Here, I've straightened it up in iPhoto, using the vertical and horizontal lines of the building, which took about 3 seconds:
Why would the NYT publish a picture that's so demonstrably off (and in such a conspicuous place)? Are they trying to heighten disquietude? Is it a way of ascribing more weight to Romney? Perhaps there's a journalistic ethics rule against doing anything to change a news photograph, but then why wasn't the photographer the NYT relied on to position herself to get this shot able to keep her camera straight?
The photographer is Hilary Swift. Here is her website. There are some nice photographs there, and indeed, her picture of Trump and Romney is excellent. I like the way Trump is in the background but in focus (unlike Romney) and Trump's head is framed by the corner of the door. I like the centrality of Trump's upraised hand. The distance between the 2 men is exquisite negative space. Romney's right shoulder is aligned with the American flag. Pillars are strong but almost invisible staking out the edges. Romney's face is a complex mixture of pride and sheepishness.
I like it all. Great picture. I just don't understand why it isn't straightened out. Is it possible to argue that the slant gives a dynamism to the image, a feeling that gravity assists the push of Trump's hand as Romney slips away? It doesn't work for me, because all those visible lines of the door, the steps, and the pillars makes me conscious of the tilt. If you want to do things subliminally, I'm not supposed to notice.
पोस्ट्स
१४५ टिप्पण्या:
Leftward slant, no doubt.
This stuff doesn't happen by accident. The message is "chaos" The same as when Creamer, who met with Obama dozens of times, and went to the White House hundreds of times, sent thugs to Trump rallies to foment violence and create an "atmosphere of chaos."
It was an interesting exercise to examine Trump's communication style and wonder why it was working so well. Trump is either two standard deviations smarter than me, or the luckiest son of a bitch alive, so I find that interesting anyway, but now there is something else going on, a concerted effort to undermine Trump through propaganda that almost seems directed from a war room.
If it wasn't the effect she wanted, she would have discarded the picture. It is an amateur level mistake, she is a competent photographer at the top of her profession, so it's not a mistake.
Althouse said heighten...
Dutch Tilt “can be used for dramatic effect and helps portray unease, disorientation, frantic or desperate action, intoxication, madness, etc,”
When it comes to reading the New York Times, only the most gullible and Democrats are not Kremlinologists. Republicans read to to try and figure out what they are trying to say, Democrats read it to know what to think.
To be fair, it might have been the photography editor and not the photographer.
Quite the takedown of the NYT by Althouse.
My first reading of the picture is that it is meant to evoke God banishing Adam from Eden.
I can't see the difference.
Shoddy work, lack of journalistic standards.
I'm not sure what was in the minds of the biased editors of the NYTimes but they were trying to do something harmful toward Trump and Romney and like most of the stuff they pulled this election cycle, it will go to strengthen Trump instead. This will confound them but they will continue to do it because they can't help themselves.
Here is her website.
2nd pic: "Billion Godsun" expresses his outrage at the outcome of the George Zimmerman trail
Is there a George Zimmerman Memorial Trail somewhere that's in outrageously poor condition?
The pic also has the fish trick. Hold a caught fish at arm's length towards the camera and it will appear larger than it actually is. Thus Romney appears taller in comparison to Trump.
A fake picture in the fake news NYT.
War on Trump!
I can't see any difference between the two pictures. Please explain what was "straightened up".
Is it a way of ascribing more weight to Romney?
I dunno......seems Trump could lose a few pounds around the waist.
why wasn't the photographer the NYT relied on to position herself to get this shot able to keep her camera straight?
Marguerites? Fracking?
I also did not notice the "slant."
Who was the photographer who took the famous "evil" photo of McCain ? Was that her ?
That was Jill Greenberg.
"Here, I've straightened it up in iPhoto, using the vertical and horizontal lines of the building, which took about 3 seconds..."
Shoulda taken 4, it's still not straight.
Allen S, look at the " lines"in the top photo, like the door frame, then look at the edge of the photo. In relation to the photo's edge, you can see the "tilt" of objects that have straight lines.
German/Nordic minds default to frames of balanced right angles. If you let them decorate your room, they will put the accessories into balanced pairs at right angles. When you see curves and contrasts of sizes you are seeing Greek and Italian minds making beauty over making Order.
The Times now wants us to feel that damn Trump turns everything into a big mess. He needs hierachy discipline, like only a EU/World Government can provide.
To add dynamism, a pronounced slant is needed. When horizons and uprights are off by just a degree or two, the effect isn't dynamic, it's vaguely wrong and mildly annoying or disquieting.
"Perhaps there's a journalistic ethics rule against doing anything to change a news photograph"
I laughed out loud.
I like it all. Great picture. I just don't understand why it isn't straightened out.
Sure you Althouse. Some editor at The New Times saw it and said to himself/herself, "the photo is slanted, but why should I lift a finger to help that racist Trump? I'll do nothing"
That's how bureaucracies work, that's how Leftists work, that's how journalists work.
"making beauty over making Order." Since it is Sunday, I invite everyone to think deeply about that.
That picture was worth a blog post? Oh my, straight lines that are completely level is imperative for an ordered society! Ja voll!
A subliminal nudge to get us to associate Trump with the villains of the old "Batman" TV series.
Thanks, Karen. Now, I see the difference, but does the slant mean anything beyond what happens when most people take a picture? How many people noticed the slant?
How about "NY Times derangement syndrome"?
We have a slanted photo and from that the Trump supporters weave this narrative about making Trump look bad. Or Romney. Or something.
You don't have to make things up; it's there.
Somebody at a play says something to Pence and you go nuts. Trump is supposed to be the tough guy, the guy who would take on PC thinking and the SJWs.
In reality you supporters sound exactly like PC campus snowflakes and SJWs.
Everybody's a victim now.
She parses words very well, and now she is parsing photographs.
I'm not sure you can find ulterior motives in what is very likely a quickly composed photograph.
I look at the photo, and see Trump's hand dismissing Romney. He also appears to yelling something like "Don't come back here again", or "Poopyhead". You choose!!
Thanks, Karen. Now, I see the difference, but does the slant mean anything beyond what happens when most people take a picture?
A) The photographer is not "most people" but a profession will professional equipment, that almost certainly included gridlines on the viewfinder in the form of little dots, unlike a cell phone camera, for example.
B) If you don't notice it, it is a stronger effect, intended to create a sense of "chaos," hurriedness and sloppiness that will be associated with Trump.
Google Obama Halos, if you want to see this kind of propaganda photojournalism applied in the opposite direction.
The photograph portrays them both favorably. I think it was a simple mistake/oversight. Even the NYT makes mistakes on occasion.
Maybe this explains it.
The three modes of photography.
1) Pictorialist - second half of 19th century to about 1910
2) Modernist - 1910 to 1950
3) Post modernist - after 1950
"post modern photography is self conscious (also self referential) and tangential or arbitrary. Too much artifice, however, is contrary to the postmodern concept."
@SGM: Agree that, much as I despise the NYT, the slant need not show a slant and does invite snowflakiness.
"Somebody at a play says something to Pence": a little, shall we say, unusual, no? We righties are all in favor of free speech and everything, but at the same time we are pretty allergic to lefty badgering and hectoring and lecturing and affectations of moral superiority. The double standard also grates: no lefty would receive Hamiltonian artistic instruction, with audience and MSM cheering, and if any were attempted, the same MSM would be up in arms. Watch out for false equivalence: righties are not playing victim, just beginning to extend the FU election to the culture generally.
You know Stephen, if you are interested in the truth, maybe you should consider the way the news is presented, if you are interested only in partisan advantage for your chosen side, and have no interest in how you may have been manipulated, carry on. People in Hollywood make millions of dollars plying these kinds of effects to manipulate willing audiences. Politicians use these same techniques. Pointing out their use prominently in the New York Times is nothing more than observation, it is not "going nuts." This is how intelligent people process information.
I do not see any difference between the two photographs, using my new prescription glasses and my old prescription glasses.
Ann,
You either have incredibly superior eyesight or you made a mistake in posing the (apparently) same picture twice. On the other hand, you may be testing your audience.
@Althouse: When I was a kid in Wisconsin, there was a roadside attraction called The Wonder Spot. It was bill-boarded as special place where the laws of gravity were suspended. Marbles would roll up hill on the floor, etc. My dad resisted taking us kids there, knowing that it was a scam. But we drove by the sign frequently and we badgered him, and one day he relented. That disabused me of it forever. He never said a word, but trusted that we could see for ourselves. The whole place was an optical illusion. This is what you've found out about at the NYT.
Maybe that porch is an "unsafe place", too much slant and Drumpf falls off of it. Maybe the NYT was engaging in wishful thinking. Terrible awful NYT.
I encourage everyone to view Ms. Swift's photos. She really has an eye for Americana.
My favorite photo was the one that included the caption...."After I got out of rehab, I promised my girlfriend I wouldn't smoke weed anymore if she didn't cut herself."
Truth is stranger than fiction, and re-written everyday!!
"Holy white supremacy Batman!"
Indeed, the NYT invokes the Dutch Tilt of the villain's lair from the 1960s Batman TV series.
Shouldn't they look all sweaty from arm wrestling?
Mormons love a good, clean arm wrestle.
Ah Sebastian---Pence paid for tickets to a show---and got a lecture instead.
The Dixie Chicks pulled the same stunt with respect to an onstage statement (maybe even overseas) that "I am ashamed of my President"--in that case Bush 43. They lost about half of their following. Those folks exercised their right to be offended by the Dixie Chicks and voted with their wallets.
Performers are entitled to their opinions and can speak out as they will. Words have consequences however. There is a time and place for everything. Paying audiences might want a bit a of a respite from the world outside however, and not every member of the audience will agree with what the performer is spouting off.
I thought the photo was of Trump at the White House waiving goodbye to Romney who just stopped by for a visit.
I thought both men looked good and Trump fit right into the White House. It looked homey and friendly. So another NYT fail.
The first photo shows that the ship is already taking on water and beginning to list.
Romney is smart enough to be leaving the ship. Or is a rat. Or both.
Trump is the Captain, oblivious to the situation, assured that there is no problem, really.
The NYT Titanic narrative begins.
They are busy lining up icebergs.
I am Laslo.
Subliminal
Can I mention that I LOVE how a professor of law has talent, training and freedom to express strong opinion about photography and computer imaging (faking?) software?
I sat on a jury awhile back where key evidence arose from a video taken by hand held cell phone. Prosecution wanted to introduce ONLY the "clean" copy, a computerized "steady cam" post-production version in which central features were preserved and the edges were omitted. The defense insisted that only the original video was true "evidence" and the so called "clean" copy was outside chain of custody, potentially corrupted by the prosecution to be prejudicial to the defendant. So judge insisted we see both "before" and "after" to decide for ourselves.
Made me proud to be a 21st Century citizen...
ANYHOW, when the media decides ONLY to present one, photo-shopped or other "prejudcial" image nowadays, I'm reminded of that defense attorney's very valid and persusive arguments.
(We found for the prosecution, to complete that anecdote.)
My 10:14 AM post is a bold attempt to get front-paged. That's why I left out the anal sex.
I am Laslo.
"Thanks, Mittens, for coming by and, giving me the opportunity to embarrass you as you pay homage to me."
"Ya know, like a loser to a winner."
What annoyed me the most about Mittens, in addition to his super-establishment credentials, was his failure, his refusal, to fight. If he had had some fire in the belly he mighta been able to oust the One.
One of the first points made in learning photography is to keep your horizon horizontal. Given the quality of reporting from the NYT recently I am not sure why Ann expects anything better from the photo editor.
I was thinking they were just lazy. Not enough tilt to make a difference, really, other than convey sloppiness on the part of the photographer or editor.
Paying audiences might want a bit a of a respite from the world outside however, and not every member of the audience will agree with what the performer is spouting off.
Pence on Fox New Sunday was very gracious about it but the New York audience seemed to agree mostly with the lecture. As someone else has pointed out, most native New Yorkers saw the show long ago and tickets are now very expensive. The audience was probably 90% Hillary voters.
It will not play well outside New York but people like me would be very unlikely to attend that show.
You're giving the NYT a lot more importance than it really deserves. Its influence, readership, and profitability have diminished considerably.
My guess is the photographer was swooning over the combined awesomeness of Romney/Trump.
Posted on previous story by accident so I'll repeat here. Old Adam West Batman series - the evil lair was always on a slant, so NYT thinks Trump Tower is evil lair.
Despite Trump's huge win, the media world still assumes we are stupid rubes.
Following the lead of Lying Obama's latest propaganda lecture, the worst of the CNN Propagandists are busy faking doing a serious report on "Faked News."
This is going to end badly for the Dems.
I dunno......seems Trump could lose a few pounds around the waist.
Heh, President Dad Bod. Take that, you SWPL gymrats and prison-yard bodybuilders!
For those of you that can't see the slant, look at the steps at the bottom of the photo. The bottom left side (behind Romney) is lower than the right side by almost a full step.
It's subtle for us yokels to miss (that's good propaganda) but noticible when a trained eye points it out. Our host is a trained artist and a photographer after all.
Well, of course all this is managed out of a "war room".
The mass media is a single, centrally directed machine, and has been for over a decade now.
"To be fair, it might have been the photography editor and not the photographer."
The post contains that option. Nothing unfair from me.
BTW, if you use the Microsoft Office Picture Manager, you can type in decimals of a degree for rotating a picture.
Blogger tcrosse said...
You're giving the NYT a lot more importance than it really deserves. Its influence, readership, and profitability have diminished considerably.
Other media outlets -- including the broadcast networks -- take their cue from the Times.
Boxty is right. It's easiest to see if you look at the bottom step.
For those of you who don't see it, any intended subliminality may work.
Those who say it might just be sloppiness... no way! It's the top picture on the front page.
"Villain's lair Dutch tilt" wins the thread.
Even the slightest tilt in a photograph drives me nuts. I will always try to correct which can be easy or not depending on the standpoint. Thanks for straightening it out. I'm a fan of Henri Cartier-Bresson and it looks to me as though Swift captured the decisive moment.
"...paper addition" should be "paper edition."
Other media outlets -- including the broadcast networks -- take their cue from the Times.
The influence, audience, and profitability of other media outlets which take their cue from the NYT ( or from whomever the NYT takes its cue ) also have diminished considerably.
Journalists aren't supposed to alter photos. I'm pretty sure that that includes even color and contrast. I don't know whether that includes rotations, but your claim that the rotation alters your impression of the two men in the photo is a strong argument that it should, at least in this case.
Someone above laughed at the notion. But altering a photograph is a bright line act, whereas journalists who write slanted arguments masquerading as straight news can tell themselves all sorts of stories about how they are really playing it straight.
OK - I see it now. Romney and Trump are tipping over, like an iceberg, or Guam. It's all going to topple soon. NYT promises.
@Laslo: A key to being front-paged is to not overtly try. Kind of like Dylan and his prize.
Picky about a picture. To those of us who have little interest or skill in photography, the picture is fine and my usually keen conspiracy mind detected nothing abnormal like Donald extending the middle finger of his raised hand.
The only reaction I got was a silent shrug but if your name is Sisyphus or Atlas, I urge you to consider such an act carefully.
"Blogger Unknown said...
That picture was worth a blog post? Oh my, straight lines that are completely level is imperative for an ordered society! Ja voll!"
It's "jawohl", fool.
How often does one get to be a grammar Nazi in German?
NY Times always making the extra effort at quality? Not so much, evidently. BTW, I loved your analysis of the photo. I wouldn't have been so bothered by the sloppiness but since you pointed it out, no question it was intentional.
Seems like a less than sympathetic photo of Trump revealing him to be overweight and a more sympathetic photo of a neat and trim Mitt Romney. Maybe it's a subliminal message to Republicans, why didn't you nominate Romney? Why not? Because as Trump explained, Romney choked, and once a choker always a choker.
Even with a less than flattering photo that is printed askew Trump has a powerful presence. It's like the reversal of the "you can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig." He's got the mojo.
The right side is still a little higher than left in your updated pic.
Not much is perfectly square. If you try to take a photo where horizontal and vertical lines dominate the frame, I would guess it is difficult to make it all come together in a perfect square. Still - the NYT is biased and will never depict a drop of positive for any (R) ever, ever, ever.
I wonder what's in the bag.
To anybody saying changing photos runs against journalistic ethics: hogwash and codswallop.
Cropping photos happens all the time and with good reason.
Pow! Wham!
In other news Trump attacked SNL and called Hamilton overrated.
Its going to be a fun 4 years!
I've the Left-wing MSM has only got more biased they've gotten more sloppy over the years. The New Yorker used to be famed for its "fact checkers" but now every historical article I read is full of errors.
Guess they don't need to care anymore.
The Left-wing MSM has not only got more biased they've gotten more sloppy over the years. The "New Yorker" used to be famed for its "fact checkers" but now every historical article I read is full of errors.
Guess they don't need to care anymore.
I remember a Liberal friend remarking in 2003 how irritating it was even for him to see how the NYT invariably put the most unflattering photo of Bush on the front page. Fast click any person 50 times at a formal occasion and at least one will catch a mouth agape, dazed look.
Meanwhile, the Globe and Mail is appalled that Trump was elected, even though HRC carried Ontario by considerable margin, particularly the wealthy suburbs of Toronto.
Isn't there a famous picture of the archangel directing Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Paradise? The archangel has a stern look on his face such as Trump's and poor Adam has a flummoxed, vulnerable appearance such as seen on Romney's. The expelled party is entering a world of chaos and confusion. The tilted lines may have been used to emphasize the chaotic world that Romney is now banished to........I'm not literate enough in art to link to the picture, but I'm pretty sure that's what the photographer was alluding to.
Minutiae personified exponentially!
Damn Althouse, what are you accomplishing w/your daily con circle jerk?
Owt from a couple threads below:
And she is more than happy to throw red meat to her Althouse Hillbillies.
And she is more than happy to throw red meat to her Althouse Hillbillies.
And she is more than happy to throw red meat to her Althouse Hillbillies.
And she is more than happy to throw red meat to her Althouse Hillbillies.
And she is more than happy to throw red meat to her Althouse Hillbillies.
Seriously, no need to suck Trump's ass 24/7 to keep your addicted con minions satisfied. Indeed, you had them at hello as you continue your ad nauseam Trump isn't what he seems dog and pony show.
btw, wise decision not telling your flock you voted for Hillary. Like Trump you're quite the chameleon/charlatan eh.
>
And yes, Althouse longggs to get close enough to Trump so he can grab her pussy ...
A perfect end to the Althouse/Trump sexual odyssey!
carry on
Shiloh, I thought you would be busy over at Disruptj20. That seems about your level.
I have seen pictures in the NYT where Hillary looked more photogenic than Melania. That takes true skill and artistry. I have never seen a picture where Chelsea looks better than Ivanka, however. Skill and artistry only takes you so far before you hit the brick wall of truth.
Hillary carried all of the wealthy suburbs in North America.
You are supposed to believe that the building's construction is cheap and faulty. It's a statement about a crumbling foundation. When I lived in Austin, I would sometimes see a building somewhat situated.
I was fairly happy to read that shiloh had yielded back the balance of its time. But the smug jerk just cannot constrain itself to waste more pixels.
How much faith you must keep when electoral defeat extends so deep into the Democrat bench? How much false consciousness you must project! Would that I could lie so easily to myself.
Sad.
Never ascribe to conspiracy what can be ascribed to stupidity.
Like other newspapers, the Times have gotten ride of a lot of copy editors (although not like some, who have gotten rid of them all).
One task a copy editor used to do was to sit at the press plant and look at the papers as they came off the press, to make sure the photos were aligned, nothing was misplaced, nobody reversed the cyan and magenta plates on the comics, etc.
Now that we know that the editors at the Times make up the narrative and make the reporters write to it, who cares about them? Their credibility is shot.
When Ann goes high, the Left goes Shiloh.
Maybe a member of the band The Slants did the edit! (I'm American of Chinese descent, so it's OK for me to say that ... LOL.)
The slant is pretty subtle, but it is obviously there. I'd like to see the full, un-cropped image. In the original, the top of the door frame looks near horizontal but gets worse towards the bottom. So, maybe photojournalists can't correct for lens distortion? Your version is better, but the bottom is still a little warped.
Hillary carried all of the wealthy suburbs in North America.
Nobody uses the term 'North America' except Canadians. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Great article to read on the "fake news" that is the NYTimes:
"It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper’s movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called “the narrative.” We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line.
Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: “My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?”
The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the paper’s daily Page One meeting: “We set the agenda for the country in that room.”.
Hopefully Ann this will help in your investigation of the REAL "fake news" and not the fraud narrative being pushed by everyone from the Times to Facebook in a call for censorship of unwelcome voices (guess who!).
With all due respect, Ann, have you lost it? If the best a highly intelligent person like you can do is to come up with to post about is something as inconsequential as this...well, words fail.
If you *are* serious, it's this kind of frivolous crap that keeps distracting people from the real issue of reuniting our country. Even in a small way, it just puts one more brick in the wall.
If you're not serious, I can only assume this blog has become Clickbait Central for your Amazon account and you're just looking for warm bodies...
I'm really disappointed. This used to be a place where I could look for interesting thoughts from the blogger, but it doesn't seem to be any more.
Kinda looks White House_ish but.... Ooooo....... Donald at his own country club with golf course. BO must be pea green with envy...heheheh. Will President-elect invite soon President-has-been over for a round?
Dutch Angle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_angle
"The Dutch angle, also known as Dutch tilt, canted angle, oblique angle or German angle, is a type of camera shot where the camera is set at an angle on its roll axis so that the shot is composed with vertical lines at an angle to the side of the frame, or so that the horizon line of the shot is not parallel with the bottom of the camera frame. This produces a viewpoint akin to tilting one's head to the side.
In cinematography, the Dutch angle is one of many cinematic techniques often used to portray psychological uneasiness or tension in the subject being filmed."
Om, who has been here at most three years, thinks Om is qualified to tell Althouse what to write? Meanwhile, nobody in Om's side has any interest in reuniting the country. In fact, the country is not broken apart.
The minority Collectivists wish to rule the Leviathan state. Om wishes to have Power, vicariously, through other Leftists. But its preferred political party reduced to minority in elective offices nationwide, Om feigns at civility bull shit.
Funny bunny.
@Ohm: Resistance is futile!
Well played, chickelit. I wish I had a more energetic response.
On whether Dutch Angle constitutes "altering" the photograph: probably not. A photographer naturally controls many aspects of the photo, including composition, lighting, the moment which is being captured, etc. Dutch angle is a pretty standard element of composition, with a well understood meaning. It's no more or less altering the photo than choosing harsh lighting or waiting until the subject has a stupid expression on their face -- or to frame Obama's head so that it looks like there's a halo.
It's definitely editorializing, though, and it's fair to criticise the editors for inserting a subliminal element of chaos and unease.
German expressionist films like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
http://screenprism.com/insights/article/why-is-the-cabinet-of-dr.-caligari-considered-the-definitive-german-express
popularized the technique.
"Thunder Rock"?
The presentation of this photo in the NYT reminds me how all of the bad guys'and gals' lairs were presented in the 1960s TV show Batman. Whenever scenes were filmed in the Penguin's, Joker's or Catwoman's hideouts, the frames were always crooked, emphasizing that we were in the company of crooks. If the NYT's editors are of a certain age, that may have been one of their motivations here.
You have to remember that the Left is still reeling from the George W. Bush's fictitious detention camps. The imaginary food was atrocious! Filled with GMOs and never Cruelty Free.
Rotating pictures so that floors look horizontal and flagpoles vertical is editing. Rotating a picture that as taken looks natural in order to imply something is out of whack with the subject is editorializing.
Every photographer that engages in architectural photography is aware of distortions and corrects them. Unless the building is known to be off-kilter.
"too much slant and Drumpf falls"
Still doing the stupid Drumpf thing? Like thousands of other families who emigrated to the USA didn't change their surnames, either.
Yesterday I worked with a guy who lives in midtown. He's a unicorn as a Manhattan Trump voter.
He introduced me to the term 'TARD', Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder.
Gotta nice ring to it.
While I can tell the difference, Ms. Althouse still didn't really straighten it out completely, and it might not be possible to do so.
I get the impression the photograph itself was taken off center with the photographer actually in front of Mr. Romney, or maybe even to his right just slightly.
Lefties don't like seeing their tricks exposed.
It's a nice outdoor photoshoot to cover over whatever backroom deal took place while inside.
I thought journalistic photographers aren't supposed to Photoshop their work? It's unethical.
Keep hope alive, Shiloh.
Hillary lost! hahahahahahahahahahahaaaa
Another slanted photo: this one in the WaPo.
@Birkel: "Om" could also be another Inga sock puppet. "Om" is short for "Oma" which means "grandma" in German.
Is Althouse really a photographer? A slant in both the horizon and vertical angle would make the shot hard to "fix." As it is, her re-cropping seems to bring out darker stone in the steps on the lower left - which could also be distracting. Putting a nanoscale level to a photo isn't the only consideration for a good composition. You'd think people who've extensively utilized fish-eye lenses would agree.
Every photographer that engages in architectural photography is aware of distortions and corrects them.
I'm glad you agree that the buildings were the most compelling subjects to focus on in the photo. The distorted characters of the people featured in the shot are beyond correction.
Daryl, haven't you gotten cancer yet? Your avatar must be suffocating with all that self-fumigation. Smoking in that thumbnail must be as bad as smoking in a self-contained spacesuit helmet.
April Apple gloats over "ass" (as she referred to him) Don Trump as much as Hillary Boosters used to gloat over Hillary.
The follower mindset is very recognizable and familiar. Except for the fact that Hillary supporters had something that April doesn't know: Loyalty.
It's good to know that not all earthworms dwell underground. And I do hope that she feels better about her friend edutcher, seeing how much they now have in common. Things got really dicey between those two during the campaign. It's good to see them patch up their differences, especially insofar as political character is concerned.
"The right side is still a little higher than left in your updated pic."
I agree that it looks that way, but I know from seeing it with a grid superimposed and lining the grid up with multiple horizontals and verticals on the building that it is now correct.
I would ask "Rhythm and Balls" to provide a single, unadulterated positive reason anybody would be loyal to Hillary Clinton as a candidate.
Having asked during the campaign I still have not received a sufficient answer either online or in person. I await a cogent answer, written by someone possessing a superior intellect such as "Rhythm and Balls".
NOTE: The broad pursuit of power that comes from controlling Leviathan does not count.
Bickel asks: "I await a cogent answer, written by someone possessing a superior intellect such as "Rhythm and Balls."
Do such people exist?
You're asking the wrong person. I never supported her. I castigated people who did.
Many if not most people supporting her though did so because they feared Trump more. This was also the case for Trump supporters.
The "secondary supporters" - those who feared the opposition more - seems to have outweighed the "primary supporters - (those who preferred Clinton to anyone else or Trump to anyone else).
Unlike some people I seem to not mind acknowledging a phenomenon without demanding that it make sense to me. Quantum mechanics doesn't make all that much sense to me, I suppose. And yet, it's a reality. I don't demand it stop existing until it better explains itself.
I suppose other people would however do that.
I admit the broad pursuit of power is a reason for loyalty. But those dreams are dashed.
Now let us return the power to The People, The Congress and The States that has been absorbed in the Executive Branch. Following the proper Constitutional guidelines would be a good start.
I think it likely that the NYT deliberately tilted the image "handed" to them.
My wife thought Trump had his eyes focused in the distance and was maybe waving to the press or other onlookers.
@Althouse, I looked at the photo again and then I realized what the photographer's mistake was. She's focused on Trump and in her picture he is pretty much vertical. But in the corrected picture he's leaning forward slightly. I think that explains it.
Hillary Swift has an instagram page. And this picture is there--lined up straight. https://www.instagram.com/hlswift/?hl=en
Someone made an editorial decision to tilt it.
Ted Gehring, great catch! I copied the photo off the site and analyzed it. The stairs and the door appear perfectly level in the photo on her personal site. The plot thickens
Not worth a comment... oops!
"Hillary Swift has an instagram page. And this picture is there--lined up straight. Someone made an editorial decision to tilt it."
You don't know that. She might have straightened it up herself. The NYT might be following a rule that forbids touching up anything, including just undoing an accidental tilt.
"@Althouse, I looked at the photo again and then I realized what the photographer's mistake was. She's focused on Trump and in her picture he is pretty much vertical. But in the corrected picture he's leaning forward slightly. I think that explains it."
I don't see it that way. He looks off-balance in the tilted one.
It's very easy to make a titled photograph. I do it all the time, such as with those sunrise pictures I took on Sunday. I try to be level, but in iPhoto I can see that I missed it.
"You don't know that. She might have straightened it up herself. The NYT might be following a rule that forbids touching up anything, including just undoing an accidental tilt."
Well, they've at least cropped it, so whatever the policy is, it doesn't forbid all touching up...
No, there is no journalistic rule against cropping a photo. EVERY photo is cropped.
"No, there is no journalistic rule against cropping a photo. EVERY photo is cropped."
There is no journalistic rule against it at all? You can crop out important subjects from a photo? Or are you saying you are allowed limited cropping?
No one is going to see this because it's so far down the comments which are nothing but prima facie evidence of the liberal smear that conservatives are idiots telling themselves fairy tales of persecution, but y'all are clueless and embarrassing.
I'm a photographer (mostly live music) and what happened here is almost certainly not a Communist plot by a the Communist Times to whip up the impression of fear and discord by publishing a Commie photographer's slipshod (or was it deliberate? - dun-da-DUHN!!!) composition. It's plain old laziness on the part of the photo editors back at the Times.
Any working press photographer is tasked with capturing the moment and in this case you have one person moving and the other waving. Even when firing off like a machine gun, you've got almost no time to think; your experience and instincts are steering your hands to point the camera and get the shot.
It's only when you get to reviewing the photos do you notice there may be lines that seem off-kilter that you didn't see because you focused on the people and not the background. Because you're shooting at an angle (she's not dead square with the door, but to the left) sometimes background lines look weird. I routinely make slight rotations to straighten mic stands or drum risers or amp lines as long as the people don't look like they're on the Titanic.
People need to acquaint themselves with Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" - and realize the flaw was that when the photos were sent to the NYT photo desk, the lazy deadbeats were too busy chatting about how woke the Hamilton cast was to bother paying attention to the lines looking goofy. This wasn't a Commie plot; it was sloppy, lazy work from a dying propaganda outlet. You give them too much credit to suggest otherwise.
=======
@Ted Gehring - Please shut up about things you know nothing about. There is no ethical rules against cropping or rotating images. You're not allowed to Photoshop in/out anything - as infamously illustrated when a Reuters freelancer in Lebanon (IIRC) duplicated smoke plumes with the clone stamp tool to make it look like Israel was raining more death on them. There is a debate whether making selective exposure adjustments goes over the line, but simple cropping is par for the course.
I see comments that the photographer has the photos straightened on her site. Some people correctly presume she fixed them and others incorrectly imagine the Communist plot to tilt it.
Again, the slant is almost certainly due to the lazy slobs at the NYT not paying attention, probably because they can't bear looking at the graven image of two men who challenged Beloved Dearest Leader Emperor Obama in 2012 and the Cheeto Jesus who defeated the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, the Dowager Empress of Chappaqua Hillary, two weeks ago. They were probably like, "Yeah, run it. Whatever. Where's your safety pin, bruh? Aren't you woke?"
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence.
The Times wanted to get the story out before deadline, and went with a poor photograph because it's what they had.
There are 3 axis in which a camera must be leveled. This is especially important where an image has parallel horizontal and vertical lines like architecture. Relatively easy to fix most of the time in Photoshop, Camera Raw or Lightroom.
This image probably just needed rotated a bit to level the horizon. Sloppy.
Honestly, I wouldn't have noticed. In fact I had to stare at the two photos for a minute or two before I noticed that the columns weren't vertical in the original. This is just silly, Ms. Althouse.
I have been a professional photographer since the Year Dot, who is a very hopeful Trump supporter and who absolutely loathes the New York Times. But. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I'm doing architectural and real estate photography now, so the vertical & horizontal lines have to be mostly parallel, but in other forms of photography, not so much...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा