It's obviously far more than that. The sharpening and contrast increase
are far more exaggerated in the area of the eyes, and the pupils appear
to have been made smaller. Look at the difference in the white level
in the eyes between the two photos. Then look at the skin tones. The
contrast difference is far greater in the eyes than it is in the flesh
tones, where there appears to be very minimal change.
Paul
On Jan 13, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Bob Shell wrote:
On Jan 13, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
True, there are no absolutes. But for news photography, alterations
should be restricted to those that make the photo reproduce well:
curves adjustments, BW conversion, etc. No cloning should be allowed
and no modification of details to produce a different look. In this
case, the eyes were obviously altered to change the look of the
photo. I can't say for certain, but I believe the Times wold rule out
perspective control as well. But they probably wouldn't buy a photo
that was so distorted that it failed to communicate correctly. As far
as I'm concerned, any alterations the photographer wishes to make are
okay for fine art photography. For commercial photography, any
alterations the lawyers will allow (which do not include drastically
changing the appearance of a product) are okay. But the news is the
news. It must strive to be accurate.
Looks to me like an overall sharpening and increase in contrast was
made, and this caused the demon eyes.
Bob
