Home > Media & Reviews > Language Is Slow

Language Is Slow

August 31st, 2006

Kc-2Sometimes, that it. Some vocabulary charges in on a horse, like “blog” and “blogging” did. But some language persists. After all, you still “dial” a number, even though rotary dials have been gone for a few decades now (“enter a number” would be more accurate). We still get “on” airplanes instead of “in,” a century-old borrowing of seagoing terminology.

And despite the popular use of the word “photoshop” as a verb to describe the digital alteration of a photograph (after the name of the overwhelmingly popular image editing software), a lot of people are still using the old term “airbrush,” after the classic air-powered spray-painting tool used in days of yore to alter photographs printed on paper. I found this to be the case in the Katie Couric scandal, where CBS photoshopped a Couric publicity still to make her look slimmer. Even a magazine dedicated to photography used “airbrushed,” even though it is certain that Photoshop, and not airbrushing, was used. Old habits die hard.

And as an interesting side note, the sites I referenced (all the sites I could find, in fact) only offered a side-by-side comparison. The side-by-side comparison mostly emphasizes the general slimming features, especially in the gaps between her arms and torso. Again, this sort of comparison is a holdback from print photography days, while on the web, a superimposed animated GIF image–which I have prepared at top right–much more vividly shows the alterations done (if it doesn’t animate, turn animations on in your browser). You can see, for example, that part of the trick was to simply thin out the whole photo (or perhaps pinch the photo significantly)–see the background changing. Pay close attention to her neck and bust line as well to see where they put more work into it. Note the shadow added beneath her chin. This comparison shows that it was not just a 2-minute job–they really put some effort into this.

I made the animation cycle at two seconds because anything faster would be too distracting for reading purposes. However, if you click on the image, you’ll see a version which cycles at a half second, making it much easier to see the changes done.

Categories: Media & Reviews Tags: by
  1. ykw
    August 31st, 2006 at 16:32 | #1

    Perhaps Katie is putting on weight due to being nervous about her new job as the cbs anchor person. I hope she does well. Some speculate that cbs news will loose some of the older male viewers who connect with Bob Schefer, and gain women stay-at-home viewers who connect with Katie. I’m not sure what will happen on a net basis. I wonder what will happen to the content. Will they try to cater to Katie’s sweet spot (stay at home moms)? Not sure. Yet whatever happens, everyone is watching, and Katie must be Nervous !

  2. Luis
    August 31st, 2006 at 17:40 | #2

    Frankly, I’m not concerned about Katie or her weight. I’d be just as prepared to hear the news from her if she were double her present weight. The issue of the photo is more one of how casually news is pre-packaged (if they’re going to so thoroughly photoshop the anchor’s image like that, what else will they doctor?), and how weight is presented as a paramount concern in society in general. Right now, CBS News is coming across as dishonest and superficial. Not a good start with a new anchor. You gotta feel sympathetic for Couric, who almost certainly had nothing to do with this. If I were her, I’d be pissed at CBS right now.

  3. ykw
    September 1st, 2006 at 03:32 | #3

    It would not surprise me if she knew about the doctoring, yet was hoping no one would notice. When one reads news, we see them from mid chest and higher. Perhaps she figured she could hide the rest under the desk. I wonder if she is going to stop eating.

Comments are closed.