[johnmflores]

BP photoshops fake photo of crisis command center, posts on main BP site

AMERICAblog News: BP photoshops fake photo of crisis command center, posts on main BP site

[landscaped1]

wonder how much money, time and effort BP wasted on that? I guess they have nothing better to do with their time or efforts.

[Blue]

Shouldn't conspiracy theory crap belong in the Politics and Religion forum? The Blog cites a WashingtonPost article which cites the Blog. I'm not sure what difference it makes on still photos anyway. This is more diversions from finding out about the sea floor being at risk of splitting open.

[Marc Sabatella]

Seems photograpy-related to me.

[Blue]

Seems photograpy-related to me.

Then move it to the software forum.

[Ira]

wonder how much money, time and effort BP wasted on that? I guess they have nothing better to do with their time or efforts.

With today's pay scale for a graphic artist, I would say it cost 20 bucks and took no time or effort at all.

[MRRiley]

I thought about moving it to General Talk but for now, since the intent of the post was to identify an incident of "photo fraud" (and not to discuss the Photoshop product or how to do something in photoshop) it's fine right here Blue....

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 07-20-2010 at 10:50 AM.

[johnmflores]

I put stuff like this (and other posts related to photographers' rights to photograph in public spaces) because they speak to the role of photography in society. What's interesting about this story is not the photomanipulation itself, but the fact that BP has been caught red-handed and how the word is getting out.

Twenty years ago a story like this might not have been told, or warranted enough attention to make it into the local paper or evening news. Today, sharp-eyed bloggers find something like this and post. Sometimes it gets picked up, spread through the blogosphere, the twittersphere, and places like Pentaxforums.

[RioRico]

I recall a story from a couple months ago, where it was shown that many online firms (often but not always fly-by-nights) all used the same microstock photo of a group of office people, purportedly each firms' staff. Oops. The point being, if you want some corporate credibility, you don't pull lame sh!t like that.

The BP shooping scam illustrates the same point -- some of BP's PR wonks, who should be carefully tending their firm's image, don't really care whether they're credible or not. I mean, if they had an actual crisis-response center up and running, why not just post a photo of the real thing? It becomes obvious that all BP's public response is mere sham, with hotline workers saying that received calls are totally ignored. BP reportedly hasn't cut back on other influence-pushing efforts or cash-based lobbying and manipulation, so this incident sends a message that they're just as incompetent dealing with image as they are with the reality of their shoddy drilling (and non-compliance with safety standards).

Ah well, some bidness guys'n'gals will learn, some won't. The PR lesson emerged a couple decades ago: if you f*ck up, admit it right away, because coverups are hard to maintain, and only hurt more when revealed. Photo fraud especially is a chickensh!t scam pulled by chickensh!t players. If you're going to fake sincerity, at least do a better job of it.

Thing is this is nothing new. We were doing it 30 years ago. Some of us trestified in court as expert witnesses for opinions on whether something was faked or not. Only thing that's happened is it got easier to do and just about anyone today can attempt it. Hate to say it but there's nothing new under the sun here.

[johnmflores]

Thing is this is nothing new. We were doing it 30 years ago. Some of us trestified in court as expert witnesses for opinions on whether something was faked or not. Only thing that's happened is it got easier to do and just about anyone today can attempt it. Hate to say it but there's nothing new under the sun here.

No doubt this has been going on for some time - Stalin was great at it:



The question is, are people generally more aware of it and does poor photochopping get called out with more regularity? Ultimately, does this impact how we take photographs? Remember, painting used to be a representational art until something - the camera - came along. Is it our turn to be freed from trying to capture reality?

Like I said: Nothing new under the sun. I said 30 years because that's when I got good enough to pass it off. And that would be the minimum time it's been done since someone taught me the basics. And we just called them doctored photos.

Seems as though the Ruskies were pretty good at removing people. Literally and pictorially.

Here's an interesting site

http://www.oddee.com/item_96803.aspx

[mikemike]

No doubt this has been going on for some time - Stalin was great at it:



The question is, are people generally more aware of it and does poor photochopping get called out with more regularity? Ultimately, does this impact how we take photographs? Remember, painting used to be a representational art until something - the camera - came along. Is it our turn to be freed from trying to capture reality?

I think there are justifiably different standards applied when you talk about art and journalism/public relations/advertising. With art photography you have all the freedom you want to modify it and do what you want with it while with the other disciplines you owe it to your audience to accurately represent reality.

Looking at what BP did...
I don't think there was anything wrong with the one with the meeting where they simulated the image on a front projection screen, which might have presumably not come through due to flash or lighting.
With the command center shot, I think that was questionable because the screens were blank but not necessarily objectionable like if they were screwing around on the internet.
With the helicopter I think that is definitely objectionable because it was just so far from the reality of the situation.

In BP's case the fact that they felt the need to "enhance" these photos shows that they felt ashamed by the real situation.

It is being called out more, especially with advertising that is designed to make women think models are skinnier, skin smoother, etc. I think it is very objectionable based on my moral compass because it is false advertising to show a picture of a womans face that has been smoothed out with PP in an attempt to sell skin creme that is supposed to make your face smooth.

Photography that is meant to be a portrayal of reality should be subjected to minimal PP. You wouldn't want the horse track to PP the photo finish, would you?

[MRRiley]

I think there are justifiably different standards applied when you talk about art and journalism/public relations/advertising. With art photography you have all the freedom you want to modify it and do what you want with it while with the other disciplines you owe it to your audience to accurately represent reality.

Looking at what BP did...
I don't think there was anything wrong with the one with the meeting where they simulated the image on a front projection screen, which might have presumably not come through due to flash or lighting.
With the command center shot, I think that was questionable because the screens were blank but not necessarily objectionable like if they were screwing around on the internet.
With the helicopter I think that is definitely objectionable because it was just so far from the reality of the situation.

In BP's case the fact that they felt the need to "enhance" these photos shows that they felt ashamed by the real situation.

It is being called out more, especially with advertising that is designed to make women think models are skinnier, skin smoother, etc. I think it is very objectionable based on my moral compass because it is false advertising to show a picture of a womans face that has been smoothed out with PP in an attempt to sell skin creme that is supposed to make your face smooth.

Photography that is meant to be a portrayal of reality should be subjected to minimal PP. You wouldn't want the horse track to PP the photo finish, would you?

Excellent example of another use where excessive or even any PP could be considered "unethical."

[reeftool]

While making a models skin look better in PP is becomeing an issue recently, what about the old fashioned way of using soft focus lenses or filters to accomplish the same thing? All fashion and cosmetic ads are false advertising in a way. They are always going to make the model look good in the photo whether it's lighting angles and soft focus or PP.