Bush note picture Photoshopped

[J. J.]

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.

My problems are that, first, it has been altered, and it's not clear how much it has been altered.  Second, it does not appear to GWB's handwriting. 

Normally, I prefer looking at news services like Reuters, but this raises a question of if someone has altered the photo.  Presidents, as James 42 pointed out, do need to go to the bathroom, but what if this photo's content has been changed?  That is profoundly disturbing.

[Gabu]

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 that you didn't use the word "doctored", but the site linked to in the original post does do so and then goes on to say that official policy is to fire anyone who doctors a photo; I am saying that altering it by simply making the content more visible is not doctoring a photo, and therefore, is not in conflict with that official policy, and therefore, that the allegation that this is a contradiction is false.

I'll note again that nowhere has it been alleged that the content has been changed.  Until I see some actual evidence that it may have been changed, I currently simply feel that there is no reason to think that it has.  It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with simply making a picture clearer.  For the record, the "burn" feature in Adobe Photoshop does not add anything; it simply uses what is already there and tones it down.

[J. J.]

I'll note again that nowhere has it been alleged that the content has been changed.  Until I see some actual evidence that it may have been changed, I currently simply feel that there is no reason to think that it has.  It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with simply making a picture clearer.  For the record, the "burn" feature in Adobe Photoshop does not add anything; it simply uses what is already there and tones it down.

Okay, why not release the original photo in its "unenhanced" form?

[MODU]

I'll note again that nowhere has it been alleged that the content has been changed.  Until I see some actual evidence that it may have been changed, I currently simply feel that there is no reason to think that it has.  It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with simply making a picture clearer.  For the record, the "burn" feature in Adobe Photoshop does not add anything; it simply uses what is already there and tones it down.

Okay, why not release the original photo in its "unenhanced" form?

Because it would probably never make it to print, since it lacks "substance."

[Gabu]

I'll note again that nowhere has it been alleged that the content has been changed.  Until I see some actual evidence that it may have been changed, I currently simply feel that there is no reason to think that it has.  It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with simply making a picture clearer.  For the record, the "burn" feature in Adobe Photoshop does not add anything; it simply uses what is already there and tones it down.

Okay, why not release the original photo in its "unenhanced" form?

Well, I can't answer that without seeing the original photo.  Presumably, the text would have been very hard to read, if legible at all.

[J. J.]

I'll note again that nowhere has it been alleged that the content has been changed.  Until I see some actual evidence that it may have been changed, I currently simply feel that there is no reason to think that it has.  It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with simply making a picture clearer.  For the record, the "burn" feature in Adobe Photoshop does not add anything; it simply uses what is already there and tones it down.

Okay, why not release the original photo in its "unenhanced" form?

Well, I can't answer that without seeing the original photo.  Presumably, the text would have been very hard to read, if legible at all.

Well, it it give us a chance to compare it to the published one.  We could look at all texts and see if some match can be determined.

[© tweed]

yawn!

[ATFFL]

Sheesh.  I had no idea this would start a firestorm like this.

I would like to see the originals, just for the sake of seeing them at this point.

This is a non-story, no matter what.  I would just like it if the wire services would let us know which pictures are enhanced and which are not.