Bush note picture Photoshopped

[ATFFL]

   
Embarrassing Bush Photo Exposes Reuters Contradiction

I would like to see the original Photo District News article on this, but their website seems to be down.

Reuters claims that the memo was unchanged in photoshop, just cleaned up and enhanced.  I would like to see the original, untouched picture.

Either way, the picture is hilarious.

[MODU]

They say the image was overexposed, so they cleaned it up and zoomed in on the text, but that the text was not altered.

[J. J.]

Can anybody say, "Memogate, Part 2?"

[ATFFL]

Can anybody say, "Memogate, Part 2?"

No, because, from the beginning, this was nothing but a laugh.

[J. J.]

Can anybody say, "Memogate, Part 2?"

No, because, from the beginning, this was nothing but a laugh.

It does illustrate both the depths of left's desperation and the gullibility of some of them.

[TheresNoMoney]

It does illustrate both the depths of left's desperation and the gullibility of some of them.

The content of the photo is not in question.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It does illustrate both the depths of left's desperation and the gullibility of some of them.

The content of the photo is not in question.

J.J can't read. He thinks that the Washington Post using lying right-wing talking points about when Blanco declared an emergency (which they retracted) isn't a big deal, but whether someone may have increased the contrast in this photo is.

[J. J.]

It does illustrate both the depths of left's desperation and the gullibility of some of them.

The content of the photo is not in question.

Actually, there is now some question that it has been.

[J. J.]

It does illustrate both the depths of left's desperation and the gullibility of some of them.

The content of the photo is not in question.

J.J can't read. He thinks that the Washington Post using lying right-wing talking points about when Blanco declared an emergency (which they retracted) isn't a big deal, but whether someone may have increased the contrast in this photo is.

Considering I posted the link noting the retraction, a link to one of the prime on-line sources for confirming these types of things, it is less of a deal.

JFRAUD, you gullibility might be showing.

[Gabu]

It's a hilarious picture, and I honestly can't really see what the big deal is even if is real.  It's not "Memogate II" because I can't really see what the picture is attempting to allege.

[ATFFL]

It's a hilarious picture, and I honestly can't really see what the big deal is even if is real.  It's not "Memogate II" because I can't really see what the picture is attempting to allege.

Exactly.  What is the scandal if Bush needs to go to the bathroom?  Do Democrat Presidents not pee or something?

It is noteworthy, though, if a Photoshopped picture got put ou tas genuine by a supposedly reputable wire service.

[J. J.]

It is noteworthy, though, if a Photoshopped picture got put ou tas genuine by a supposedly reputable wire service.

That is my particular complaint; if one of the oldest news services in the world could do this, isn't this basically the same as "The Tiffany Network" running something inaccurate.

[Gabu]

Regarding this story itself, I can't immediately see anything that says that the content of this note itself was forged, only that Photoshop was used to make the words more legible, which is not exactly "doctoring" the photo.  "To doctor" an object is defined by the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as "To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself".  Simply making the picture readable does not exactly make its content more favorable to oneself.  Neither this article nor any other that I can find says that the actual content of the photo was forged.

I really can't see what the issue is over any portion of this story.

[J. J.]

Regarding this story itself, I can't immediately see anything that says that the content of this note itself was forged, only that Photoshop was used to make the words more legible, which is not exactly "doctoring" the photo.  "To doctor" an object is defined by the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as "To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself".  Simply making the picture readable does not exactly make its content more favorable to oneself.  Neither this article nor any other that I can find says that the actual content of the photo was forged.

I really can't see what the issue is over any portion of this story.

How much changing was done to the photo?  Did it make it something that was obscure clearer or did it change what was there?  I am very troubled that a major news service would possibly change a photo.

I'll add that, on this thread at least, I have not used the word "doctored."  We know that image has been altered, but has it changed the the content of the photo.

[Alcon]

Regarding this story itself, I can't immediately see anything that says that the content of this note itself was forged, only that Photoshop was used to make the words more legible, which is not exactly "doctoring" the photo.  "To doctor" an object is defined by the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as "To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself".  Simply making the picture readable does not exactly make its content more favorable to oneself.  Neither this article nor any other that I can find says that the actual content of the photo was forged.

I really can't see what the issue is over any portion of this story.

How much changing was done to the photo?  Did it make it something that was obscure clearer or did it change what was there?  I am very troubled that a major news service would possibly change a photo.

I'll add that, on this thread at least, I have not used the word "doctored."  We know that image has been altered, but has it changed the the content of the photo.

I know of no professional photographers who do not adjust their photos before publishing them, especially with a photo that isn't entirely clear but is otherwise a very good photo, like this one.

[J. J.]

Regarding this story itself, I can't immediately see anything that says that the content of this note itself was forged, only that Photoshop was used to make the words more legible, which is not exactly "doctoring" the photo.  "To doctor" an object is defined by the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as "To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself".  Simply making the picture readable does not exactly make its content more favorable to oneself.  Neither this article nor any other that I can find says that the actual content of the photo was forged.

I really can't see what the issue is over any portion of this story.

How much changing was done to the photo?  Did it make it something that was obscure clearer or did it change what was there?  I am very troubled that a major news service would possibly change a photo.

I'll add that, on this thread at least, I have not used the word "doctored."  We know that image has been altered, but has it changed the the content of the photo.

I know of no professional photographers who do not adjust their photos before publishing them, especially with a photo that isn't entirely clear but is otherwise a very good photo, like this one.

How much "adjustment" was done?  The back of the head is blurry while the note is crystal clear.

[Alcon]

Regarding this story itself, I can't immediately see anything that says that the content of this note itself was forged, only that Photoshop was used to make the words more legible, which is not exactly "doctoring" the photo.  "To doctor" an object is defined by the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as "To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself".  Simply making the picture readable does not exactly make its content more favorable to oneself.  Neither this article nor any other that I can find says that the actual content of the photo was forged.

I really can't see what the issue is over any portion of this story.

How much changing was done to the photo?  Did it make it something that was obscure clearer or did it change what was there?  I am very troubled that a major news service would possibly change a photo.

I'll add that, on this thread at least, I have not used the word "doctored."  We know that image has been altered, but has it changed the the content of the photo.

I know of no professional photographers who do not adjust their photos before publishing them, especially with a photo that isn't entirely clear but is otherwise a very good photo, like this one.

How much "adjustment" was done?  The back of the head is blurry while the note is crystal clear.

I'm not a photographer, but that could simply be a matter of focus, quite easily.

[J. J.]

Regarding this story itself, I can't immediately see anything that says that the content of this note itself was forged, only that Photoshop was used to make the words more legible, which is not exactly "doctoring" the photo.  "To doctor" an object is defined by the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition as "To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself".  Simply making the picture readable does not exactly make its content more favorable to oneself.  Neither this article nor any other that I can find says that the actual content of the photo was forged.

I really can't see what the issue is over any portion of this story.

How much changing was done to the photo?  Did it make it something that was obscure clearer or did it change what was there?  I am very troubled that a major news service would possibly change a photo.

I'll add that, on this thread at least, I have not used the word "doctored."  We know that image has been altered, but has it changed the the content of the photo.

I know of no professional photographers who do not adjust their photos before publishing them, especially with a photo that isn't entirely clear but is otherwise a very good photo, like this one.

How much "adjustment" was done?  The back of the head is blurry while the note is crystal clear.

I'm not a photographer, but that could simply be a matter of focus, quite easily.

Of course by in "cleaning up" the focus on the note, did they change the text?  We know that this is not the photo that came out of the camera.  Now maybe it is an accurate depiction or maybe it isn't.  We know that it is not the same depiction that originally came out of the camera.

[MODU]

Like we discovered earlier, the text on the top of the note is different than the text the author is writing (assuming it is Bush). With that being the case, someone else wrote the question, not Bush.

[RBH]

So Bush wrote "Is that possible?" as a reply to "I think I may have to go to the bathroom?"

[MODU]

So Bush wrote "Is that possible?" as a reply to "I think I may have to go to the bathroom?"

That's the way it looks.

[7,052,770]

I don't see how this is significant, whether it's real, enhanced, or doctored.....it's a funny picture real or not, and of course he or any other human has to go to the bathroom at some point.
Just laugh that it was captured on film and stop trying to make a serious deal about it...

[J. J.]

I don't see how this is significant, whether it's real, enhanced, or doctored.....it's a funny picture real or not, and of course he or any other human has to go to the bathroom at some point.
Just laugh that it was captured on film and stop trying to make a serious deal about it...

It isn't "serious deal" if you or I make a photo and pass it as a joke.  It is a big deal if a news agency does.

[Joe Republic]

I've seen the same shot from two different angles, which means there are at least two different photos of the note.  When they talk about 'photoshopping' in this case, they aren't deliberately altering the text of the note - they're simply making it easier to read by changing the brightness/contrast, and finetuning the focus.

There's no political motivation behind it all - it's just a funny photo that highlights the fact that the President is actually human.

[Citizen James]

FWIW, Snopes considers it to be factual.

Keep in mind that as POTUS, and involved in a formal function (that is, the UN meeting) he can't just get up and walk out looking for the nearest bathroom.  There are matters of protocol to consider, making sure nobody is offended by his departure.  Then there's logistics - his secret service detail isn't going to let him go alone, and they have to make sure the bathroom is secure before he uses it.

I see no reason to doubt the veracity of the photo based soley on the inuendo of a partisan website.   It is certainly highly plausable, and Bush has the same bodily needs as everyone else; but has quite a few complicating factors getting in the way of natures call (diplomatic courtisy, securty), and reuiters has a solid reputation.