canyonwalker: My other car is a pair of hiking boots (in beauty I walk)
On our last full day in New Zealand we drove out to the coast west of New Zealand to hike some waterfalls and visit the beaches. I posted yesterday how Karekare Beach wasn't that great on a day with crummy weather. Well, the next beach we visited, Piha Beach, was better... about as "better" as can be given it was still cloudy and cool. Oh, and windy. Windy as all hell! But hellish wind actually made it kind of interesting.

A sentinel rock over Piha Beach in New Zealand (Apr 2024)

From a certain angle Piha Beach looks like a normal beach. There's a grassy sand dune, and beyond it is a sentinel rock rising up at the water's edge.

What's hellish about Piha Beach— well, the first thing that's hellish about it— is the black sand.

Black sand at Piha Beach in New Zealand (Apr 2024)

Include the black sand in your picture frame and all of a sudden your mind (and camera) can't adjust the colors to look like a normal beach. Now you've got this... emo beach. Or maybe it's a goth beach.

But then the wind blows and it turns into a science fiction beach.



What do I mean, "science fiction beach"? It's a beach that looks like a post-apocalyptic wasteland, with yellowish-brown dust blowing over charred ground. Oh, and the wind's so strong people struggle to stand up straight in it, as you can see with the folks crossing ahead of me in this short video.

In beauty I walk... even when it does look kind of like a post-nuclear holocaust movie.


canyonwalker: wiseguy (Default)
There's been quite an uproar in the press over the last several days about a manipulated photo of Princess Kate and her kids. Kensington Palace released the photo a week ago to combat rumors that the Princess of Wales, who's not been seen in public since abdominal surgery, is in ill health or even dead. The picture shows her happy and healthy with her 3 children.

Manipulated photo of Kate Middleton and family from Kensington Palace (Mar 2024)The uproar over this seemingly innocuous photograph arose quickly. Numerous photographers and digital image editors online quickly spotted small artifacts in the picture indicating it had been manipulated— or "photoshopped", as many call it.

In this particular picture all the artifacts are small. There's nothing so obvious here as a person with a third hand (because one was digitally added to the picture) or a curved doorway in the background (where someone "bent" the image, e.g., to make someone look curvier or slimmer). But still, it's become a scandal. "Water-Kate," some are quipping. Everyone from celebrities to even The Onion are bagging on Kate. In fact The Onion offers satirical recommendations from celebrities on how to 'shop better (12 Mar 2024).

Lost in the shuffle amid all the jeering and laughter is the reality of just how common "photoshopping" is in photography.

The term "photoshopping", BTW, refers to Adobe Photoshop, a powerful image manipulation tool published by Adobe. Photoshop has been common in industry for a long time. I started using it personally 30 years ago as a graduate student in 2D/3D computer imaging.

Pretty much all professional images you see online or in print have been processed through Photoshop or a tool like it. A good many image shared by amateurs have been "photoshopped", too. Virtually every image I publish in my blog has been touched up in Photoshop. Does being literally "photoshopped" mean they're all fake?

Just because an image has gone through Photoshop does not mean it is fake. There have been a number of interesting posts about that on X this week by Pete Souza, a respected pro photographer who worked in the Obama whitehouse. Souza took some of the most iconic photos of Obama during his time in office, including the famous photo in the Situation Room of the president and his team receiving live updates of Seal Team Six apprehending Osama Bin Laden. His thoughts are nicely summarized in a recent Buzzfeed article (15 Mar 2024).

As Souza explains, it's pretty much de rigeur for photographers to touch up pics by brightening or darkening, fixing highlights and shadows, and adjusting color balance. BTW, these are all modifications that could be done back in the days of film and paper photography, though they were very time consuming and required more skill than needed today with software like Photoshop. And for decades publishers have, correctly, accepted these alterations as reasonable.

Where publishers drawn the line on "Photoshopping" pics is adding, removing, or changing content from the image. Well, some publishers do that. In photojournalism it's not okay to remove an unwanted person from an image or edit the subject to make them look taller, slimmer, or curvier. In advertising, though... well, it's pretty much the rule that parts of the image have been faked to sell better.

In my own pics I do all of the things Souza talks about as normal. I adjust brightness levels and color curves. I also sharpen virtually all of my pics. That's because I keep in-camera sharpening set low as I don't particularly like it. Moreover, I apply sharpening anyway after resizing pics for online.

I also occasionally do the things Souza describes as no-nos for photojournalism: I edit out, or alter the shape of, people in the pics! I did that in one of the pics I shared earlier today from our hike at Flag Hill. Hawk was in one of the pics, a small figure in a wide shot, and her appearance was both distracting and unflattering. Since she was a small element of the pic I was able to edit her out pretty easily— by knowing what to do with Photoshop— and we both agreed the pic was better as a result.
canyonwalker: Uh-oh, physics (Wile E. Coyote)
I used to be a big fan of The Onion, an online satire newspaper, years ago. I remember looking forward to new editions published online every Wednesday. Several years ago I stopped reading it because it had gotten... well, I don't think stale is the right word, though it had gotten a bit stale. The real problem was that current events in the US were getting so ridiculous, so absurd with obvious things that moneyed interests or political interests were clearly gaslighting us on, that attempts to write satire became unfunny. When the real news is full of leaders making a mockery of the truth— i.e., lying— with straight faces, there's no satire anymore.

Today I found a link in the news to an article in The Onion that reminds me of the classics of old. In fact it is old. It was originally published in 2013... and has been republished multiple dozen times since then. I checked on their website, and sure enough there's a new version of it today:

The Onion has been re-running this story after every mass shooting in the US for 9 years (screenshot Jan 2023)

The Onion re-publishes this article after many mass shootings in the US, changing only the byline and a few key words about where it occurred. Today's it about a shooting in Half Moon Bay, California, on Monday that killed 7 people.

The bulk of the article the The Onion keeps the same every time:

[C]itizens living in the only country where this kind of mass killing routinely occurs reportedly concluded Tuesday that there was no way to prevent the massacre from taking place. “This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said New Hampshire resident Lisa Martin, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations. “It’s a shame, but what can we do? There really wasn’t anything that was going to keep this individual from snapping and killing a lot of people if that’s what they really wanted.” At press time, residents of the only economically advanced nation in the world where roughly two mass shootings have occurred every month for the past eight years were referring to themselves and their situation as “helpless.”

Sometimes, sadly, the most powerful satire is the bare truth.

Though there's one thing they get wrong in the article. They note mass shootings occur twice a month. The true number is more, way more. Mass shootings occur in the US on average at least once a day.


[Updated 25 Jan 2023 for spelling, clarity, and accuracy.]

Profile

canyonwalker: wiseguy (Default)
canyonwalker

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 6th, 2025 04:39 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios