The Obama darkening/ stretching claim (w/ screen shots)

Hey all!

Much like my little Nicholson parody video the other day (which has now had over 145,000 views on Youtube -- eek!), I must admit I had no idea how much my little four-panel graphic would be used and shared not only on this site, but as of now, many others.

I created this graphic by capturing the Clinton version (the fourth "frame") and then trying to work backwards from it, to the same shot with proper coloring (the first "frame").  I did this in order to counter the theory that maybe it was just the standard desaturation technique used in all political ads.

But what I didn't do at the time was actually watch the ad side by side with that exact point in the debate in which Hillary's ad team captured the video.

This is a screen capture of Hillary's page open side by side with the debate its taken from (I tried to pause it at the exact same place and came pretty close):

One thing you'll notice here is that the darkening is not nearly as dramatic as we may have suspected, at least not with this source example.  The original debate is here:

http://youtube.com/...  ***IMPORTANT LINK ONE***

You can watch the section in which Obama is discussing the matter at around the 4:35 mark.

The Clinton video is here:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/...  ***IMPORTANT LINK TWO***

What I recommend you do is place the windows side by side, as I have, and find the applicable portion of each video, and watch them together.  

(You can also go to msnbc.com and find the video there.  The colors are ritcher on the MSNBC version, but the aspect is the same -- they just don't let you jump easily to one part and you have to wait til its more than halfway loaded.  If you want to use the MSNBC version, however, you want to go to 43:25.  There's no way to direct link to an MSNBC video, unfortunately, so you'll have to do a video search yourself.)

Now, one might complain this is comparing apples to oranges, as the Hillary Clinton video is using a widescreen player.  But it's not like the ad is a regular 4:3 ad stretched incorrectly to 16:9 -- it's actually a widescreen ad to begin with.  That's how it airs.  In fact, you can compare "apples to apples" by doing the same process watching the Hillary YouTube video side by side with the debate video.  Hillary's YouTube video is here:

http://youtube.com/...

You will notice that the YouTube version is still stretched, even if it isn't quite as stretched as the HillaryClinton.com version, due to the letterbox conversion.  But even in the high resolution broadcast quality Quicktime file Hillary offers up, which is presumably the closest possible version to what actually aired, the stretching is still quite apparent.  

The full, untouched screenshots are here:

HillaryClinton.com vs. Original Footage:
http://i138.photobucket.com/...

Hillary's YouTube Site vs. Original Footage:
http://i138.photobucket.com/...  

Again, you don't have to take these screenshots "word" for it -- just do it yourself.  Open two browser windows, one to the above "Important Link One", the other to "Important Link Two".  Go to minute 4:35 of Important Link One, line the window side by side with the applicable part of Important Link Two, and press play on both.  It's a more dramatic difference than even these screenshots show.

Now, the saturation and darkening was clearly intentional.  I'm not sure if it was intentionally racist, or merely part of the common campaign tactic of reducing the color and brightness on video of your opponent, and increasing the color and brightness on video of yourself.  Having said that, however, the ad is too professionally put together for me to believe the Obama image was "accidentally" stretched.  Now, I suppose you could construct a scenario in which the ad team was told it was supposed to be a 4:3 ad, and then at the last minute stretched to a widescreen 16:9 ad.... but if that was the case, why weren't the images of Hillary, or the previous ad, or her campaign logo, or anything else stretched as well?  Usually, the simplest answer is the most plausible, and the simplest answer in this case was intent, not accident.  

(Incidentally, I'm about as anti-Hillary as they come on DailyKos, and even I don't believe that Hillary herself was in a control room saying "hey, could you make Obama look a little blacker and wider?"  That scenario is also very, very unlikely.  But hey, she's Hillary Clinton, and she approved this message, right?  So the responsibility ultimately has to fall on her.  And considering the fact that the Huckabee "subliminal cross" debate took up DAYS of network news discussion and debate, I don't see any harm at all in debating this issue on the networks as well.)

•  Tips for research!

  :)

  by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:50:04 PM PDT

  •  Side-effect of darkening IS increased

    saturation.  Now, more could have been done besides that, but go to Levels and see what happens to the apparent saturation in any image as you lower the graypoint...

    by polecat on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:56:34 PM PDT

  •  Try this one thing for me.

    Take a screengrab off of the Hillary ad on Youtube since it's not extra-stretched. Dump it into Photoshop. Select Image->Pixel Aspect Ratio...->D1/DV NTSC (0.9) Scale the images so they are the same vertical height and measure to see if they aren't within a pixel of the same width now. Set the top layer to Difference to highlight the edges.

    On my system they were well within a pixel of each other.

    by johnsonwax on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:02:06 PM PDT

    •  "Well within a pixel"?

      I wish my monitor could display fractions of a pixel.  ;)

      No, I agree.  It's just a little odd that it would come up, since they were starting with interlaced NTSC source files and outputting an interlaced NTSC final product.  Why on earth would they ever be working in Square Pixels mode to begin with?  

      by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:10:43 PM PDT

      •  Your version of Photoshop

        doesn't interpolate? Come on, stop being defensive.

        And I agree that it's odd that it would come up, but it's also odd that they would pick that EXACT aspect ratio when stretching his video, no? Stretching it by 11.1%? It's also odd that they would dump interlaced video on their website. There are lots of odd things that taken together tell me these people are winging parts of this rather than crafting some insidious plot.

        by johnsonwax on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:24:22 PM PDT

        •  Well, nit-picking here, but it wouldn't be a plot

          so much as somebody playing around with different effects and settings and coming up with something that plays up the candidate's race, and then thinking that could be useful. Hell, they might be a racist who thought that those made him look less appealing without even realizing why--played the trick on themselves, in other words.

          Sloppy production and intent to play on racism aren't mutually exclusive. Occam's razor just happens to favor the sloppy production explanation.

          by klizard on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 09:01:15 PM PDT

•  Is his darker tie more sinister as well?

  Boy, we are really reaching into the conspiracy bucket.  This was a campaign that totally ran out of money, had no plan B, and self-destructed in their leadership.

  And we think they are clever enough to doctor photos?

  by captainlaser on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:52:39 PM PDT

  •  It's not a photo

    It's video :)

    Hey, I really don't know if it was intentionally racist.  I just know that desaturation, darkeing, and widening, had to be someone's intention and choice, not just a conversion error.  It's a very slick, professional ad and I'm sure cost a pretty penny.  Seems silly to argue that it must have been incompetence -- its not like there are spelling mistakes or anything.  :P  

    (Again -- all I'm asking is that we look at the videos side by side.  This diary gives instructions how to do that, so you don't have to take my word for it!  If you come to the conclusion that it must have been an accident, more power to ya!)

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:55:27 PM PDT

  •  p.s.

    If I wanted to go all conspiracy theory on ya, I'd make some comment about the right-facing crescent shape beside him ;)  hehe

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:56:47 PM PDT

  •  You can't not doctor photos when producing an ad.

    It's part of the production process, you make a lot of subtle and not-so-subtle changes to the pictures. These ads are produced with a lot of close attention. It's not "doctoring" in and of itself, there's nothing bad about doing it. Also, darkening and dulling an opponent is SOP for attack ads. The question is why did they stretch out his face, as well. It's hard to see what purpose there was for that if they weren't also trying to emphasize that he is a black man. Changing his face to emphasize that he is a black man doesn't take any extra effort, just the intent to do it.

    by klizard on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:59:36 PM PDT

    •  Did they PhotoShop out his flag lapel pin?

      by SpamNunn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:18:45 PM PDT

•  In my diary just below

  I offer the explanation for the stretching. The stretch is exactly what would happen if you used an NTSC source with square pixels. Doing so stretches the video horizontally 11%. I find it an odd coincidence that someone would pick that exact ratio, and it's a fairly easy mistake for a rookie to make.

  And I disagree with it being professional. It's completely recycled footage. I have students that put work like this together for me all the time.

  by johnsonwax on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:55:29 PM PDT

  •  I disagree with that

    This ad was designed for, and ran on, television.  Why do you think the ad team would be setting Avid / PPro / etc. to square pixels when the output was for NTSC?  They would have been working in the NTSC aspect and color space all along.

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:06:19 PM PDT

    •  Because I think they are

      trying to get by on a shoestring and doing things wrong. Why do they have interlaced video on the web?

      by johnsonwax on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:09:05 PM PDT

      •  Well, again

        Because they're TELEVISION ads.  :P  :)  They're done in NTSC.  And then AFTERWARDS they're converted to the web.  They were designed, produced, and launched in NTSC.  In fact, even if you download the high res version, the info confirms it's 29.97fps interlaced NTSC.  So they were using source NTSC footage, and outputting to NTSC.  Square pixels are a red herring.

        by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:14:05 PM PDT

        •  Not necessarily

          There may have been confusion as to the final format, and it's easy with one mouse-click to override the built in interpolation settings. I've made this kind of mistake personally more times than I care to admit.

          by mrblifil on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:23:07 PM PDT

          •  Maybe.

            As I show in the picture below, there's evidence for both issues.  On Hillary's website, at least, the ENTIRE ad is stretched horizontally, worsening the problem.  And I'm guessing that part, at least was, unintentional.  They even cut off the bottom of the "PAID FOR BY" credit.  :)  And that's on all the vids, not just this one.

            by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:25:42 PM PDT

            •  Right, which

              leads me to believe they have a bunch of people that don't know what they are doing putting this stuff together. Why make mistakes that most 17 year old video pirates usually manage to avoid?

              by johnsonwax on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:29:39 PM PDT

              •  Then where are her millions going? :)

                Mark Penn's salary is only half of her takings, right?  :)

                by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:30:46 PM PDT

                •  It's going into

                  ground staff that she has to pay for because she doesn't have the volunteer base that Obama has. There have been numerous report of her having to pay people to canvas and whatnot. Obama doesn't have to do that. That gets expensive fast.

                  by johnsonwax on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:39:06 PM PDT

                  •  That's true

                    Remember a few days ago when Hillary was caught hiring a marketing group to pay African Americans to stand on the side of the road holding Hillary signs :) ?

                    by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:43:39 PM PDT

        •  Why are only some interlaced and

          not others. Why not dump right from the editor to MP4? You pointed out that they've further stretched their video, that they've cut off parts of their ads.  There's a lack of consistency and professionalism with how they are doing things.

          by johnsonwax on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:26:50 PM PDT

  •  Exactly

    high priced pros are too busy and too expensive to be slapping ads like this together. Good luck trying to explain pixel aspect ratio metrics to a fevered Obama supporter intent on uncovering nascent racism in action.

    It's all very confusing for the multimedia professional. Sometimes you get footage shot widescreen DV, with a 40:33 pixel aspect ratio, and then wrongly interpolated for square pixel. Or the other way around. Usually Final Cut and After Effects and  the like take care of this automatically, but at first it can be confusing and one finds oneself going back over the settings repeatedly. New-fangled HD codecs also use strange new horizontal squashing techniques to save on file size.

    If I were going to fatten his face, there are other methods more subtle than horizontal stretching, which, if it were a consciously planned proposal, would be shot down immediately. This is just a sign that someone goofed. As for darkening the image, there's no question they are attempting to imply a kind of menace, that's standard for negative ads. After all the original image is shot flatteringly, if it's from something like Good Morning America, so something has to be done to take the romance out of the shot. I have a hard time believing that this came about as an attempt to craft a subliminal message. Nothing about the Clinton campaign so far suggests that level of sophistication.

    by mrblifil on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:20:59 PM PDT

    •  Hey, I agree

      When I'm working with video for clients, it's sometimes a combination of NTSC, NTSC Widescreen, and Square Pixel work, and there have indeed been times where I had to remember to Interpet Footage correctly.  :)  

      But I don't think the RATS thing was necessarily intentional either, or Huckabee's floating cross.  I think it's not so much a case of "he he lets do this", as much as "ooh, hey -- Barack looks a little wider here -- let's keep that" or "ooh, hey -- when you bounce the word Bureaucrats around, 'rats' is on the screen -- let's keep that" or "ooh, hey -- that bookshelf behind you kinda looks like a cross -- let's keep that".

      by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:29:46 PM PDT

•  i think hillary looks hispanic in that same ad.

  maybe it's an evil plot to pander to the latino vote. yeah, that's it.

  

  by campskunk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:56:08 PM PDT

  •  This is beside the point, because she is not

    Hispanic and there is no reason to believe that her looking Hispanic would affect how people perceived her. If somebody did that with a picture of, say, Bill Richardson in a way that looked like it was really trying to emphasize his ethnicity, that would be different.

    by klizard on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:01:37 PM PDT

  •  A latino woman over 50

    though not one who makes less than 50k/year or has lost her job to NAFTA. They need a new video person to do that or they will unleash that before Pennsylvania.

    by MMW on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:04:11 PM PDT

    •  hot damn! i caught one!

      by campskunk on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:43:19 PM PDT

•  Please comment on this diary

  It was all an accident.

  by Sam Wise Gingy on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:58:54 PM PDT

•  Who cares?

  This "conspiracy theory" is really out there in fringe land.  And fits the tired notion that anyone who opposes Obama is a racist.  Or that they only way to beat him is appealing to racists.

  This all ties into narratives that aren't working anymore.

  Obama supporters may eat it up, but they're already ... um ... his supporters.

  Everyone else yawns.

  Obama needs to appeal to parts of the base that he isn't appealing to in order to win this nomination.  This won't do it.

  by Moresby on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 06:59:39 PM PDT

  •  considering the way she has run her campaign

    I would say it was done on purpose.

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:04:23 PM PDT

  •  It's not "fringe land"

    Kos himself is promoting this heavily on the front page right here.

    by Hane on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:09:29 PM PDT

    •  kos is in fringe land these days ...

      nothing new.  Former pug Dems are always going to be part of some fringe.

      by Moresby on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:28:56 PM PDT

  •  so then, why did the campaign lie about it

    they claimed that it wasn't their footage. It was. They lied. If they will outright lie  don't you think that they would manipulate the footage if they thought it might give them an advantage? Their only mistake was they thought they could get away with it. Fortunately sharp eyes  - here on this very site - caught them.

    Hillary approved that ad and needs to answer for that ad!

    by The Third Man on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:18:53 PM PDT

    •  That could have been a sloppy mistake, too...

      ...or it could be they honestly didn't mean to do something like that, so they assumed the footage wasn't authentic. Not saying it was okay for them to deny it was their ad, when it very clearly was. They still lied, basically. And it's playing nicely for them on FOX news right now where they repeat the Clinton campaign's statement without checking to see if it's true or not.

      by klizard on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:22:28 PM PDT

      •  This is still out in la la fringe land ...

        if you think you're gonna win against McCain this way, dream on.

        This "Teacher, teacher, they're picking on me" argument just makes you look weak and whiny.

        And, as usual, Obama supporters don't deal with the main claim of the ad.

        Obama can't do his current job, and now he's asking for a major promotion.

        But keep peddling this desperate nonsense.  It will help HRC win.

        by Moresby on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:35:10 PM PDT

        •  Well the main claim of the ad is silly

          Obama chairs the Subcommittee on Europe.  Afghanistan isn't in Europe.  NATO's role in Afghanistan would be held before the Foreign Relations Committee, not Obama's Subcommittee on Europe.  

          by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:40:35 PM PDT

          •  Strange, your candidate accepted the claim ...

            in his response.

            by Moresby on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:50:45 PM PDT

            •  Not really

              He just pointed out that he'd only been chair of that committee for a year so far.  And indeed, the Foreign Relations Committee HAS held recent hearings on NATO's roll in Afghanistan, on Jan 31, 2008.

              (Incidentally, both Obama and Clinton didn't attend those hearings, as they were in California for their 18th debate.)  :)

              by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:54:38 PM PDT

    •  I agree they lied

      but I think they assumed someone was setting them up because they never scrutinized the piece to begin with.

      I mean, if they were really trying to manipulate the footage and they've been caught on it, why is it still on their site?

      by johnsonwax on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:31:47 PM PDT

      •  Actually, I agree with that

        It was probably a "lie" in the sense of "since I know we wouldn't do something like that, it must have been some fan ad they're talking about".

        by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:32:57 PM PDT

        •  And again ...

          Obama needs to do other things than whine about an ad.

          I note that no one address my point about how Obama needs to appeal to certain segments of the base that aren't hearing his message.

          Like Blue Collar dems.

          Blue Collar Dems don't like whining.

          by Moresby on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:38:03 PM PDT

          •  Then again...

            ...Clinton spent the last week doing nothing BUT whining.  She whined about the moderators being unfair to her.  She went on SNL and approved their skit about the media being more challenging to her.  She whined in her events.  She whined on the talk shows.  For a full week, all she did was go "waaah people are treating Obama better than me waaah" and it worked.  :)

            by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:41:49 PM PDT

            •  Only looked like whining to you ...

              looked like fighting to blue collar dems who already hate the corporate kiss-ass media.

              If you want to appeal to these voters, first you've got to understand them.

              Unfortunately most Dkos Obama supporters wouldn't know how to talk to a Blue Collar Dem if their life depended on it.

              But HRC does.

              by Moresby on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:48:02 PM PDT

              •  Oh, bah.

                I'm born and raised Michigan blue collar Dem all the way.  My mom was an assembly line worker and my dad an inner city Detroit grade school teacher.

                by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:50:35 PM PDT

                •  But now you've fallen under the spell ...

                  of the effete la la brigade, and lost the language.

                  It's okay.  Happens to a lot of people.

                  You need to go get it back.

                  by Moresby on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:53:05 PM PDT

                  •  "The efete la la brigade"?

                    Really?  :P  

                    by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:55:58 PM PDT

                    •  You liked that, didn't you?

                      There's hope for you yet.

                      by Moresby on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:01:07 PM PDT

                      •  Where do I sign up? I bet they have great lattes.

                        by klizard on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:04:08 PM PDT

                        •  I've heard they do ...

                          but they won't give me a membership, so I can't be sure.

                          by Moresby on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:05:29 PM PDT

          •  Did Obama ever whine about this ad?

            I wasn't aware that he did. This is purely something from DKos, and even here people weren't 100% sure what it meant. FOX news picked it up and left out key facts, accepting the Clinton campaign's story that they didn't make the ad, when it's 100% proven that they did.

            by klizard on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:57:16 PM PDT

            •  Right

              Obama's smart enough not to bring this up.  How pathetic would that be.  "Waaah they're trying to desaturate me!!!"

              by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:59:26 PM PDT

•  It's done all the time.

  This picture of Kerry at a rally was Photoshopped to sharpen his features, making him look creepy.   Campaign lit is not a place to look for a flattering photo.  

  

  by SpamNunn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:13:04 PM PDT

  •  Ew!!!

    :)  But you're right.

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:14:39 PM PDT

    •  Crypt Keeper! Ugh.

      Standard operating procedure in campaign lit.

      by SpamNunn on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:16:33 PM PDT

•  Tip and recommend for research

  but not for conclusions.  You can't seriously be suggesting that the HRC campaign stretched the video deliberately to make Obama's nose look wider.  That's just plain nuts.

  He's a black man.  Everybody knows he's a black man.  He looks like a black man.  Stretching a video doesn't make him look any more like a black man than he already does.

  What's the theory here, that some voters who might otherwise vote for him would suddenly become racists and vote for Hillary because his nose looks a millimeter wider than it did the last time they looked at him?

  Ye gods.

  by Hane on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:14:11 PM PDT

  •  No. This is a real situation. A large minority of

    Dem voters are, while perhaps not consciously racist, succeptible to suggestions of "blackness". My worst case here is that the Clinton campaign hoped to capitalize on these implicit emotions by appealing to the baser instincts of white democrats. This is not some "fringe" phoney-baloney, but rather a well-understood and studied truth.

    Your flippancy about media leveraging racism is pretty appalling, in my opinion, though I'd take your word that it's just ignorance.

    Thanks,

    Jeff

    by jeff in nyc on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:18:08 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    I'm not really concluding one way or another.  

    In fact, I'll help the anti-intentional crowd with this image:

    

    The Hillary website itself is stretching the ENTIRE video wider than it should be.  Look at the Hillary fonts -- the one in the video is clearly wider than the one on top.  Assuming they're supposed to be the same ratio, this image would give substantial ammunition to the "it wasn't intentional" argument (at least, as far as the reallllly stretched hillaryclinton.com video is concerned.)

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:19:53 PM PDT

  •  It's certainly possible they would do that...

    ...on purpose. That doesn't mean they did, though. johnsonwax made a very interesting point about the change in aspect ratio which I don't quite get because I'm not familiar with the technical details of these things, but it sounds like his face being made wider was accidental.

    by klizard on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:25:11 PM PDT

  •  Subconscious impulses in low-information voters

    are a very powerful thing.  Hillary would have never reached beyond 10% in any primary if not for low-information, easily misled people.  She's trying to win uninformed people who have heard those rumors coming from the false Muslim email, from a friend of a friend on a bar stool or something, and they like what they see from Obama but aren't sure they can trust him.  People like that really exist.  Editing footage for an attack ad to make Obama look sinister (regardless of whether it was done as part of the standard negative ad toolbox, or designed to appeal to racism) magnifies the negative effect of those rumors.  It's sleazy politics whether it was intentional or not.

    In Ohio, of voters who said race was "very important" to their voting decision, Hillary won about 75%.  That indicates these kind of things work on some of the idiots she's trying to trick into voting for her.

    Also, the actual substance of Hillary's ad was a lie.  So was her campaign's response when asked about the darkening of the ad.

    The "Clinton rules" seem to be that Hillary is allowed to do anything to anyone and get away with it.

    by Troutnut on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:30:23 PM PDT

    •  This is something you shoud not say:

      Subconscious impulses in low-information voters are a very powerful thing.  Hillary would have never reached beyond 10% in any primary if not for low-information, easily misled people.

      It really sounds bigoted. I'm not saying you are, just that this comment sounds that way. I think it's accurate to some extent to talk about low-info voters if you mean people who don't actively follow politics and use the internet. So they might not become aware of the latest phenomenon as quickly. But that doesn't mean they are dumb.

      That said, what you should say is kind of complicated, and I agree with your comment that people with unexamined racist ideas could be swayed by these kinds of subtle changes.

      by klizard on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:53:59 PM PDT

•  If this was a Republican ad

  there isn't a commenter on this thread that would doubt the racist intent.

  This is what Hillary has reduced us to: a party where hyperpartisan cultists use rationalizations
  cover up their candidate's bad behavior, bad behavior that was directed at their fellow Democrats.

  She wants to be our residential candidate. And this is how she treats a core group of faithful Democratic constituents.

  And Hil supporters collaborate in her disrespect by trying to rationalize it away.

  by wren on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:37:14 PM PDT

  •  You know, there was a factual argument...

    ...made in the diary. It's not just a lame excuse to cover for Hillary. Really.

    by klizard on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:59:13 PM PDT

•  Diaried yesterday.

  Silly then
  Silly now.

  by labradog on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:39:01 PM PDT

•  There's also the matter

  of color management on people's individual monitors. I'm not a video guy but I am a photographer and I literally tear my hair out trying to get skin tones to display accurately on-screen as well as in prints.

  How hard can it be? Well for starters, I have one of these. They cost a couple hundred bucks and their sole purpose is to calibrate one's display properly because most people's aren't even close to accurate.

  The link I provided is a review of the calibration device that I use and they're right when they say:

  Colour management starts with your monitor, and if it isn't correctly calibrated there is little if any chance of colour being displayed accurately.

  There are entire books devoted to the subject of getting accurate skin tones because it's very difficult to do.

  In the synopsis of the book (Review linked above) "Skin" by Lee Varis the review states:

  Achieving accurate skin tones is one of the most challenging tasks in digital photography. Master this challenge with professional photographer Lee Varis as he covers a range of skin: women and men, young and old, various tones, in-studio and outdoors, tattoos, and more. His step-by-step tutorials and before-and-after illustrations demonstrate various techniques for topics such as digital-specific lighting challenges and what can and cannot be done in post-process.

  Add to all of this issues like "color spaces" (sRGB versus Adobe RGB versus ProPhoto RGB - aka color gamut) and aspect ratios (which may explain the "stretching") and well, I'm not sure what to make of this broo-ha about Hillary's ad but I do know this:

  Unless everyone takes the time to calibrate their display, chances are we're all seeing slightly or not-so-slight variations in colors displayed on our computer monitors. Add to that confusion that most browsers - like Internet Explorer - are not color management "aware" well... that means there's a LOT of variation that seemingly most folks here are just not aware of.

  Anybody out there use the website like Smugmug to make digital prints? Here are a few things they have to say:

  First, the bad news: 99% of all customer complaints about printing are related to skin tones. And it's the subject most likely to make photographers weak in the knees...

  A fair-skinned pinkish baby could be as light as 15% magenta, 16% yellow. Most Caucasians fall in the range of 5-20% more yellow than magenta. A fair-skinned Caucasian adult could be as low as 20% magenta, 25% yellow. A bronzed Caucasian could be as high as 45% magenta, 62% yellow.

  We find that it's easy to oversaturate African-American skin, so be careful there. Yellow and magenta values should be fairly close. We agree with Lee Varis, in that you might find a yellow bias in African-American skin, which will not look good in print.

  Asian and Hispanic skin will typically have 10-20% higher yellow than magenta.

  Note that Smugmug is talking about prints which is a very different kettle of fish than an image displayed on a monitor. A print is reflective; a monitor is luminous. But you can see this is a huge deal for photographers and whether it's on a computer display or a print: achieving accurate skin tones is very tricky!

  Now. Having said all that, I'm an Obama guy. I can look at a photo and usually (within reason) size up what someone may have done to it in post-production and in Kos's diary today, I'd agree the photo was desaturated and probably darkened a bit. However, it's very possible that this was not done maliciously.

  But... In today's political climate, it's equally possible that it was. We just don't know.

  But I did want to make people aware of a few basic color management issues - especially as they relate to skin tones when photographs are displayed on the bazillion different brands and types of monitors everyone uses on the Internet.

  by Snud on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:51:50 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely agree with this

    Only caveat -- if they had just used Obama's debate footage as-is, it wouldn't have mattered how it looked on their monitors.  If they pulled in the clip, put their text next to it, and outputted the clip, the colors and brightness and aspect ratio would have all been identical to the source footage -- on ANYONE'S monitor.  

    by cartwrightdale on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 07:58:38 PM PDT

  •  Recco, baby!

    Great info!

    This whole debate should be based upon "proof" and, so far, we seem to have none. What we do have are a lot of techno-points (for either side) which are very informative and worthy, and a lot of mind reading, which is not.

    Also, slightly OT, I think maybe this explains a little why there is such a discrepancy between my daughter's awesome wedding photos, as displayed on the photog's website, and the whiter-shade-of-pale version on the disc they issued us. I had to go in and add color myself, before printing them off, and my photoshop skills are really basic--especially when it comes to skin.

    I'm sure someone will explain to me how to re- calibrate my computer, etc., as well as other arcane tips, but that would make my head shatter.

    Thanks for your terrific on-the-spot seminar!

    by nancelot on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:25:24 PM PDT

•  The levels that Senator Clinton

  is sinking to are disgusting,

  This is bad and so is the backface neo-minstrel show skit Senator Clinton has used to "inspire" her campaign and supporters.

  I never used to think of blackface parodies of affirmative-action-unqualified-lazy-black-men as comedy. After watching the SNL skits, I still don't.

  This ad and that SNL skit are just more data-points of a campaign beta testing race-base attacks for the GOP.

  As I've said, it is disgusting.

  Cheers

  by dengre on Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 08:41:55 PM PDT