From: Ellen K. 

It's true that the credentials are not verifiable.  However, the appearance
of the pupils is something a person can see for him- or herself.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 00:46:41 -0400, Gregg N 
wrote in message :

>Ellen K. wrote:
>
>>>I think you (and Michelle) may be overreacting. Do you really think this
>>>was done maliciously, or was it just sloppy image processing done for
>>>legitimate reasons? Here is the editor's note on the USA Today page. I
>>>am specifically aware of the "adjusted for brightness and
sharpness"
>>>part, because my father routinely does this via photoshop on pictures he
>>>takes with his digital camera to compensate for bad lighting or other
>>>problems.
>>>
>>>/Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally
>>>accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA
>>>TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly
>>>adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size
>>>and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance.
>>>In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor
>>>brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural
>>>appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping
>>>with our editorial standards. /
>>>
>>>Gregg
>>>
>>>
>>No, it was way more than "adjusting for brightness and
sharpness", if
>>you read the comments on the blog from people who work with photos for a
>>living they pointed out that ONLY the eyes were changed, and among other
>>things the shape of the pupils was altered.
>>
>>
>
>On the Internet nobody knows you're a dog. I don't know enough about
>photography and image processing to be able to judge the accuracy of the
>commenters' conclusions. Do you?
>
>Gregg

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5