The Economist manipulated the photo of Viktor Orbán

Remove all ads!

Oh, so I did understand you right after all! Thank you! Without you having checked the dictionary I'd have never known!

 

Girls, girls! You're both pretty.

 

Someone here is rather petty than pretty.

 

Anyway, over the weekend I decided to accept Baronius' challenge to:

I should state first that I am not a professional and/or expert in the use of Photoshop. However, I have a reasonable amount of experience with it, such that I would be able to carry out routine tasks like color correction effectively and not make beginner's mistakes. (Note that I'm also not using any automated processes.) I also don't know, specifically, what software The Economist uses for their photo editing, but I believe that Photoshop is widely used for professional applications. Therefore, while I don't know that The Economist's results would be similar to mine, it's not entirely unreasonable to suspect that they would face the same limitations with the source material, etc., imo. (Also note that the image I was working with was a comparatively small bitmap image I found via Google image search and not the large image available from AFP.)

Lastly, I must stress that I too have no dog in this hunt and was not trying to gather findings supportive of any particular position. I merely tried to reproduce The Economist's image as closely as I could.

Given all that. what I found was this: I was able to recolor the image so that the skin tone was very similar to The Economist's. However, using various lighting techniques, I was not able to fully reproduce the contrast seen in The Economist's image. I also found that while the brows did not appear to have changed, there does seem to be some darkening around the eye sockets that I can't account for, as well as a darkening of Orban's pupils. I was able to achieve a closer approximation of this look only by isolating a particular section of Orban's face - namely the area around his eyes - and applying additional contrast and darkening. Additionally, I was not able at all to get it as dark as The Economist's without pushing the boundaries of oversaturation, which would lead to a rather amateurish look as you could see color intensities in that area that would appear cartoonish. Furthermore, I could not reproduce the darkness of the eyes at all, which leads me to think (again, in my amateur opinion) that only 'painting' (drawing/coloring in the area in so-called freehand form) could achieve it. IMO, this type of work would fall outside the liberties of image retouching for reproduction purposes and qualify as manipulation, but again, I don't know that this happened.

If anyone would like to see what I came up with for themselves, I could post it here later. The differences are most noticeable when viewed as a .gif sequence, so that you can instantly see the areas where I was unable to reproduce The Economist's look without shifting your eyes back and forth from one image to another.

Lastly, while The Economist's image appeared generally more sinister to me (deep-set eyesockets and dark eyes tend to give the impression of some type of predatory creature, imo), it did not appear to be strikingly subversive. And I fully expect that opinions would vary on that, so the jury would still be out on the whole matter. I don't by any means consider my findings conclusive, but they do tend to support at least the possibility of some degree of manipulation ... for whatever that's worth.

This significance of all this, even if it was found to have merit, would still be open for debate, of course. Take it for what it's worth.

 

Your description is basically a much more detailed and accurate explanation of what the expert László Petromán meant by nonlinear transformation. A linear, "usual" recolouring changes everything in the image in a "linear", equal way, without preferring certain tones over others. This is not the case with the manipulated photo: some very subtle details (which influence our impression in brain about how sinister a face is) were added/increased, making him more sinister while still enabling Economist to call it "simple recolouring and sharpening" at any time.

It is strange that in this topic, until the "facts that disprove the accusation regarding the manipulation" were presented, noone said that the Economist's published photo does NOT look too sinister. I think the "facts" (Economist's defense and logic) make people see what they want to see: that it wasn't manipulated. Earlier, while these "new facts that defend Economist" weren't available, more people seemed to see Orbán sinister. After the "new facts", people started to like the manipulated photo!

 

The printer could made some changes to the contrast once the image went to the presses. I remember our photo editor had to meet with the printer whenever we did any color publications to dicuss the changes in tone and contrast to both graphics and photos, regardless of the layout in the computer. The printer used his own process for getting the dyes onto the paper. Even though I was editor I never messed with that side of it though. I know most everything we sent over to the printer never looked exactly like the orginals once it was actually in print. And the contrast was one of the main things that generally appeared different from the orginal once it was actually in print and on the page.

Baronius - No one had actually SEEN the original. So we were not aware that the Economist's version was an improvement over the original. Sorry, but now you are grasping.

 

That only shows how insidious their Photoshop trickery is! Wanting plausible deniability they manipulated the picture so that it appeared to the uninformed as if they had only improved colour and contrast, while in reality they wanted to make Orbán look demonic! Cunning! But that's their way! These liberal socialist communist subversive international banker types are all so devilishly cunning! Half the time one doesn't even notice their treacherous trickery, until it is too late

And they have all the money, cheated money, of course. That means they have bought all that bad press Orbán gets. Who else could be behind it?

 

This is from the editor of the Economist and as a former editor myself, he is exactly right about the corrections needed for publication.

The Economist is a magazine. Of course the color and contrast will appear different once it is actually printed onto the page. Gaear. Since you are showing a real interest in publication you should contact a local printer. Given that I was an editor 25 years ago things may have changed in the print transfer procrss since then. An actual printer could tell you how a photo like that could have changes made to it and how it could be done.

 

Yep, print media and electronic media (photos on web pages et al) are two very different animals.

Not sure if this was directed at me, but yes I found The Economist photo suspicious initially, and frankly I'm somewhat shocked that Orban could really look like that, but I found the comparison of the original to be compelling evidence against manipulation. Specifically, The Economist's version looked to me like the brows had been skewed or distorted, but after seeing the original I don't think they have been.

[edit]

That's a good idea. Again for what it's worth , I used to work in the screenprinting industry for a while (t-shirts, signs, etc.), so I was familiar with 'real world' print media of that sort. I never did the computer work for it though, and I've forgotten a lot of what was involved, but I do recall that there were intrinsic differences. An image made for print on a sign would not look the same as one dispalyed on a computer screen, for example. The thing is, I rather suspected that I would be able to reproduce The Economist's look, due to my belief that the alterations would be done in the software realm (whether with Photoshop or some other software), which is where they were always carried out back in the day when I was doing that stuff. I mean, what we're seeing of Orban here is their sofrware edited version, right? Not a picture of the newspaper?

 

Just a little foretaste of changes

My country does its job very well by leading the EU Presidency. Who says this? Only Baronius? The "censored" Hungarian press? No, I'm afraid Financial Times says that too.

Again, practice has proven me, and disproved Ragusa. Similarly, I was also right when I said Hungary won't end up in the European Court (or even in an official procedure) due to the Media Law. And in further cases, I was right as well. Now those users who doubted my statements can also start believing me perhaps?

Financial Times Brussels Blog:

(bold added by me)

 

Baronius, I'm really happy that you take such great pride in your country. Your expression of that pride is utterly beyond my comprehension, but I'm glad someone wrote some nice things about your country, and that you seem to be happy about it. Cheers mate!

 

That obsession of yours got the better of you again, Marceror

 

Don't try to be tricky, Marceror. This hijacking technique (taking out things from context) does not work any more on anyone. I quoted those parts because they were relevant, that's the only reason. Relevant, as Ragusa said various things (quoted in my previous PM), so my answer was a simple disproof to his statements. And then you come and try to defend the undefendable (If I wanted to write irrelevant things that I can be proud of -- this is how you tried to misrepresent my post, Marceror -- then I could write millions of things, e.g. to tell something -- otherwise irrelevant -- you might not know: the letter that convinced your President to start the Manhattan project was written by three Hungarian scientists...)

 

Why is this thread alive again? Maybe I missed something, but I thought we had reached a sound conclusion that no one (not even Ragusa) really cares.

 

Earlier, in this thread, Ragusa made some heavy statements & implied certain things (I quoted all). I did care to present some news that completely disprove those claims. If you don't really care, don't read it, it's that simple.

 

#1: Predictably, the global leftist liberal media, not content with the Economist having defaced Orbàn's noble features, is going after him again

Hungarian intellectuals face government pressure

Right. Der Tagesspiegel hates Orbán so much, they fabricate interviews in which prominent Hungarians are critical of Orbán. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every right thinking Hungarian loves dear leader, or is totally apolitical, don't you agree Mr. Tarr?

Well, of course Der Tagesspiegel did not make it up. I recall having said that the authority of the new media council to issue disproportionally high fines through flimsy arguments will lead to self-censorship in the media, and that the same goes for the apparently heavy handed pressure exerted by the Orbán government on critics.

#2: Hungary amends media law seen as curbing press freedom

Interesting is what remains: The long terms for the council members, single party domination of the council, the fines, the broad mandate of the council, the limited recourse against decisions made by the council etc pp. With that remain all the aforementioned related problems.

The reason for this lies in that the EU could under the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union only demand changes on those parts of the media law that have a European i.e. trans-border element, i.e. they could call for Orbán not pestering European multinationals, because that would infringe upon their rights to operate in the European marketplace, but not keep him off the back of domestic Hungarian media. Such a double standard is legal under European law.

#3: As a result, even the Revised Hungarian media law fails to satisfy OSCE

 

Moreover, it's known in Europe that some things (and they include budget issues) are really a tough case during EU Presidencies. So the fact that a President of the Council of the European Union (currently Viktor Orbán, Hungarian Prime Minister) made considerable progress according to the Financial Times "in some of the thorniest EU issues on their agenda, including the new budget rules" is not an everyday case. Regardless whether this was Orbán (i.e. Hungary) or some other country. It's not typical that a Presidency is that much successful in the budget area.

 

No he isn't President of the Council. Hungary currently chairs the rotating presidency. Orbán only happens to be Hungary's prime minister. Had he lost the election it would have been someone else, and after June it will be someone else again, this time from Poland. It was just Hungary's turn, and mind you, it is already determined who's turn it will be when until 2019. The position he holds by circumstance in no way distinguishes Orbán.

Also, the country holding the presidency does so, in order to achieve continuity, with the successor and predecessor, which in our case means that Belgium and Poland were still and already co-presiding.

That success you mention is not his but Merkel's and Sarkozy's. Hungary as an economic basketcase doesn't even have remotely the political and economic pull needed to push through those new budget rules the FT mentions. This was a German initiative. In fact, Orbán opposed some of Merkel's proposals. It is in light of this especially ludicrous to hail this as Orbán's success.

Just saying.

 

I'm afraid you're wrong. Exactly as I wrote, currently Viktor Orbán is the President of the Council of the European Union. Since, FYI, the official term President of the Council of the European Union exists, and it is Viktor Orbán currently. (Exactly how I originally wrote it, it appears even in the text you quoted: "(currently Viktor Orbán, Hungarian Prime Minister)") The position should not be confused with what Herman Van Rompuy fills at the moment, but it seems it wasn't clear for you.

Source: official homepage of the European Union.

So what I wrote (and you quoted) is totally accurate:

OK, if you argue with Financial Times, you have every right to do it. For me, Financial Times is usually a reliable source which doesn't write nonsense. Unless FT is censored by Orbán's Media Council