The country of Iran recently held elections that many are saying were rigged and that their votes did not count. The current winner and previous term president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who acts more as a dictator than a freely elected politician has been brought to Internet justice with the photoshopped picture below.
What you clearly see is that someone in Ahmadinejad's regime altered the picture below to make a crowd supporting the outcome look much larger thus showing greater support for his following.
This is not the first time Ahmadinejad has been caught Photoshopping either. In July of 2008 a missile test in Iran was Photoshopped to show that four missiles were successfully launched when it was actually three or possibly two missiles.
It's a sad state of affairs for Iran that it must go to these lengths to try and persuade the world that this was a true election. Despite the fact that millions of votes were supposedly counted in two hours and a fake photo showing support of the "winner" are signs of forgery the people of Iran are the ones who lost the most.
ROFL!!! LMAO!!
(Just kidding for anyone who might think otherwise)
Not only is there very little news in this piece, but most of it is about your opinion about Iran and their president
Here, I'll give you something better to write about: Obama's use of technology to reach a broad audience. Check how it has come along.
That'd be more useful than... OMG LOOK PHOTOSHOP NOOBZ
Last edited by Deathray on 17 Jun 2009 - 17:22
wtf? This "article" is focused on photoshopping a picture, but really is a cover to take some jabs at the Iranian president. The situation in Iran is interesting, I wouldn't say tragic as the people are making their voices heard, but this news article completely sideswipes the real story
I think for a tech site, if that is still the purpose of this site, my angle with Obama may be more interesting than reporting about photoshop jobs.
Why not report about the photoshop fun happening in North Korea? Hell, why don't we also bring in the discussion about magazines and their amazing use of photoshop
Not only is there very little news in this piece, but most of it is about your opinion about Iran and their president
Here, I'll give you something better to write about: Obama's use of technology to reach a broad audience. Check how it has come along.
That'd be more useful than... OMG LOOK PHOTOSHOP NOOBZ
I'd assume because it has to do with technology. but while the old Iran is still photoshopping, the real change is how much twitter is being used. and spreading around DDOS software.
In other news, there is Obama. Note the word other.
I guess because Photoshop is involved? Otherwise, I don't see anything surprising about this election, because the exact same thing happens EVERY Iranian election.
Not only is there very little news in this piece, but most of it is about your opinion about Iran and their president
Here, I'll give you something better to write about: Obama's use of technology to reach a broad audience. Check how it has come along.
That'd be more useful than... OMG LOOK PHOTOSHOP NOOBZ
Remember the fuss that kicked up about Adnan Hajj using photoshop to make his photos seem more "dramatic"?
Well this is like that only with an obvious political agenda, it's government sanctioned and it's vaguely amusing. How is this not worthy of front page news?
It's amusing, interesting and involves the (rather poor) application of technology. Sounds good enough for a short post on the front page to me.
When we stop being shocked -- when this stuff can no longer surprise -- we're far poorer for it. We can still be pragmatic without losing our capacity for outrage... otherwise acceptance simply breeds drones.
Because this is a news website and we are currently on the front page.
Seriously, if you're not interested, why not move along to another article? The fact is, this is serious business and it is about technology - Iran supposedly Photoshopping images.
Such as? Fairly sure Brad Sams isn't Iranian, in any case.
Whomever's doing the propaganda for those protesters must be awfully good to add that fake blood to their cell phone videos
The point is, they are modifying images to make it appear larger. This is very alarming to me. So what your saying is "oh my government is corrupt, but not enough to be news worthy".
In other news, Michelle Obama's inauguration outfit to be featured in Isabel Toledo exhibit.
How do you know those are the only changes? If it was a good photoshop, you wouldn't have noticed anything at all - what's to say some of the rest of it isn't "good"?
And what utter BS is the "not very convincingly" comment? So, if a government changed the result from 57% to 67%, because the result stayed the same, it makes it right to change the percentage?
I'm not saying the incumbent could not have won, but he sure made a shoddy effort to make look as if he had won.
If you don't like a certain article, why not just move on to one you do like? Why bother steering the article away from discussion just because you are not interested in it? Other people are and I certainly am. Without this article, I would never have known about this. It is also to do with technology - Photoshop.
The university I attended for college photoshopped a black guy into the cover of a student program. THAT is a sad state of affairs.
Every picture of every model in every magazine is photoshopped to the point of inhuman presentation. THAT is a sad state of affairs.
The university I attended for college photoshopped a black guy into the cover of a student program. THAT is a sad state of affairs.
Every picture of every model in every magazine is photoshopped to the point of inhuman presentation. THAT is a sad state of affairs.
Wait, so photoshopping related to a Uni = big deal. Photoshopping related to an entire country's election = not a big deal.
Not quite understanding the logic there.
As for "why is this news" Iran has been caught several times before photoshopping and the media at large has oft fell for it wholesale (as was true of this picture, which appeared on the pages of several newspapers, BBC's website, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC, which makes the revelation that it was a CLEARLY doctored photo relatively big news...and tech related.
ummmm... do they still stone women to death in China?
If you have any political opinion you want to beam to the world about Iran, please use your FB or Myspace page, not "our" favorite "technology news" front page. Thank you.
If you have any political opinion you want to beam to the world about Iran, please use your FB or Myspace page, not "our" favorite "technology news" front page. Thank you.
The article is *not* about an opinion one way or another; it simply baldly states that the claimant of victory in last week's Iranian elections has been caught red-handed using software for underhanded purposes (apparently, he has done this before). That *is* technology news, as it proves that even software can be used for *evil*. Software is a tool (just like the computer itself, or the printing press, or even the firearm) - it still boils down to what you do with it. (Given the high cost of Photoshop, maybe the mullahs used the GIMP?)
"The GIMP's sleeping."
"Well I guess you'll have to go wake him up now, wount you?"
While I agree there is a political element to the post, this is nothing new. Technology and politics are not wholly separate entities. Governments photoshopping photos is news in both spheres.
/me suppresses a sigh at RAID 0
It is your privilege to be here, not your right, so stop bitching about it. And yes, photoshopping is a big thing nowadays on many issues concerning proof, both political and otherwise. So, if you don't like it, gtfo or stfu. No one is forcing you to use Neowin.
By the way, your quotation marks are horribly misused/misplaced/have no meaning.
You are kidding right ? if photoshopping a picture to make it look like you have more supporters during a highly contested election is not, what is "misleading" ??
This is neither minor nor "graphic composition".. he was not removing noise, he was adding "fake" peoples !!
Except for one thing - how the edited photo was used. Not art, but disguised as *I-was-there*, despite it being an edited photo. If a photojournalist did that, the scream would be "FAKE!" as loud as it took; yet a despotocracy at loggerheads with the United States (historically) gets a pass? (I'm not the one that said that comment about being historically at loggerheads; President Barack Obama did, earlier today.)
This is neither minor nor "graphic composition".. he was not removing noise, he was adding "fake" peoples !!
It wasn't a crowd of people though, there's already a huge number of people in that photo. The people that were edited in, were small and in the background. This isn't a stadium full of people, its a few, tiny individuals in the background. You can't just "ignore" the details of what was done because it suits your argument. A blanket "omg they photoshopped an image" is vague, misleading, and besides the point. If i was charged with presenting an image for PR or whatever, I would have done the same, because it LOOKS better, nothing to do with misleading people or trying to prove the elections weren't rigged.
Please, never ever be a politician. What you're suggesting is disgusting.
If i was charged with presenting an image for PR or whatever, I would have done the same, because it LOOKS better, nothing to do with misleading people or trying to prove the elections weren't rigged.
I don't know if you are just trolling or what but your argument makes no sense. Removing noise qualify as "looks better". Adding people is a cheat, it's misleading and anything you want to call it but the truth. If Moussavi camp had posted such photoshopped image, I would be glad to say the same.
This is textbook disinformation.
Get what? How could the image possible be clearer?
Simple. It could be bigger for one. The whole thing is such a blurred mess I almost don't know how anyone could see any touch ups to begin with.
The entire thing belongs in the National Enquirer.
Even if it was rigged , it still doesnt give u the right to go run around in streets trying to start fights with everyone .... wait why r we even talking about this , this is supposed to be a tech site... it's pretty obvious author wanted to use this to express his own opinion on another country's regime. but that sorta thing belongs to your personal blog, not a tech site.
Examples, please.
ok. for example, the-not-too-long-ago tibet incident. cnn used shopped pic to bash the chinese government. but it was later shown that they cropped out the part of the pic where it shows tibetan monks viciously beat up a civilian. cnn also used a slightly altered pic of Nepalese army beating up ppl and claimed it was the chinese army. and so on. there should be plenty of results on this if u google. but then again, this is a tech site. so less politics moar tech news would be nice. kthxbai.
Links or it didn't happen.
kthxbai
Hahahaha, You are the loser Akhmadi , bye bye Akhmadi !
However, The Islamic Republic Of Iran could not be a democratic country under Islamic rules.
So Ayatollah Humani needs to go also.
Iran is supposed to be a secular country, can't be if run by a man that imposes Islamic views on everyone.
No, Khomeini died in 1989, it's (Ali) Khamenei now. Keep up!
Why should Iran be any different. The elections last week weren't any less fair than what happened in Florida in 2000, for example.
Ahmadinejad won. Get over it!
Why should Iran be any different. The elections last week weren't any less fair than what happened in Florida in 2000, for example.
Ahmadinejad won. Get over it!
ummmm... not agreeing / disagreeing, BUT, talking about something that happened in 2000 & then: "Ahmadinejad won. Get over it"
;?P
Why should Iran be any different. The elections last week weren't any less fair than what happened in Florida in 2000, for example.
Ahmadinejad won. Get over it!
Poly = The latin word for many.
Tick = A Small, lecherous insect.
My 2 cents worth, FWIW, there's *supposed* to be a very definite line between reporting & advertising. It's not observed all that much anymore, but I think folks should be reminded from time to time -- without reporting advertising comes dangerously close to becoming our perception of reality.
That makes it news whenever anyone, any group or government gets caught trying to pass ad work off as reality. That's why so many people get upset when they find ad work getting passed off as reality.
Does this article belong on Neowin? Considering that currently it takes up 6 lines on the front page -- & that's only because there's an ad next to it -- I can't see any reason it shouldn't be there. Readers can certainly skip over it if they choose. Twitter postponed a maintenance shutdown, there's certainly a lot of activity on-line related to the Iranian Election, there's a lot of interest according to search stats, there's enough interest that the photo was checked out & the results passed on, people world-wide are concerned... so yeah, I think it qualifies.
And I think it's a bit ironic that folks clicked thru & read the article, showing interest, then went on to post it didn't belong here. ;-)
Is the article about Photoshopping? Not really. It's true that there's more than ample examples of very poor work out there -- my favorite is an AP image where whomever included a 5 - 6 pixel contrasting halo when they clicked paste -- so it's easy to become jaded & cynical, and stop paying attention (that favorite AP pic was posted to an national news site). But is that a good thing? Thanks again, Brad, for reminding us it's not.
+1, sir.
(And aren't the Bad Guys supposed to have some high-tech secret lair? Or did their 'Evil' Budget get spent on refining nuclear matter? Couldn't find a mail-in design course online? Even some tutorials??)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8103083.stm
A statement that gives the reader the impression that the general consensus is that the elections were fake and simply for show.
The statement in bold letters is clearly opinion and not an example of objective journalism (otherwise it would be backed by a source).
What we see here is a reporters own personal conclusion being fed to the reader, just think, do we even know where this image comes from? Then how can we conclude that it comes from official government sources, and even then, how can we know that it was created as a result of orders given by higher officials? For all we know it could be the result of a overzealous Ahmadinejad supporter.
This quote tries to make the reader believe that Ahmadinejad personally was behind the alteration of the previous image of which of course there is no proof at all.
Once again we are told (between the lines) that the election was simply for show and not a real election.
A claim with no source, but a true one at least (source, however, we are not told that there were electronic ballot systems in place in urban areas so "millions of votes in a few hours" is entirely possible.
Once again we are force-fed the notion that Ahmadinejad is a fraud and not the winner of the true elections.
Now, I hope I've made it clear enough that this article is either very bad journalism or direct anti-Ahmadinejad propaganda.
As a last remark I'd like to express how thoroughly disappointed I am by the fact that this found its way to the Neowin front page - not because of it being anti-Ahmadinejad - but because it is so poorly researched and more a show of opinion than an objective piece of journalism.
PS
People interested in this article should be more interested in news like this BBC News because we can all agree that Iranian state news is not free, but what about the BBC?
Also, if you haven't already, try reading "All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror" by Stephen Kinzer, it's an interesting insight into the history of the Iran we see today.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.