From: Gregg N 

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 The photo has been replaced by a properly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