Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« I miss habeas corpus... | Main | Inappropriate places to put coffee »

September 29, 2006

Hivemind: Real or Photoshopped?


spring break, originally uploaded by yeowoman1970.

Michelle Malkin says this picture is a composite.

What do you think?

Update: It's officially a fake. Check it out and see if you were right about what was convincing or unconvincing in the picture.

A lot of people said the head was too small to be real, but the real woman's head isn't any bigger than the Michelle head appears to be in the picture.

Julia now my Photoshop sensei. She nailed what was wrong with the picture in the first five minutes: Gaussian noise added but not faded back and inconsistent compression artifacts in the face vs. body.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c61e653ef00d8346fa04869e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hivemind: Real or Photoshopped? :

» A personal aside from Michelle Malkin
Every weekday morning, after I get my kids dressed and fed and off and running for the day, I sit down in my home office to blog, write columns, manage Hot Air, and juggle duties as a Fox News contributor.... [Read More]

Comments

I say fake. Head is too small, neck tendons look too relaxed for head angle, too much magenta in the face, lighting is harsher on face than body, hairlines are more blurred than rest of the pic.

A real pic could have any of these mismatches, but probably not all.

This image has almost certainly been retouched with photoshop:

Look just to the right (1/4") of the top of her head: on the wall are the tell-tale patterns made by photoshop's wonderful rubber-stamp tool, to fill in new sections of wall. It almost looks like a drop of water falling in a pool.

(Perhaps there was a different, larger head there, or even someone standing behind her, with his/her head peaking out just to the right of 'michelle's')

This pattern is also visible on her right thigh, just above the knee; not sure what to think of that.

This is not to say that the 'michelle' is real or unreal, only that the photo HAS been altered digitally.

This is so wrong.

Hey, I didn't make the 7:49 comment. I wish I'd written this, though.

There is no way to know. This image doesn't have enough information. Only someone knowing the history of the image can possibly make a judgement about its truthfulness. If the image was provided through anonymous channels then we will never know the truth of it.

Indeed, you didn't write the 7:49 comment, Sven...My apologies for the misidentification.

Sven: I wish I'd written this, though.

Wow. "this" -- Wonkette's followup to Malkin's complaints about the apparently-forged picture -- has all the style and grace of Ann Althouse's follow-up post about Jessica Valenti's breasts.

Definitely a composite. Good texture matching, but her head is too small!

Michelle Malkin can go to hell. She deserves neither style nor grace, only mockery. She spends her life making other lives miserable.

If you believe the Wonkette post is on par with her record of slander, racism and viciousness, then you can go to hell as well.

If you believe the Wonkette post is on par with her record of slander, racism and viciousness, then you can go to hell as well.

If you believe the Wonkette post is better than Althouse's, then you and your partisan stupidity can go to FSM hell (which is a lot more depressing than the Christian hell).

This is an obvious fake. Those "fooled" are those whose judgment is clouded by their wish to catch Malkin being a hypocrite. Or they are simply thick. Frankly even if the photo was real she wouldn't necessarily be a hypocrite if the photo was 14 years old. I lurk here and post comments oh so rarely, but I am a little surprised to find such a vacuous post.

I can't believe some people here actually think the photos are real. They were stolen from someone else's site (so not only is Ms. Malkin a victim here, so is the poor girl who's photos were stolen... ), photoshopped, and put on a different photo site. It's sad, pathetic, and slimy.

I blog about photography and Photoshop. I have several readers who use Photoshop professionally and I was curious about their opinions regarding the picture.

The reason I brought it up was because I was curious about the merits of the arguments for and against its authenticity. I first heard about the picture in a private email exchange between several self-described Photoshop geeks who couldn't agree about whether it was altered or not.

So far on this thread we've had people with qualifications ranging from expert to amateur. The spectrum of opinion has ranged from definite fake to agnostic to definitely real.

I don't understand why readers are criticizing me for asking the question.

I don't know about Alan and Bill Hooker, but I wasn't attacking you. I was attacking Sven for praising a Wonkette hatchet job.

"The reason I brought it up was because I was curious about the merits of the arguments for and against its authenticity."

Are you still defending the authenticity of the Rathergate memos? Say, there's a thought for you. Maybe it IS photoshpped, but what if it "really looks like her," eh Lindsay? Go for it!!

Repellent.

Are you people trying to help Bush? Really. I mean that. Take me, as a minor, minor, trivial case. I have had serious misgivngs and second thoughts about the war and Bush., etc. He screwed up. Totally. So I'm ready to vote Dem. I honestly am. But then, ... to help even partially empower people like you? *ugh ugh ugh*

All your side needs to do is give some minor sign that you're slightly more honorable than Bush's crew. That's all it would.

The reason I brought it up was because I was curious about the merits of the arguments for and against its authenticity.

Heh heh. I'm shocked to find that people are saying nasty things about that lovely Ms. Malkin. I don't feel this photo is inflammatory at all, and it sure wouldn't bother me if people were falsifying photos in order to brand me a hypocrite. What is all the fuss?

You'll notice I merely asked the question. How is that unethical?

Obviously fake.. if this is the best that the left can come up with to attack a solid conservative then I have no worries. Honestly, a bikini shot? come on now...

"All your side needs to do is give some minor sign that your slightly more honorable than Bush's crew. That's all it would (take)."

So, the swing voters are really looking to "Majikthise"- that's some responsibility!! Well, the others will have to speak for themselves, but here's the case for me, one liberal voter: I'm generally very kind to children and small animals, dislike child molesters and never try to cheat my way into the express line. In addition, I don't believe in unprovoked military invasions, testing pesticides on poor children, leaving future generations with a ruined enviroment and stratospheric tax bill, or gutting the U.S. Constitution in favor of an idealized Man on Horseback. I should also add, perhaps, that I'm not prone to embarassing myself with displays of faux moral outrage over ludicrously trivial matters.

Did I mention I'm usually very respectful when speaking to the mentally challenged?

Weak-ass, amateur photo-chop. Michelle Malkin is about 5'3", this girl is about 5'8" or better. The head looks tiny on that body and the angle from which her head appears is obtuse; it doesn't fit. Even the skintone of the face doesn't match. This is typical liberal smear merchandise. Like I always say: "Conservatives hate what people do; Liberals hate who people are."

Conservatives hate what people do

For instance, Michelle Malkin hates WWII-era Japanese-Americans for what they did, which was having the sheer effrontery to reside within America's borders. If they had only had the simple decency to leave en masse, there would have been no need to round them up and throw them into camps.

ALL of the controversy about Church amd Malkin and the pictures proof one and only one thing...human beings are still stupid monkeys, ready to fling poop at each other at the tiniest provocation.

Anyone involved with all this should be ashamed of themselves, but alas, they obvioulsy lack the intelligence and the humanity to do so.

As for the bikini pic...ANYONE who has seen Malkin in any format on any show or from any picture would recognize immediately the phot is such a blindingly obvious forgery. The bikini girls arms a WAY too big.. Stupid that anyone would give credence to this, including Michelle.

All your side needs to do is give some minor sign that you're slightly more honorable than Bush's crew. That's all it would.

Where were the Alan Bosticks when Althouse said Jessica was a slut?

In this thread, I counted three people who think this whole episode is a farce, and one who really does think the picture says something about Malkin. Obviously this balance is different on Wonkette, but which conservative blog that dealt with Ann Althouse/Jessica Valenti had a 3-to-1 balance in favor of Jessica?

But then, ... to help even partially empower people like you?

Overall, as far as I can tell the persuasion effect on this blog overwhelms the turnoff effect. Lindsay's good at constructing convincing arguments - probably even better than I am.

Again, that's just Majikthise. The big Democratic blogs - Kos, MyDD, Atrios, FDL - are something else.

I think it is unethical to present a falsified photo that has the effect of falsely defaming someone without that person's permission. I am unable to imagine how magic thighs herself does not see this. Oh the sophistry!

I found the picture on Michelle's blog!

The comments to this entry are closed.