Interestingly, after viewing the original image, it actually looks as though the baby image is taped onto the monitor using what looks to be a strip of tape (the fuzzy line) (which would explain the image extending past the monitor)
Sincerely, Silas Snider
On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
2008/6/30 Mathias Schindler mathias.schindler@gmail.com:
The sharpness of the monitor image does not correspond to the sharpness of the surrounding items. The monitor image is beyond the monitor screen at the lower left corner.
The white fuzzy line across the bottom extends just past the edge of the image. Might it be an actual print, taped over the screen? That looks vaguely like some kind of thin masking tape...
Other amusement: look at point 4 of the restrictions notice on the wall...
Even if someone considers such an image to be suitable for using it in Wikipedia, it should be a standard procedure to at least mention the editing (assuming that there was one).
Yes, if it's been edited *by us*. As it is, this is exactly as it was released by the source - http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/040813-F-0000C-002.jpg - you can see the odditites in the lower right and left of the monitor screen there, too.
So we're in a quandary - maybe it's been edited, maybe it hasn't. Should we really start making editorial remarks about Photoshopped images when we're just surmising they've been edited? This is the sort of interpretation that is likely to come back and bite us - we wouldn't allow that kind of original meta-analysis of print sources to be presented to the reader, after all.
(I do concur with the idea that if we're unhappy with the image, we should find something better)
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l