Slashdot Mirror
BP Caught Photoshopping Disaster Response Photos
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?
A quick read of TFAs and some links within them lead me to think this is a non-story. They write that BP had blank screens and photoshopped them to be not blank, saying "Why were they blank? coffee break ?" There's a ton of reasons they could be blank. A bit stupid of BP to 'shop them though.
while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
As far as I can see, the photoshop edit made to the other faked photo 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.
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.
Why is Snark Required?
BP released the full version of the image they admit was shopped for style. Some claim this image is not of the 'HIVE' response center either and was taken in 2001. This version of the image shows indications on the monitors photographs that it was taken on 16/07/10. (See middle screen above white screen).
... now this 20 megapixel camera wasn't out until 2008, and certainly wasn't around in 2001.
http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/images/HIVE_houston01.jpg
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).
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
...I do not defend BP's handling of this or their utter incompetency.
But why so little mention of Halliburton (= big American corporation) who were actually responsible for the drilling site?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
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.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
According to a previous post, you're a healthcare technician.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1088953&cid=26416793
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.
Not necessarily 2001 -
Sometimes hardware devices can create really weird dates. I have a music converter that produces stuff tagged as 2002.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine