Obama vaccine picture trickery

[Edx]

Huh? the whole thing is on video as well..him getting the injection

Faaaaakkkeee

 

[Travis]

I submitted it to photoshop disasters to get their take on it.

 

[GreyICE]

I did tread your entire post, Grey. And Im saying that it wasn't shopped. Playing with lighting settings because it didn't look right, doesn't support the original contention that it was shopped (THE OP linked to a post where the guy IS CLAIMING that it isn't Obama, and alleging by inference that OBAMA's face was photoshopped onto another mans body, who was getting a shot).

Im going by the original claim, not what others in the thread have speculated

So you're saying the image was manipulated using Photoshop, which is why our President has developed a critical melanin deficiency in his hands, but it wasn't shopped?

You are aware that by your definition Ralph Lauren didn't use photoshop, right?

It's a terrible use of photoshop, and I stand by that. If you want to go argue with idiots who think that it's Obama's head on someone else's body, and that that proves vaccines are dangerous, knock yourself out.

ETA: Alan, thanks for the investigation. That's interesting. Can someone with more knowledge than me tell me what the shutter speed of 5.9 means? That should mean 1/5.9 seconds, by convention, but that's such a ridiculous number that I can't help thinking it means something else.

 

[A'isha]

So you're saying the image was manipulated using Photoshop, which is why our President has developed a critical melanin deficiency in his hands, but it wasn't shopped?

There's "used Photoshop", which means an image was touched up to alter brightness, tone, sharpness, whatever. And then there's "'shopped", as in "this image looks 'shopped. I can tell from the pixels, and from seeing a lot of 'shops in my time", internet-meme shorthand for an image that has been so substantially altered using Photoshop as to justify accusations that the image has essentially been faked.

An image can be manipulated in Photoshop, without being 'shopped. That's what he's getting at.

 

[Arus808]

There's "used Photoshop", which means an image was touched up to alter brightness, tone, sharpness, whatever. And then there's "'shopped", as in "this image looks 'shopped. I can tell from the pixels, and from seeing a lot of 'shops in my time", internet-meme shorthand for an image that has been so substantially altered using Photoshop as to justify accusations that the image has essentially been faked.

An image can be manipulated in Photoshop, without being 'shopped. That's what he's getting at.

Yes ANT, that is what I was trying to explain. Thanks for explaining it better.

 

[novaphile]

The image looks fine to me, but that's a huge needle!

I get flu shots every year (two this year because I had the extra H1N1) and they've never used a syringe with a needle that long. Typically they're single shot syringes with a needle that is roughly a third to a quarter of an inch long (I'm hoping that's meaningful to a mainly US audience).

The last time I had a vaccination with a needle like that it was for tetanus.

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

ETA: Alan, thanks for the investigation. That's interesting. Can someone with more knowledge than me tell me what the shutter speed of 5.9 means? That should mean 1/5.9 seconds, by convention, but that's such a ridiculous number that I can't help thinking it means something else.

I don't know what "shutter speed" refers to, but the "exposure time" is 0.0166667, which clearly refers to 1/60 s. That's not incredibly slow, but a fast hand movement by Obama could easily produce motion blur artifacts like those in the image.

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[GreyICE]

I don't know what "shutter speed" refers to, but the "exposure time" is 0.0166667, which clearly refers to 1/60 s. That's not incredibly slow, but a fast hand movement by Obama could easily produce motion blur artifacts like those in the image.

- Dr. Trintignant

Ah. And the artifacts that make his hands appear several shades lighter than, well, his hands?
http://blog.pennlive.com/pennsyltucky/2008/04/AP080413024045.jpg
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/02/17/PH2008021700435.jpg

Lets do a zoom.

Yeah, so, like I said, I don't buy that this wasn't substantially altered by our friend Photoshop.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Dude, you don't see the shadow on her blouse? You don't see the vein on the back of his hand continuing uninterrupted by the shadow on his wrist? Have you never heard of how light and shadow can affect a color's appearance?

 

[GreyICE]

Dude, you don't see the shadow on her blouse? You don't see the vein on the back of his hand continuing uninterrupted by the shadow on his wrist? Have you never heard of how light and shadow can affect a color's appearance?

Okay, yes, that's one explanation. Another is this:

Software used: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh

I think one of them is a tad more convincing than another.

Really though, I'm agnostic. If everyone looks at the above, and says that it wasn't substantially shopped, well, we have a conclusion, don't we?

Yes, it's that the lot of ya are wrong, but it's a conclusion.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

People are focusing too much on just his arm and hand. I haven't seen anyone point out that Obama's face, too, is ridiculously pale in this photograph.

However, both his hand and face are still roughly the same tone, which is evident in other photographs of the man.

From the article:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2696/4204626110_56b9128669_b.jpg

Others:
http://www.jillstanek.com/obama thoughtful.jpg
http://reddingnewsreview.com/newspages/2007newspages/the_big_two_democrats_obama_and_hillary.jpg

Also, in addition to the ghosting of the hand, his right elbow is ghosted, too. There would be no need to touch-up that portion of the photograph (it's obvious they're not trying to "airbrush" out the fuzz on his shirt or whatnot), which leads me to believe it's likely to be nothing more than motion blur.

 

[jmcvann]

CS4 could be the software that is used to get the images from the camera, however the photographer could have done some minor processing (fix lighting and balance levels).

Yes. Like every single photo in every single publication these days. I was a newspaper editor for 15 years. EVERY SINGLE PHOTO is "shopped" to some degree. Like copy editors, who cannot resist finding some (perhaps tiny) thing to change in every story, photo editors cannot resist tweaking some (perhaps tiny) thing in every photo.

 

[Dr. Trintignant]

Ah. And the artifacts that make his hands appear several shades lighter than, well, his hands?
http://blog.pennlive.com/pennsyltucky/2008/04/AP080413024045.jpg
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/02/17/PH2008021700435.jpg

Lets do a zoom.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=41&pictureid=2181[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=41&pictureid=2180[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=41&pictureid=2120[/qimg]

Yeah, so, like I said, I don't buy that this wasn't substantially altered by our friend Photoshop.

Without knowing the exact lighting conditions it's impossible to make any comparisons. You can't simply look at the pixels in a photo and judge if one thing is darker than another, particularly (but not exclusively) if you're comparing two different images.

Anyway, there's no such thing as an unprocessed image--cameras do plenty of processing on their own--and I think it quite likely that there were some global lighting tweaks, as Arus and other point out. But there's no need to invoke the kind of hand-editing needed if those artifacts were from Photoshop. The likely explanation is that those are motion blur, while the odd skin tone is from room lighting, the camera's flash, or full-image processing.

- Dr. Trintignant

 

[Arus808]

and as I stated, Photoshop could simply be the program that the photographer uses to batch process the images, and/or simply to grab the images from the camera (it does do that).

 

[Klimax]

and as I stated, Photoshop could simply be the program that the photographer uses to batch process the images, and/or simply to grab the images from the camera (it does do that).

Like conversion from RAW to JPG.
(And then there would be even no need for any user-initiated changes to picture as application would do some automatically while converting from RAW to other format.)

 

[CurtC]

I don't know what "shutter speed" refers to, but the "exposure time" is 0.0166667, which clearly refers to 1/60 s. That's not incredibly slow, but a fast hand movement by Obama could easily produce motion blur artifacts like those in the image.

The exposure time was 1/60 of a second, and flash was used, so you should expect that anything in motion would have a faint blur (movement while there was no flash) and a pretty sharp part where the flash caught it. That slight blur above his hand seems consistent with this effect, with no alteration.

A long exposure time combined with a flash explains this photo.

 

[mythstifieD]

Someone posted a link to the original. Anyone want to do some photo-investigating?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4204626110/sizes/o/

Wow.

He has reallllly white arms!