sold can have internal circuitry to take the CCD image and perform an MD5 hash of the pic. The MD5 hash would then be XOR'd with a one-time-pad. The OTP would be burned into the camera at the factory and would be inaccessable from outside the camera CPU. The OTP would then be databased (also inaccessibly) into the grand federal OTP camera registry database. The OTP having been XOR'd with the MD5 hash of the pic, would then be put into the pic filename. Now, whenever someone wants to check to see if the picture has been unaltered they just have to go to the federal camera database website and submit the picture. The backend will then validate the pic.

    Will it be done? Not in your lifetime.

    +2 cents contributed.

  7. In other news... by DailyGrind · · Score: 5, Funny

    A bank employee was fired for combining his account with that of a customer with a much higher balance.

    When asked about the reason for his actions he simply stated that the combined balanced looked much more dramatic on his bank statements.

    --
    You will have to pry my proprietary software $$$ from my cold dead hands!
  8. Ban PHOTOSHOP! by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clearly, the moral here is that Photoshop (and similar programs) should be made ILLEGAL.

  9. People who live in glass houses... by kungfuBreaks · · Score: 3, Funny

    From the alt.usage.english FAQ:

    The idiom "couldn't care less", meaning "doesn't care at all" (the meaning in full is "cares so little that he couldn't possibly care less"), originated in Britain around 1940. "Could care less", which is used with the same meaning, developed in the U.S. around 1960. We get disputes about whether the latter was originally a mis-hearing of the former; whether it was originally ironic; or whether it arose from uses where the negative element was separated from "could" ("None of these writers could care less...") Meaning- saving elaborations have also been suggested; e.g., "As if I could care less!"; "I could care less, but I'd have to try"; "If I cared even one iota -- which I don't --, then I could care less." An earlier transition in which "not" was dropped was the one that gave us "but" in the sense of "only". "I will not say but one word", where "but" meant "(anything) except", became "I will say but one word."