From: "Gary Wiltshire" 

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

> 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 The photo has been replaced by a properly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

I can certainly look at both photos and tell you they altered the shape of
her pupils and irises to make them look catlike, in addition to the
whitening effect.  This stuff is not rocket science -- it's easier to spot
than even than the CBS forgeries.  Vintage Selectric typewriters are
probably hot on ebay for the next try.

--
Gary Wiltshire

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