Did OC Register Photoshop Trung?

I was looking at the photo of Trung Nguyen that appeared in the OC Register last week along with Steven Greenhut’s editorial “Either way, in the 1st District, it’s a Nguyen for taxpayers.” and I found it strange that the background was so out of focus and color match from the clarity of the image of Trung Nguyen.

Photoshop Trung

I clicked on the Register photo to get a better look and as I have pointed out with the arrows, this photo appears to me to be clearly a poor Photoshop of one image imposed upon another. It is a Register File Photo so no photographer is credited. Based upon closer inspection, I can tell why no photographer was credited.

I wonder if the OC Register has an answer?

I guess they figured that with so many Photoshopped images of Trung out there, no one would notice.

UPDATE:  Just got this photo from Martin Wisckol over at the Register. It looks like another Photoshop scandal was too much to hope for. Would someone please explain why it looks like Trung is pasted into the first picture and not in the original.

Original Register Photo
I can imagine the hypothetical “Fly On The Wall” in the OC Register Editorial Offices will hear something like this on Monday morning…

Greenhut: “Who’s the moron who thought it was a good idea to digitally alter a photo of Trung Nguyen and put it next to my editorial? Did you think no one would notice?”

  11 comments for “Did OC Register Photoshop Trung?

  1. Conspiracy
    February 18, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    Man, not only are you guys crazy but you have way too much time in your hands.

  2. February 18, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    Conspiracy:

    Look at the damn photo.

    I’m not crazy, the photo is obviously Photoshopped.

  3. February 18, 2007 at 9:44 pm

    I think Trung is a digital person. He clearly isn’t real. Sooner or later, Cardboard Tom and Photoshop Trung are going to have it out. Old Media vs. New Media – to the death!

  4. February 18, 2007 at 10:37 pm

    Damn it Art! You stole my joke. I was going to suggest that maybe Trung is a digital file…a la Max Headroom.

  5. February 18, 2007 at 11:20 pm

    The original picture looks ok bu how did the light in the background get faded in the larger close up shot you post above? That one looks obvisouly photoshopped?

  6. demmother
    February 19, 2007 at 8:02 am

    Actually there was a 3-D Trung sighting at Memphis last week

  7. Conspiracy
    February 19, 2007 at 8:25 am

    Like I said, Chris, you guys are crazy, and have waaaaay too much time in your hands.

  8. February 19, 2007 at 11:16 am

    The photo was obviously altered, but the composition was not changed. It looks like the background had some contrast taken out. Since you noticed, it was obviously overdone and/or poorly blended.

    I do like the kneejerk conspiracy theory posts. Keep ‘em coming.

  9. Dan Chmielewski
    February 19, 2007 at 4:37 pm

    I always thought newspapers were not supposed to alter a photo in any way without identifying that the photo was altered.

  10. Matt Leone
    February 19, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    I’m the guy on the Register editorial page staff who did indeed alter the Trung Nguyen photo (and the Janet Nguyen photo as well) by dropping out the background a little to make the main subjects stand out in better contrast. The idea was to emphasize that both were relatively unknown political personalities that suddenly stood out from a crowded field of candidates. No images were combined, no part of any image was added or deleted. Only the contrast between the backgrounds and main subjects was heightened. I didn’t do a great job of it, at that. We do alter photos in feature sections like Commentary to make a point on occasion. All that said, I most certainly should have let readers know what we did. We most often do that by labeling an altered photo a “photo illustration,” and on occasion I also have written explanatory notes to avoid confusion. We failed to do any of that in this case. We’re sorry for any confusion it has caused.

  11. Publius
    February 20, 2007 at 10:27 am

    Max Headroom – WOW – there’s a blast from the 80s past!
    But wait, weren’t you like 8 years old at the time?

Comments are closed.