Liberal Bloggers: Clinton Campaign Darkened Obama's Skin in New TV Ad

[one...two...tree 2,762]

(hopefully this might shed some light on this dark subject)

Photo Tampering Throughout History

Photography lost its innocence many years ago. In as early as the 1860s, photographs were already being manipulated, only a few decades after Niepce created the first photograph in 1814. With the advent of high-resolution digital cameras, powerful personal computers and sophisticated photo-editing software, the manipulation of digital images is becoming more common. Here, I have collected some examples of tampering throughout history.

To help contend with the implications of this tampering, we have developed a series of tools for detecting traces of tampering in digital images (contact me at Ma'at Consulting for more information about our software and services).

.....

June 1994: This digitally altered photograph of OJ Simpson appeared on the cover of Time magazine shortly after Simpson's arrest for murder. This photograph was manipulated from the original mug-shot that appeared, unaltered, on the cover of Newsweek. Time magazine was subsequently accused of manipulating the photograph to make Simpson appear "darker" and "menacing".

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~farid/researc...gitaltampering/

[Dan J 277]

Whoever created that image will come clear at some point. Until then the jury is still out. After all the NAFTA thing was mostly a manipulation by a third party. But in any case, I don't except Obama's campaign, to pin it on Hillary, although some of the more passionate supporters might.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

Whoever created that image will come clear at some point. Until then the jury is still out. After all the NAFTA thing was mostly a manipulation by a third party. But in any case, I don't except Obama's campaign, to pin it on Hillary, although some of the more passionate supporters might.

According to that picture you posted, it seems they already have.

[Peikko 1,575]

So people who wish to draw attention to 'unpleasant features' enhance to photo to achieve that end and those who want to enhance good features do so also (air brushed models anyone?). However, that doesn't address the fact of whether one should 'buy' into the concept and base your opinions on candidates as a result of these photoshopped masterpieces.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Whoever created that image will come clear at some point. Until then the jury is still out. After all the NAFTA thing was mostly a manipulation by a third party. But in any case, I don't except Obama's campaign, to pin it on Hillary, although some of the more passionate supporters might.

And that's an important distinction. Such tactics should be condemned alone, separate from whether they are coming from Hillary's camp or from her supporters. Obama has taken the high road on such dirty politics. I hope he stays that way, but it sure is helping Hillary...or nobody would have bothered to spread that photo of Obama wearing traditional Somalian clothes.

[Peikko 1,575]

Apart from anything else, who really believes that darker means more evil/sinister? Surely that's an incredibly niave and outdated notion? I can say with absolute certainty that I have never made a decison on someone's personality based on the darkness or lightness of their skin and I am sure I am not the only one.

Ok, so you say there are people out there who might be swayed by this, but guess what? Are these the people who are going to vote for a black guy, regardless of how dark or light he might be? Seems unlikely but yet, here we are discussing how dreadful it all is. Honestly, it's pathetic.

Again, the lunacy of that notion, the Somalian clothes picture, is astounding. No one who would be influenced by that kind of picture would ever vote for the guy, end of story. This is simply silly.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So people who wish to draw attention to 'unpleasant features' enhance to photo to achieve that end and those who want to enhance good features do so also (air brushed models anyone?). However, that doesn't address the fact of whether one should 'buy' into the concept and base your opinions on candidates as a result of these photoshopped masterpieces.

Amen. I wholeheartedly agree! The problem, however, is that strategists know they can impress upon voters by tapping into their fears and prejudice, whether real or imagined. Advertising agencies know that impressions are effective. It would be nice if we actually lived out Dr. King's Dream, but unfortunately, we can be so easily impressed upon without even being aware that we are being influenced in our thinking. The reptilian part of our brains is alive and well.

[Dan J 277]

So people who wish to draw attention to 'unpleasant features' enhance to photo to achieve that end and those who want to enhance good features do so also (air brushed models anyone?). However, that doesn't address the fact of whether one should 'buy' into the concept and base your opinions on candidates as a result of these photoshopped masterpieces.

Right in advertising everything is manipulated. Take a look at a before and after photos from most model shoots.

But in politics, race and gender is the unspoken issue. Especially in this election. So anything that emphasizes those things, intentional, or not, is going to be scrutinized.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Apart from anything else, who really believes that darker means more evil/sinister? Surely that's an incredibly niave and outdated notion? I can say with absolute certainty that I have never made a decison on someone's personality based on the darkness or lightness of their skin and I am sure I am not the only one.

Ok, so you say there are people out there who might be swayed by this, but guess what? Are these the people who are going to vote for a black guy, regardless of how dark or light he might be? Seems unlikely but yet, here we are discussing how dreadful it all is. Honestly, it's pathetic.

Again, the lunacy of that notion, the Somalian clothes picture, is astounding. No one who would be influenced by that kind of picture would ever vote for the guy, end of story. This is simply silly.

It is lunacy...but it happens. Take a look below:

October 2005: This doctored photo of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeared alongside a USA Today news story about Rice's comments to U.S. Lawmakers regarding U.S. Troops in Iraq. After receiving complaints from readers, this photograph was removed from USA Today's website, and the following Editor's note appeared alongside 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.

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~farid/researc...gitaltampering/

[Peikko 1,575]

However, your contention is that these things have an effect regarding the democratic nomination so it would make sense for say Hilary to smear Obama with some 'darker' sinister pictures? If this was the presidential election and the right was playing for the middle ground, this might just work a little (I still think this tactic would have a very limited success rate). However, I will accept that there are people in the independant/middle right demographic who might still be influenced by something like that. However, the people who are voting for Barak as the nominee don't really fit into that category so how exactly does this affect his support and how does that help Hilary, honstly?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have to say that it sounds very dubious to me.

Anyone who needs reminding that Obama is black (as if its not obvious already) as a reason not to vote for him - via a darkened-for-effect photograph... Well... lets just say they aren't the kind of people who'd likely be voting for him in the first place.

Incidentally I can't find the link now - but I was reading an article on CNET about this - where it was suggested that this is a normal practice in commercial video production. Hell they use filters and saturation/desaturation in the post production in most movies. Its a stretch to suggest that there was some sort of malicious intent behind this.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Number 6

[metta 0]

However, your contention is that these things have an effect regarding the democratic nomination so it would make sense for say Hilary to smear Obama with some 'darker' sinister pictures? If this was the presidential election and the right was playing for the middle ground, this might just work a little (I still think this tactic would have a very limited success rate). However, I will accept that there are people in the independant/middle right demographic who might still be influenced by something like that. However, the people who are voting for Barak as the nominee don't really fit into that category so how exactly does this affect his support and how does that help Hilary, honstly?

Three am phone call ad notwithstanding, Hillary's campaign has been treating BO with kid gloves. Nothing compared to what's coming from Reps should he be the nominee.

Thi is just one example..source

[Peikko 1,575]

As I said, I think it's stupid to suggest this is coming from Hilary, either directly or indirectly. However, that this stuff is being promoted by the right with the obvious intention to create outrage amongst the left against each other. Divide and conquer springs to mind. The democrats should't play the game. They should simply ignore it and get on with the task at hand.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

(hopefully this might shed some light on this dark subject)

Photo Tampering Throughout History

Photography lost its innocence many years ago. In as early as the 1860s, photographs were already being manipulated, only a few decades after Niepce created the first photograph in 1814. With the advent of high-resolution digital cameras, powerful personal computers and sophisticated photo-editing software, the manipulation of digital images is becoming more common. Here, I have collected some examples of tampering throughout history.

To help contend with the implications of this tampering, we have developed a series of tools for detecting traces of tampering in digital images (contact me at Ma'at Consulting for more information about our software and services).

.....

June 1994: This digitally altered photograph of OJ Simpson appeared on the cover of Time magazine shortly after Simpson's arrest for murder. This photograph was manipulated from the original mug-shot that appeared, unaltered, on the cover of Newsweek. Time magazine was subsequently accused of manipulating the photograph to make Simpson appear "darker" and "menacing".

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~farid/researc...gitaltampering/

To be honest you don't even need to go that far - most of the time you don't even need to go to the trouble of photoshopping a picture to make the subject look sinister. For example, you don't tend to see photographs of serial killers or pedophiles where they're laughing or have a jolly smile on their face - its common practice to select pictures that makes the subject look the least sympathetic. Most of the time you don't even need to edit them to exaggerate it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said, I think it's stupid to suggest this is coming from Hilary, either directly or indirectly. However, that this stuff is being promoted by the right with the obvious intention to create outrage amongst the left against each other. Divide and conquer springs to mind. The democrats should't play the game. They should simply ignore it and get on with the task at hand.

There's an irony here of course - you frequently hear right-wingers banging on about the evils of political correctness, but this story is as good an example as any of politically correct "moral outrage".