BP Caught Photoshopping Disaster Response Photos 560
An anonymous reader tipped a post up on Americablog revealing that BP Photoshopped a fake photo of their crisis command center and posted it on their main site. The blogger commented, "I guess if you're doing fake crisis response, you might as well fake a photo of the crisis response center." While this story was just being picked up by the Washington Post, an Americablog reader spotted another doctored BP photo on their website, this time of a "top kill" working group. How many others?
What's the fuss (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Interesting)
Really, who cares? They photoshopped an image for aesthetic reasons, big deal.
Might as well just actors and a set then if asthetics are what count.
PS - maybe they did, seems the metadata in the file says the image from 2001, not 2010.
Stupid article (Score:3, Interesting)
However there is utter garbage reporting on that site. They used the exif data as 'proof' the photo was actually taken in 2001. If you're going to call out a company for incompetence and/or missleading people, perhaps it would be best to demonstrate a bit of common sense.
Do the editors also wonder if they've been caught in a time vortex when they notice their AV equipment flashing 00:00?
The other faked photo (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as I can see, the photoshop edit made to the other faked photo [americablog.com] is only of cosmetic nature: the computer presentation has been made darker in order to reduce contrast and make the content better visible. So I don't see a big deal here.
Transport Tycoon (Score:2, Interesting)
Take a look at the large version of that photo [blogspot.com]. It looks like someone in the office was busy playing transport tycoon instead of trying to manage some real world logistics.
Re:Who cares (You Should) (Score:5, Interesting)
They are keeping legitimate news organizations away from key locations by pretending that it will interfere with the cleanup. (Just check NPR for reports on this.) They are hiring local off duty cops, IN UNIFORM to keep people from seeing what is going on. When the cop tells someone to leave, you have no idea if they are working as sworn officers of the law or stooges for BP (not that there is much difference). They are paying local fisherman to help in the clean up and exposing them to harmful substances, and keeping them quiet by threatening to kick them off the payroll if they talk to reporters, or tell anyone that they are getting ill from chemical exposure.
Right after the explosion, they make rig workers sign papers saying they had no injuries BEFORE THEY LET THEM GET ON SHORE. They have consistently lied about how much oil was being released, because penalties are based on a per barrel amount. This is still in process, which is why they were trying to silence local scientists who would be able to provide evidence about how bad the spill is.
I can't say that they have killed anyone, but they have bullied, lied and intimidated people to a disgusting degree. If you think this is OK, then I suggest you change places with someone who has their life ruined by corporate greed and then see how you feel. Yeah, a little PhotoShop tweaking is no big deal, but when it is a part of a pattern of law breaking and corruption then it is just one more fact that needs to be brought out to insure that the truth is not ignored.
Looking in image data for evidence. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/images/HIVE_houston01.jpg [bp.com]
The clues are in the image metadata:
Title: HIVE at Houston Command Center 16 July 2010
Authors: Marc Morrison
Date Taken: 06/03/2001 3:16 p.m.
Program Name: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
OMG Fake? No... it also shows it was taken with a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III
What is unexplained in this the large monitors in this shot are the window titles showing 'Microsoft Excel' but perhaps these are some custom Excel based application that BP uses to display the ROV video feeds.
So frankly I find this whole event uninteresting. Someone didn't set the date stamp in a camera or a system somewhere along the way.
This is not a isolated incident however, so why is BP photoshopping so many images and doing such a amateurish job of it? (Ok maybe that latter part needs no explanation).
Re:OMG!!!! NOES11111 (Score:1, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought it wasn't so much about the fact they shopped it, but the fact that they skimped out and got some worthless hack to do a terrible job of it.
Re:OMG!!!! NOES11111 (Score:5, Interesting)
According to a previous post, you're a healthcare technician.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1088953&cid=26416793 [slashdot.org]
So what is it? X-Rays or CAT scanners? And that somehow makes your beliefs a "professional opinion" on photographers and photoshoppers? Oh dear.
Your "lie" seems a lot more deceptive than the photo you are complaining about.
Re:Humanity cares (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want to wait for nuclear powered space ship disasters.
We should have had them a decade ago.
Re:So the story is... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, If I were doing what those guys were, and someone sent me such a memo, I'd .. well, I'd probably just toss it in the bin, and get on with important work.
If anything, this shows that they are focusing on the clean-up work, and some less important PR stuff is slipping. As it should be.
Re:And this is a story why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because it looked ugly. One of the screens was either all white, or had been badly hit by a reflection, and dominated the picture. They did a rush photochop, posted it, and got on with work. If it looked ugly, none of the news agents that they might have been producing it from would have used it. Plenty of reasons for a quick job
Re:2001 (Score:4, Interesting)
Not necessarily 2001 -
Sometimes hardware devices can create really weird dates. I have a music converter that produces stuff tagged as 2002.
Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (Score:3, Interesting)
Women who false advertise? Not only no makeup in the morning, but:
* no pushup bra so not as big as you thought ;)
* or you find out they are silicon induced (Still partly acceptable...
* no colored contacts so no blue eyes, just brown
* maybe the fake nails are off
* maybe the fake eyelashes are off
* no platform or high-heel shoes, so about 2-4" shorter (or more)
* no tummy tuck wrap, so she's got a gut
* no trimming panties, so she's got waves of cellulite
* botox lips
* Silicon eyebrows
deceptions... deceptions...
But, is it a lie? Not really, unless she didn't tell you that she used to also be a guy or has a penis. THAT then, would be the lie.
That is the real question for the BP photoshopping... Nope, The command center exists somewhere, and the topkill conference / meeting took place. Did they have to jazz up the pics for "marketing"? probably, just like every news anchor has a ton of makeup on camera. Would they have to try so hard if everyone wasn't demonizing them while doing their damn best to get it fixed? And folks believe they WANT to kill their customers and wildlife, etc? It was an ACCIDENT! Get over it.
(No, I'm not saying they get a free pass, so don't read that into it... I'm saying they had to spin a little pr like everyone else. )
Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (Score:1, Interesting)
I personally think all woman should wear the cheap "K-Mart bras".
The padded style may give the illusion of a larger breast but all it it changes the shape more than it changes the apparent size, it looks to fake and obvious because the breast shape is a little larger but flattened, specially when wearing a tight shirt and the padding is obvious. I think woman look at themselves in a mirror and it might look okay but any other viewing angle it it looks obviously wrong.
The pushup style is not as bad and pleasing to look at when the woman is still or moving slowly or maybe for pictures, it shows more cleavage and attempts to create a specific shape of breast but there is no bounce or movement when they walk and is not natural.
The combination of padding and pushup in one bra is a disaster. Bad shape, no movement, it is the worst of both worlds.
Size and cleavage is nice but it is just one part of the overall appearance. The cheap "K-Mmart bras" allow the natural shape to show and you get realistic movement, they also provide the most revealing and real overall view of the breast close to natural. They look the great on tight and lose fitting clothes. I think it is a nice balance that provides support, some shape, and the required movement.
Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (Score:3, Interesting)
Though I know there are no girls on Slashdot, here's a tip: if I can tell you're wearing makeup, you have already failed. Proper makeup application enhances beauty, it doesn't attempt to replace it.
The same can be said for perfume. The intent of perfume is to make someone want to get closer to smell it. If you bath in it such that everyone can smell you in a 40x40 room then it implies you're trying to hide an oder which will make the average male puke. And if you can be smelled 40 feet away, there is no incentive to want to get closer. In fact, it will likely drive people away who get too close.
In fact, it wasn't so long ago that such actions would label you a whore. After all, only a whore need cover the oder of sex with fifty men; as there isn't a need to otherwise smell so strongly. A subtle oder is much desired to attract a potential mate.
Like most good things, moderation is key!
One last tip! Frequently change your perfume. Constant use of the same perfume causes your nose to effectively filter the constant source of over stimulation. As a result, women who constantly wear the same perfume almost always wear far, far too much because they can no longer effectively tell how strong the oder.
In a nut shell, DON'T SMELL LIKE A WHORE! Its not attractive!
Oh ya, some men could certainly learn from this as well!
Re:So the story is... (Score:2, Interesting)
BP posted what they said was the original [bp.com].
Fixed that for you. Surprising how quickly we assume truthfulness on the part of people who try to slip an untruth past us once. Just because their explanation is plausible doesn't mean it is legitimate. I mean, I'm not proposing the opposite is necessarily true, either, but it seems silly to assume trustworthiness of someone who has just demonstrated otherwise.