• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Pelosi borrowing from Iran's photoshop play book

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
28,231
10,922
136
lol. typical lefty sheep in this thread.

is this a huge outrage. no. but that doesn't mean its ok.

Is it only worth pointing out huge outrages?
There is nothing wrong with what was done. Four people couldn't be there for the photo op so they were shooped in with their permission. The photo isn't claiming that "these people were in this exact spot at this exact time" it is claiming "these are the current female members of congress." There is nothing untrue about the latter statement.
 

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
I find it rather amusing that you dumbasses are actually outraged by this. Haha. I know the butthurt was bad after Romney got donkey punched out of the White House, but common, seriously?
 

MixMasterTang

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,153
161
106
I would say if under the picture it said "All of these women were on this step at this very moment in time" it is not historically accurate. If it says "All of these women were in politics in 2013" it would be considered historically accurate.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
2
0
There is nothing wrong with what was done. Four people couldn't be there for the photo op so they were shooped in with their permission. The photo isn't claiming that "these people were in this exact spot at this exact time" it is claiming "these are the current female members of congress." There is nothing untrue about the latter statement.
um, that is exactly what it is doing. It is, after all, a picture.

Sigurros81 what I find rather amusing is how angry some of you seem to be over the thread. Why so injured? I think what she did was wrong but I'm not weeping over my keyboard over the matter--why are you? Please don't have a stroke over this.
 

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
um, that is exactly what it is doing. It is, after all, a picture.

Sigurros81 what I find rather amusing is how angry some of you seem to be over the thread. Why so injured? I think what she did was wrong but I'm not weeping over my keyboard over the matter--why are you? Please don't have a stroke over this.
ORLY? With an attention baiting topic title and...maybe you should read your first post again, you sound like a drama queen. And where am I angry exactly? Anger not found, sarcasm a plenty, I'll agree...scrub.
 

JoLLyRoGer

Diamond Member
Aug 24, 2000
4,154
4
81
I think the bigger outrage here is how shitty that photoshop was done!! I mean look at the 4 women in the rear! It's obvious! That or the fact they were all standing on 2ft stilts was the intended effect!

This is the best Congress could afford!! Oh the humanity!:D
 

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
I think the bigger outrage here is how shitty that photoshop was done!! I mean look at the 4 women in the rear! It's obvious! That or the fact they were all standing on 2ft stilts was the intended effect!

This is the best Congress could afford!! :D
Sometimes it's kind of hard to get the perspective right when all you have to work with are a bunch of latecomers and the photographer have to try his best to replicate the same perspective and lighting of the main photo.
 

JoLLyRoGer

Diamond Member
Aug 24, 2000
4,154
4
81
....and in other news, scientists in North Dakota have found a new string of algae that, when given to frogs who consume honey bees, reduces indigestion by 50%.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
2
0
ORLY? With an attention baiting topic title and...maybe you should read your first post again, you sound like a drama queen. And where am I angry exactly? Anger not found, sarcasm a plenty, I'll agree...scrub.
Yes, there you are. Bust out the personal attacks, well on your way to raging. Certainly my umbrage at Pelosi is magnitudes less than whatever issues you're having with a complete stranger talking about it online. Do you need a hug?

Mixmastertang I would be happy to humor your question if you can illuminate how an obvious farce image should be compared to one that isn't.
 

MixMasterTang

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2001
3,153
161
106
Yes, there you are. Bust out the personal attacks, well on your way to raging. Certainly my umbrage at Pelosi is magnitudes less than whatever issues you're having with a complete stranger talking about it online. Do you need a hug?

Mixmastertang I would be happy to humor your question if you can illuminate how an obvious farce image should be compared to one that isn't.
Okay, let me try this another way. Before camera's were invented many historical events were represented with paintings and drawings which would differ from an actual photograph if taken at the same time. Even current days there are artist renditions of court rooms, etc. In your book are those not historically accurate as well?
 

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
Yes, there you are. Bust out the personal attacks, well on your way to raging. Certainly my umbrage at Pelosi is magnitudes less than whatever issues you're having with a complete stranger talking about it online. Do you need a hug?

Mixmastertang I would be happy to humor your question if you can illuminate how an obvious farce image should be compared to one that isn't.
Don't get your panties in a wad, I said you sound like a drama queen in your original post, didn't say you're one, because, you are right, I don't know you outside of what you post.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
2
0
You aren't serious, right? Photographs have 150 year precedence as being more historically reliable than a painting. You know this. I think whatever point you're trying to make you are ill serving it if you mean to imply that wantonly playin around with photographs, constructing scenes that never happened, is somehow now a valid form of relaying history.
 

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
You aren't serious, right? Photographs have 150 year precedence as being more historically reliable than a painting. You know this. I think whatever point you're trying to make you are ill serving it if you mean to imply that wantonly playin around with photographs, constructing scenes that never happened, is somehow now a valid form of relaying history.
Calm down there. You don't know much about photography and the development process it seems.
 
Last edited:

Theb

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
3,533
8
76
I think it's pretty obvious that Pelosi is covering for Obama here. What did he know and when did he know it?! Watch for Pelosi to come down with "breast cancer" or some other crazy made up disease as soon as the hearings start.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
There is nothing wrong with what was done. Four people couldn't be there for the photo op so they were shooped in with their permission. The photo isn't claiming that "these people were in this exact spot at this exact time" it is claiming "these are the current female members of congress." There is nothing untrue about the latter statement.
wow.

talk about political spin.

photos claim exactly this "these people were in this exact spot at this exact time" thats what a photo is.
 

sigurros81

Platinum Member
Nov 30, 2010
2,371
0
0
I think it's pretty obvious that Pelosi is covering for Obama here. What did he know and when did he know it?! Watch for Pelosi to come down with "breast cancer" or some other crazy made up disease as soon as the hearings start.
My guess is that it's Pelosi's way of covering up the whole Benghazi deal. Those 4 women were photoshopped in to cover incriminating evidence that Obama staged the Benghazi attack sitting on those steps.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY