http://jasonpearce.com/blog/2006/08/10/at-least-reuters-admits-to-image-manipulation-ap-photos-still-silent/ relatively irrelevant Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:49:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://jasonpearce.com/blog/2006/08/10/at-least-reuters-admits-to-image-manipulation-ap-photos-still-silent/comment-page-1/#comment-3877 David Pittman Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:42:07 +0000 http://jasonpearce.com/blog/2006/08/10/at-least-reuters-admits-to-image-manipulation-ap-photos-still-silent/#comment-3877 <p>It looks like a sloppy photoshop retouch job versus a material alteration for deception purposes. I do agree that the work is bad enough to warrant a refund on the image.</p> It looks like a sloppy photoshop retouch job versus a material alteration for deception purposes. I do agree that the work is bad enough to warrant a refund on the image.

]]> http://jasonpearce.com/blog/2006/08/10/at-least-reuters-admits-to-image-manipulation-ap-photos-still-silent/comment-page-1/#comment-3785 jasonpearce Wed, 16 Aug 2006 03:46:14 +0000 http://jasonpearce.com/blog/2006/08/10/at-least-reuters-admits-to-image-manipulation-ap-photos-still-silent/#comment-3785 <p>The New York Times issued a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/14/technology/14photoshop.html" rel="nofollow">good article</a> on the subject. In this story, it did say that the "A.P. photographers who use the cloning tool to remove dust from their pictures must tell their editors exactly where they used it when submitting the images." Guess that policy wansn't in place for the image I found above. To me, it looks like someone tried to sharpen the award winner's face.</p> The New York Times issued a good article on the subject. In this story, it did say that the “A.P. photographers who use the cloning tool to remove dust from their pictures must tell their editors exactly where they used it when submitting the images.” Guess that policy wansn’t in place for the image I found above. To me, it looks like someone tried to sharpen the award winner’s face.

]]>