Post details: Reuters edits V.P. Cheney's photo to insert the word "Retire"?

Thursday, March 9, 2006

Reuters edits V.P. Cheney's photo to insert the word "Retire"?

--Image: MSM --Last Tuesday, Vice President Cheney gave a keynote address to to the U.S. Labor Department’s 2006 National Summit on Retirement Savings at the Willard Hotel in Washington D.C.

Here’s a photo (hat tip: Drudge Report) that Reuters posted:

--Photo: Vice President Cheney --

It looks like the photographer must have scrambled around the room until he had the perfect angle and then snapped the shot. A quick Photoshop session to crop the photo and voila!

Ha ha, Reuters, very funny – yet another example of biased photojournalism from the mainstream media.

At least, that’s how it looked at first. But when I tried to see the shot from a wider angle, things started to look decidedly odd.

Did you see the word “Retire” in that photo?

After some searching, I found a photo taken by a Dept. of Labor photographer that shows the scene from a distance. There’s the word “Retirement,” easily three feet or more above his head!

Look at this page where all three images are together, it sure doesn’t seem like the word “Retire” could appear behind Cheney’s head based on the angle it was taken (you’d be seeing mostly the underside of his chin and part of the podium at the correct angle). This comparison superimposes the two photos of Cheney’s head, they’re very similar and yet “Retire” only appears in one of them. So they’ve really manipulated this one. I think it’s worse than the Condoleezza Rice “demonized” job.

Already you can’t believe what you read in the mainstream media and now it’s getting so you can’t believe what you see either. Manipulating photos like that has got to be against some code of ethics isn’t it?

[Update] Welcome RightWinged and Michelle Malkin readers! Settle in and stay awhile. You might also want to check out this post on the “Just Kidding” Bandit (be sure to check out the comment).

[Update] So Reuters does have a code of ethics! They just don’t hesitate to ignore it. Michelle Malkin is also following this story and has posted the relevant section from Reuters’s editorial policy, but here’s the important bit:

…We do not take sides and attempt to reflect in our stories, pictures and video the views of all sides. We are not in the business of glorifying one side or another or of disseminating propaganda. Reuters journalists do not offer their own opinions or views.

Liar, liar
Pants on fire
Maybe it’s time that you “Retire”

[Update] Well that was fun while it lasted. I sent this story to James Taranto to see if he wanted to include it in today’s Best of the Web. His opinion (and he should certainly know) is that:

It was probably taken from long distance with a zoom lens.

So, it looks like the “Retire” photo, blatant bit of bias that it is, is also probably genuine, assuming the Reuters photog had the right equipment. Oh well, sorry ’bout the kerfuffle.

[Update] Closure Alert! For the first time on this blog, we’ve actually solved a puzzle! Thanks to help from commenters Howard and tbrosz, I think we’ve figured out how the Cheney photo was taken. In short, the effect the photog used was a form of perspective distortion called a “dolly zoom.” For details, read the comments.

 

Tags: | | | | | | | | |

Comments:

Comment from: Jason [Visitor] Email · http://shockandblog.blogspot.com/
Excellent eye, Chris!
Permalink Friday, March 10, 2006 @ 12:45
Comment from: Howard [Visitor] Email
Chris
I too thought this a bit much but my analysis of the photos available indicates the angles and distance ratios are consistent with the angle needed to get this photo.

The ratio of the distance from the top of the “r” and bottom of the “e” in the suspect photo is ~15% greater than the height of the “R”

In the full view photo this ratio is near 1:1. The full view photo is taken at a distance and near the same elevation as the Cheney’s head. This is consistent with the photographer being below the level of the VP and angling the camera upward while waiting for Cheney to look a bit down as he is in other photos (in fact this may be why the chin is cropped to hide the fact he is looking down and thus an odd angle)

This doesn’t mean it wasn’t photoshopped, but if it was, their was some effort to understand the angle geometry and skew it to pass a quick analysis.

The photo technique is in the angle and distance. The distance was likely short to have the needed angle but far enough back to avoid making the head appear significantly larger than the lettering in the background. If Cheney were 3 ft in front of the background and standing on a 4 ft high stage then the photographer cold have been perhaps 20 ft in front and sitting on the floor. Unfortunately we don’t know any of these measurements.
So the assumption needs to be that the photo is legit but Routers is clearly biased and unembarrassed to present their leaning in such an unsubtle way.
Permalink Saturday, March 11, 2006 @ 18:16
Comment from: cchris [Member] Email · http://www.toptechwriter.us
Hi Howard,

Thanks for the professional opinion, your explanation sounds correct.

Well, if I ever meet the Reuters photographer who took that picture, I'll apologize handsomely for saying he manipulated the image. Then I'll smack him on the forehead for being so biased: "What were you thinking!?"
Permalink Saturday, March 11, 2006 @ 23:10
Comment from: tbrosz [Visitor] Email
If you look at the bottom shot here:

http://www.rightwinged.com/2006/03/followup_reuters_cheney_photo.html

it seems to me that anyone getting Cheney's face and that word in the same shot would have to have been standing in a twenty-foot deep hole, telephoto or not. Am I wrong?
Permalink Sunday, March 12, 2006 @ 03:10
Comment from: cchris [Member] Email · http://www.toptechwriter.us
Argh!

After Howard explained it, I thought I understood how Reuters got the pic, but tbrosz's comment made sense too, so I decided to diagram the shot and now it looks impossible again.

Diagram 1 shows how it would look if the photog was standing directly in front of Cheney. His lens is focused on Cheney's head and the word "Retire." The blue lines are sightlines. The red triangle shows that Cheney is in front and below "Retire."

Diagram 2 depicts what myself and others thought the shot angle would have to have been to get Retire behind Cheney's head. Notice that the blue sightlines should at least be partially blocked by the podium.

I used the drawing application Adobe FreeHand to create the diagram. In FreeHand, you can grab the little lens graphic and the left endpoints of the sightlines and move them to new positions, stretching the lines while keeping their right endpoints anchored in place. By doing this, I verified that there was no location in which the photog could have gotten the angle he did without including the podium.

Diagram 3 is how Howard described the way the photo could be taken (diagram 4 is a close-up). In some fashion, the lens has to increase the size of Cheney's head dramatically to get the proper angle without including the podium.

Can you really do that with a telephoto lens? If you think so, please include links to where we can see how it's done.
Permalink Sunday, March 12, 2006 @ 10:51
Comment from: cchris [Member] Email · http://www.toptechwriter.us
Ah ha! Wikipedia triumphs again!

The effect we're seeing is called "dolly zoom" or "Hitchcock zoom" and it's a perspective distortion that renders the "appearance of a part of the subject as abnormally large, relative to the rest of the scene."

Take a look at these example photos and observe how the background recedes as different lenses are used while the foreground remains constant. The 100mm lens used in the example probably wouldn't suffice, you'd need a 300 or 400 mm telephoto zoom lens to do the trick.

I've long wondered how they do that effect in movies. Learned something new today!

Can we say "Case Closed?"
Permalink Sunday, March 12, 2006 @ 11:44
Comment from: Randy [Visitor] Email · http://www.rightwinged.com
Case closed?... Sort of.. For one, this is giving the benefit of the doubt to the photographer... but assuming he used the Dolly Zoom, that's almost just as bad, because it shows the deliberate attempt they made to take the photo with the word "Retire" behind the VP.

I mean, the larger issue wasn't whether it was photoshopped, that was just icing on the cake. The main point remains, and I believe is bolstered, by the dolly zoom (if true) becuase it's not like the guy just snapped a coincidental photo. Work went in to getting that exact photo.
Permalink Sunday, March 12, 2006 @ 15:39
Comment from: cchris [Member] Email · http://www.toptechwriter.us
Hi Randy,

We already knew, regardless of whether it was genuine or not, that the photo was taken by a biased photographer. And I agree with you that that's a scandal by itself.

But it would have been a much bigger scandal if it turned out that the photo was a mock-up. What we've done is show that it is most likely the real thing.

Which takes us back full circle to my original post:

It looks like the photographer must have scrambled around the room until he had the perfect angle and then snapped the shot. A quick Photoshop session to crop the photo and voila!

Ha ha, Reuters, very funny – yet another example of biased photojournalism from the mainstream media.
Permalink Sunday, March 12, 2006 @ 15:44
Comment from: HappyFunball [Visitor] Email
I checked out the "example photos" at Wiki.
There is an animation that shows the changes in the photos sequentially.
At no point do items higher in the photo come down without getting smaller.
I believe that this would be possible if the word was VERY large and the reporter were in the right spot.
But, seeing the "untouched" photo, the word does not seem big enough to accomplish the effect.
Shopped IMHO.
-HFB
Permalink Monday, March 13, 2006 @ 11:50
Comment from: cchris [Member] Email · http://www.toptechwriter.us
Hi HFB,

I checked out the "example photos" at Wiki.
There is an animation that shows the changes in the photos sequentially.
At no point do items higher in the photo come down without getting smaller.
I believe that this would be possible if the word was VERY large and the reporter were in the right spot.


Can you explain what you mean? I'm looking right now at the image sequence and what I see is a cheesy modern art sculpture (aka "pile o' junk") in foreground, a fence in middle ground, and some trees and an apartment building or some such in the background. As the lenses proceed from 28 mm to 100 mm the sculpture stays the same size, but the middle and background objects get closer and larger in the image.

Now that I know what to look for, I can imagine the photographer having a 400 mm lens and using the same effect to position the "Retire" word behind Cheney's head. Just had to have enough of an up angle to bring them both into the frame while avoiding bringing the podium into the shot.

Permalink Monday, March 13, 2006 @ 14:24
Comment from: HappyFunball [Visitor] Email
Hi cchris,

Check out this link(through your link):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28caused_by_camera_to_subject_distance%29

It describes it a little more.

But, without getting too in depth, if you look at the way objects in the background change position relative to the object(s) in the foreground, it appears that the word "retire" would have to be massive compared to Cheney's head to work right.
It isn't, so....
Also, if you look at objects at or near the middle plane of the picture, they do not change position heighthwise significantly to be able to "bring down" the words to line up with the picture of Cheney, which seems to be taken at chin level.

Again, it may not be very technical, but we have all probably seen this effect before; there would need to be great distances between foreground and background objects to accomplish this-not just 5 or 6 feet.

And, again, the word would have to be HUGE!

IMVHO

-HFB

"There are three types of people in the world, those that can count and those that can't."
Permalink Monday, March 13, 2006 @ 21:32

Leave a comment:

Comments policy
  • Keep it civil--No profanity!
  • No personal attacks on me or any other commenter.
  • If you leave a comment and I don't answer it, don't take it personally as I'm probably too busy to respond. If the comment was complimentary, thank you.
  • If you post spam messages, you will be banned!
  • It's OK to include links to your blog site or other web pages if they are appropriate to the subject.
  • I may delete a comment at any time if it violates the comments policy.
Disclaimer: Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect my views. Obscene or abusive remarks will be deleted when found, but the fact that particular comments remain on my site in no way constitutes an endorsement by me.
Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)

Chris Christner's Blog

Pic of the Day

Sunspot Loops in Ultraviolet

RDF, RSS .92, RSS 2.0, Atom

September 2010
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
<< <     
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Search

Recent Posts

Image Gallery

Favorite Posts

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Engadget
Gizmodo
InstaPundit
Junk Science
Michelle Malkin
Engadget
Power Line
The Longevity Meme
Transterrestrial Musings

 

Misc

spacer

TopTechWriter.US

|| Valid XHTML || Valid CSS || Valid RSS || Valid Atom || skin by www.keoshi.com :: powered by b2evolution home