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?
Who cares (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=9034366&contentId=7063636
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just an attempt to get more hits on that shitty blog. These images are just filler material for purely aesthetic purposes, it's not like BP submitted these in court to prove that they were trying their bestest to stem the leak.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because it has a low profile doesn't make it any less an instance of disinformation.
It deserves to be uncovered on a blog, but probably isn't Slashdot-worthy.
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:Who cares?? Well, I care! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just an attempt to get more hits on that shitty blog. These images are just filler material for purely aesthetic purposes, it's not like BP submitted these in court to prove that they were trying their bestest to stem the leak.
So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies... because most stories they tell about their products and business model are in the media basically for aesthetic purposes.
In fact, commercials too are all about aesthetics.
The point is that BP have done an awful lot of things for "aesthetic purposes" lately. Like changing a few numbers (flow of oil) in the media. Like predicting when it'd all be solved. Like saying that oil isn't dangerous.
It's easy to do "aesthetics" if you have billions of profit
Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies... because most stories they tell about their products and business model are in the media basically for aesthetic purposes.
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup? Can be a scary thing sometimes, perhaps best left unseen.
Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (Score:5, Funny)
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup?
No, I haven't. :(
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You must be new here.
Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (Score:5, Funny)
Ever seen a woman wear makeup...?
More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup? Can be a scary thing sometimes, perhaps best left unseen.
I have and I now only have one arm!
Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, ever wake up next to her the next morning and seen the reality of the same face without makeup?
Yes, and it's been my experience that no amount of makeup will make an ugly woman look good. Ever notice how morbidly obese women wear tons of makeup as if it will cover up the fact that they're fat?
Makeup will nake a good looking woman look better, and then only if it's applied right. Makeup won't help an ugly chick at all.
Now, your being drunk will make an ugly woman look good, that's when you wake up sober the next morning and say "OMFG!!!!!! WHAT HAVE I GOTTEN MYSELF INTO?!?" But that's your bad, not hers.
Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen my share of women whose makeup makes them look worse than they would without it.
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.
Unless.... (Score:3, Funny)
Unless you're trying to trick people into thinking you're good looking when you're really not [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks for linking a perfect example. She looks decent without makeup. With it, she looks completely fake. It's not subtle at all.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Makeup won't help an ugly chick at all.
Not true. Just add dim lighting and alcohol.
Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and it's been my experience that no amount of makeup will make an ugly woman look good. Ever notice how morbidly obese women wear tons of makeup as if it will cover up the fact that they're fat?
I'll go you one better. I just got back from my 20th high school reunion. The girls who were nice and fun to be around in high school were - without exception - attractive and young-looking. Some had, um, eaten well, but they were still pretty and had contagious smiles.
The girls who were spiteful and snotty in high school were - without exception - unattractive and worn. Some had nice figures but their faces where creased with scowl lines and crows feet.
Lesson learned: "good personality" is a much better makeup than anything you can buy in a store. It lasts a lot longer.
Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This is slashdot my friend, people post mathematical equations about what women look like, hypothesise about the probability of running into one... heck a rare few have seen one once ... without make up? :)
Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (Score:5, Insightful)
So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies... because most stories they tell about their products and business model are in the media basically for aesthetic purposes.
In fact, commercials too are all about aesthetics.
The point is that BP have done an awful lot of things for "aesthetic purposes" lately. Like changing a few numbers (flow of oil) in the media. Like predicting when it'd all be solved. Like saying that oil isn't dangerous.
It's easy to do "aesthetics" if you have billions of profit to keep the logo looking green.
How the hell is this modded insightful?
a) They didn't give the flow number, that was your very own coast guard that gave the wildly wrong estimate.
b) From the very beginning they started drilling relief wells, from the very beginning they said it would be mid august before they are ready, from the very beginning they said this will be the final solution and they will simply attempt all sorts of other methods of stopping the flow in the meantime.
c) {citation needed} and not just some shitty blog either, every single press release from BP is available in full on their website. Show me where BP has officially said oil isn't that dangerous.
Call it what it is, It's marketing. Everyone does it. I'm more disgusted that Microsoft photoshopped out black guy on their polish website. These pictures are just another crap job rather than some stupid conspiracy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, as long as it's not in court, a company can tell lies
That's why we here on Slashdot are so confident about Microsoft's pledge to not sue Linux users for $INSERT_RANDOM_PATENT. Because, like BP, they have so much money that they don't need to lie.
Seriously, if that's a question then the answer is a resounding, "yes!" Why would you believe anything a multi-billion dollar company would tell you? The only time you can actually buy what they're saying is when there are some legal repercussions for not telling the truth.
It's not that giant companies are p
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find in extraordinary that anybody could consider corporations lying as routine aesthetics. Why would any consider the individuals hiding behind the façade of a corporation have gained the moral right to lie to every person outside of the corporation.
Substantive misrepresentation of company or product capabilities for one can 'illegally' alter the public's perception of the value of the company and artificially inflate it's share price. It is the responsibility of the regulatory to investigated ar
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Another example of "aesthetics" would be the chemical dispersants used to hide the oil spill below the surface of the water.
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
it's not like BP submitted these in court to prove that they were trying their bestest to stem the leak.
It's called the court of Public Opinion and it's unforgiving.
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Funny)
The court of public opinion has decided that oil = bad. If a BP exec were caught on camera tickling a puppy, there would be at least a half-dozen sites declaring "Evil BP overlords publicly torture puppies".
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
The court of public opinion has decided that oil = bad
Which may not be such a bad thing, in a sense. The world really, seriously needs to get off its oil-addiction, and I don't think people will be willing to give up the convenience of cheap energy unless it somehow becomes a massively uncool things to use oil in the public imagination.
Yes, I am fully aware that this is not "fair" - since when has that mattered? Fairness has never been the watch word in the world of business before, so why should it be now?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oil does in fact equal bad regardless of public opinion. The worst part is, it's a necessary evil in today's world. BP's problem is that they cut corners for money while drilling, ignored their engineers, and caused a catastrophe that killed people and badly polluted the entire Gilf of Mexico and ruined the Livelihoods, lifestyles and lives of hundreds of thousands of people.
BP deserves no pity and no slack. Period. I don't care how many puppies they tickle. Someone should be in prison for what BP did.
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I'm pretty sure they work for the Illuminati. I'm pretty sure a corporation like BP wouldn't allow lowly masons amongst it's ranks. Their reptilian overlords would shit a brick.
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah... unless you can back that one up, I'm going to have to call bullshit on that.
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Funny)
The technical term for this ritual is "Going out to Hooters with the guys for beers and wings", and yes it does involve the sacrifice of dozens of animals. The fact that the actual slaughter is conducted by anointed priests in a remote temple does nothing to change it.
You don't even want to know the body count of the "Putting some burgers on the grill" ceremony. It's abominable.
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
The court of public opinion is downright foolish. We're all pissed about the oil spill after we chanted "drill, baby, drill" and keep driving around in our SUVs with no passengers.
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.
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: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a fake crisis, like so many others. Photoshopped news is not that rare. And often, it's for more than just aesthetics
http://www.speroforum.com/a/34500/Reuters-admits-to-doctored-photos-of-Gaza-Flotilla [speroforum.com]
(after all the story was that Israel attacked "unarmed" protestors, can't have huge knives in the hands of protestors, especially when they appear to be using them on soldiers)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War_photographs_controversies [wikipedia.org]
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184452.php [mypetjawa.mu.nu]
I guess in some c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the case of reuters and other serious news companies photoshopped images generally lead 1 or more people getting canned.
This sort of thing- companies releasing images to simply mislead the public is far far far more common.
I've seen some odd ones like a coal company releasing photoshopped images of coal faces.(clone tool to make it look like there was more coal than there really was)
Police have been caught photoshoping images subtly for court proceedings.
But the worst offenders seem to be governments. Be
Humanity cares (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, I agree there's a boundary where nobody cares anymore whether it's real or not - e.g. if a cover girl's photo is severely doctored to conform to the beauty standard of the times. Why? Because it's bubblegum pop news.
BP on the other hand is not only front page news, it's currently the antagonist in what will be recorded as one of the worst environmental disasters of the 21st century. History will forget that People Magazine's cover of Britney Spears makes it look like she's a D cup instead of a B cup*, but it won't forget that BP downgraded the seriousness of the situation at every available opportunity.
*This is a purely fictional example...I have no idea of what magazines splashed Britney Spears' cleavage all over their front page, and what her actual vs depicted dimensions are...all I care is that she appears to be popping out of any garment they squeeze her into.
Re:Humanity cares (Score:5, Insightful)
it's currently the antagonist in what will be recorded as one of the worst environmental disasters of the 21st century.
There's an awful lot of 21st Century left yet, not sure I'd make that statement quite yet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want to wait for nuclear powered space ship disasters.
We should have had them a decade ago.
Re:Humanity cares (Score:5, Insightful)
The 21st Century is less than 10 years old , but Century sounds worse than Decade aesthetically
I suspect that Oil wells burning in Kuwait, or the small matter of the Chernobyl disaster might have been worse environmental disasters, but they are so last century, and did not affect the USA so they don't count ....
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.
Re:Who cares (You Should) (Score:5, Funny)
What's the fuss (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's the fuss (Score:4, Insightful)
So the story is... (Score:5, Insightful)
"BP Removes reflection of camera flash from meaningless publicity photo! UPDATE: Twice!"
Re:So the story is... (Score:4, Insightful)
What kind of flash reflection removal leaves polygonal white outline around someone's head?
Have one look at the analysis. This is not "this photo has been processed through photoshop before publication". This is a blatant failure of combining various photos into one picture and trying to make them look good. I bet screens full of tables, log displays and emails were deemed not attractive enough and got replaced with colorful photos of most photogenic locations of the disaster.
Re:So the story is... (Score:5, Informative)
BP posted the original [bp.com]. All they photochopped were three of the screens, two of which were blank (one says "loading") and one of which looks like it's staring directly at a bright light. You'll also notice the source for the replacement screens are just three of the other existing screens.
Essentially it's a piss poor (and I mean PISS poor... anyone with photoshop experience could hack that trash out in minutes) touch-up by a company that should be acutely aware of it's current reputation.
TLDR version.... BP /facepalm
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I think you've just illustrated beyond a doubt why they did what they did. A couple of screens are blank for reasons we don't even know and your immediate response is "ROAR I WANT PHDS TO MONITOR VIDEO SCREENS 24/7~~!!one!" Come on now. You don't even need PhD's in that room much less be bitching about whether or not a particul
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Basically you have to be incompetent all around to get a shitty photo in the first place.
LMAO! But if they'd hired Lord Lichfield you folks'd be up in arms at the waste of money hiring a photographer who's got a clue!
And we're talking about the biggest manmade ecological disaster in quite some time, I want to see every fucking screen in use in there 24/7 ...
COAFB! And you wonder why they wanted to make it look like all the screens were in use - it's because of muppets like you who think that all the BP staff, from the highest exec to the cleaners in their London HQ should somehow be lending a hand during this monumental FUBAR! Get a grip people!
What kind of people are they hiring to work on the spill?
I expect they've got all their Marketing Dept, car pool drivers, warehouse personnel,
Re: (Score:2)
Actually... it is more like: (Score:2)
"BP's Huston Crisis Room turns out to be partially imaginary!"
Which raises the question, "Just how much of their work to fix the spill also exists only in the form of pixels?".
Also, it is very much implied that they are pathological lairs a cheaters whose every statement might be a lie.
So all that "whole truth and nothing but the truth" (once it comes to it) should be taken with a particularly large grain of salt in this case. [youtube.com]
OMG!!!! NOES11111 (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have to find fault with BP, find fault with things they really messed up, of which there are many, but not a photo retouched for aesthetic reasons.
Re:OMG!!!! NOES11111 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What lie?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ah, so the "lie" you speak of is just something that you don't believe, but may actually not be a lie.
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: (Score:2)
find fault with things they really messed up, of which there are many, but not a photo retouched for aesthetic reasons. ...what about falsification of photographic documentation of their crisis response activity?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it significant to the ongoing story of the crisis and the response, that at the particular moment the photo was taken, 3 screens out of 10 in a bank did not have video on them?
No.
It was changed for aesthetic purposes. Probably a silly thing to do, but hardly a scandal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A photography that is produced, shown and marketed for aesthetics is one thing. It's goal is to look cool. Just like an entertaining movie.
A photography that is documenting reality, that is meant to inform and educate has a goal of being accurate. Like news reporting.
A photography that is pretending to document reality while aiming at looking cool is what tabloids are, disreputable shit.
More BP news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Make sure you shake them down real good. Know you, bankrupt them or something. Just don't come crying to me when you wake up and realise a good 38 or 39% of BP is US owned, despite the apparent 'anti British feeling' this whole thing is riding upon. As far as the media are concerned, it's fighting the redcoats all over again... except in actuality, you're shooting yourself
Re:More BP news... (Score:5, Informative)
If I was Cameron I would have just ignored those senators. The UK doesn't tell the US what to do with their prisoners, the US shouldn't tell the UK what to do with theirs. The guy probably would have been released on appeal anyway. The evidence against him was shockingly bad and should've been laughed out of court.
Re:More BP news... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More BP news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely! The oil spill is bad enough, and there's no point pretending otherwise, but I find the anti-British sentiment that accompanies it unbelievably distasteful. As we say in football (soccer), play the ball, not the man! Deal with the issues, of course. It doesn't matter who owns BP; they and the company should be held to account without regard to their nationality.
Re: (Score:2)
Horrible photoshopping at that (Score:4, Informative)
The first photo had some easy to spot glitches and EXIF data that indicated the photo was nine years old.
The second photo was so obviously photoshopped it was ridiculous.
Clearly there's a business opportunity here, I know I could throw together much better fakes in under an hour and even if I billed them for a full day of labor it would probably still cost them less than what this horribly botched photoshop job cost them...
Re:Horrible photoshopping at that (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, noticed that later, apparently they used a camera that wasn't released until 2007. The images are still clearly doctored though.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we have to put up with "apparently"? I want to see the exif data myself to make up my own mind. The blog site should have the original doctored photo on display or for download. None of the images on their page shows the metadata they are claiming.
Re:Horrible photoshopping at that (Score:4, Funny)
The EXIF data only indicates that they probably didn't set their camera clock or it got reset changing the batteries.
Don't forget Occam's Razor! Is that really the simplest explanation that fits the known facts? No, not by a long shot! You know how much money oil industry has. It's practically certain they have time machine, which they've used to transfer the command center back in time, to a random time before the accident. That way they could take a photo without showing the panic and chaos there is today, so that they appear to be in control of the situation.
Quality of work... (Score:5, Funny)
What ever happened to the days where you'd get some skilled laborers and build a set, hire actors and fake a photo LEGITIMATELY?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
yeah...
The "Moon Landing" was a masterpiece. I couldn't find one flaw, and those who say lighting was off are wrong, the lighting was the best of all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's because they filmed it all on location.
Now that's brilliant! What better place to fake a moon landing than on the moon itself!
You sir have exposed the truth once and for all! You're my hero.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Costs too much.
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?
Re:Stupid article (Score:5, Funny)
For one thing. Why the hell does it matter? It's an
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yeah, I drew a blank on this one, too.
And the sad part is... (Score:2)
the graphician is the one who's gonna get fired.
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.
Re:The other faked photo (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, because that photographer should be out there mopping up oil and controlling ROVs to place a new cap instead of, you know, taking photographs and photoshopping them to make them presentable.
And don't get me started on the guys working security in the BP office buildings - they've done NOTHING to help with this crisis response. They're not even drilling relief wells!
The meaning of PR (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is a story why? (Score:2, Informative)
Yesterday I photoshopped(actually, Paint.netted) a picture for my job's website. It could mean we hate the environment....or that we're covering up a reflection in the window. Just in case, we better go with the hating the environment angle, because thats the responsible thing to report.
D
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting word "somehow" you chose there. How indeed does looking at a bank of 10 screens make one "busier" than looking at a bank of 8 screens.
Another interesting choice was the phrase "according to you", when neither the person you are replying to, nor BP made any claim of the photo representing "busy".
So what the fuck do you think you are talking about?
Re: (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
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.
OH MY GOD...The Spill is a FRAUD (Score:3, Funny)
Why isn't there a real spill response center? Because there is no spill!!
I knew it - just like the damned moon landings. This whole spill thing is a fraud, isn't it? Those shots of the oil coming out of the sea bed are probably computer generated! This proves it - BP is clearly just making all of this stuff up. And who is going to question them, huh? Can you go down 5000 feet to see it for your self? NO! You just have to take their word for it, that the "cameras" they have "placed" are really there.
Drop a few cans of Pennzoil on the surface, dip some wild life if a bucket of goop, and maybe dispose of some of that tar you can't find a landfill to take. Heck, I've heard the stories about how the private fisherman in LA have been fishing the whole time without any problems.
I call bullshit on the whole spill story. In fact, I think they did it just to make the Obama administration look bad. Yeah, that's it! Make a disaster they CAN'T fix, because it doesn't exist, then blame them for not fixing it fast enough. Bloody geniuses, I tell you!
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).
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Speaking as a Brit... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But why so little mention of Halliburton (= big American corporation) who were actually responsible for the drilling site?
Because BP is responsible for the drilling site. The outsourced it to TransOcean, who hired Haliburton, who probably rented the equipment that installed the part that was made by a supplier in China.
You can drill down to who was responsible for certain portions of this operation, but when the oil bubbles up, it belongs to BP.
Photoediting (Score:4, Insightful)
I really wish people would stop using the term "Photoshopping". There are dozens of programs that can edit photos in such ways. I mean, we don't call it "Gimping", for example.
I suggest the term "photoediting".... or even just "editing"...
"BP Caught Photoediting Disaster Response Photos"
"BP Caught Editing Disaster Response Photos"
I know, "good luck with that"
Who Cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. Who cares indeed. Let's invest our attention on finding a new reason to hate Apple instead - they are the new, cool target-of-hate, after all.
Seriously, when I watch people come up with bullshit reasons to heap hatred upon a tech company at the same time that an oil company gets a free ride when caught outright deceiving the public, I'm left wondering what the hell is wrong with people.
Mod me troll. Feel free. After all, who cares.
Foreground laptop playing the sims? (Score:3, Informative)
Is it just me... or does the picture at:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/TEXJFhjMElI/AAAAAAAAFDk/Susb7Y6PP9I/s1600/fake_GOM_simops_operations_top_kill_houston.jpg [blogspot.com]
have a laptop on the bottom left that's left running the sims... or sim city... or something like that?
On the contrary! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Googling around 1.2.0 seems to have been for hardware released in 2009. Hard to believe that 1.1.4 came out before 2001.
Re: (Score:2)
most likely the photographer never bothered to set the camera timer.
Re:The Story here... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III is from around 2007 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1Ds_Mark_III [wikipedia.org]). So if this info is correct then 2001-03-06 is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
In the oilpatch?
Ah yes, that explains a lot :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BP is just the liberals' whipping boy right now. They are riding it as hard as they can to drive hits to their worthless whiny blogs.
Oh yes, THAT'S all this is about.
You're clearly not quite used to having a full brain to work with, but don't fret. You'll figure it out eventually, but until you do, try to slow down. Telling the difference between those M's and W's [latimes.com] can be really tough on the newbies.
http://www.slate.com/id/2173965 [slate.com]
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.html [nature.com]
-FL