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?
Really, who cares? They photoshopped an image for aesthetic reasons, big deal. If you don't believe what's going on you can watch the streams yourself.
http://www.bp.com/sectionbodycopy.do?categoryId=9034366&contentId=7063636
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();
"BP Removes reflection of camera flash from meaningless publicity photo! UPDATE: Twice!"
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
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.
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
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...
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
What ever happened to the days where you'd get some skilled laborers and build a set, hire actors and fake a photo LEGITIMATELY?
For one thing. Why the hell does it matter? It's an
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?
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 to keep the logo looking green.
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...?
The Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III is from around 2007 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1Ds_Mark_III). So if this info is correct then 2001-03-06 is wrong.
The reason this story is newsworthy is because humanity in general hates liars. Call it what you will...spin, doctoring, touching up for "aesthetic reasons", etc...it's a variation from the truth.
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.
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.
This is what PR means today: putting up the appearance of doing something seems to be more important than actually doing it. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing nothing but such manipulation (under the name of PR) means that there is a large disconnect between image and content that can only raise questions...
A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist...
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.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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. :(
Take a look at the large version of that photo. It looks like someone in the office was busy playing transport tycoon instead of trying to manage some real world logistics.
872835240
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!
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
'Shopping out glare is one thing. Adding in screens so you, according to you, look somehow busier, is a continuation of the slimy pattern of lies and half-truths these assholes have exhibited all along. No one is claiming this has anything to do with their environmental record directly. It is, however, another data point that reminds us we can't trust anything they say or do.
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?
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? :)
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that
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.
You must be new here.
...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 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"
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!
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.
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
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
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 pure evil (unless you're Apple, Inc., then yes you are pure evil) it's just that they get so big that they have serious left-hand-not-knowing-what-right-hand-is-doing-itis. Which in turn falls back to filthy rich CEOs doing an incredibility shitty job at keeping people accountable for their actions. In the end thought it's really because we buy this isolation pile that heads of company's (hell even the heads of most Government's now) tend to use when crap hits the fan. You're in charge, all hell is breaking loose on your watch, you took a risk (directly or indirectly) and it turned out to be the undoing of all life in the Gulf of Mexico; now the only thing that should be going through your mind is how to leave your job in the best of light, after you are done with the relief well.
I'm so tired of this, it's complicated and your little brain cannot understand it or it's an isolated event that will never happen again crap that we've been getting since 2008. At least here in the United States the last president was genuinely too stupid to relay the information to us.
Sorry this rant could go on for a while... I'll just head over here and mumble in the corner.
Well, the evidence is circumstantial; but they've sure lubricated a lot of blowholes in the past few months... That suggests intent.
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
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.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
I photoshopped myself next to one once, does that count?
PR stands for public relations, i.e. public image protection, and not: People's Right to know.
You cannot really ever trust a company covering their own relief/cleanup/repair efforts in an objective way. They have a vested interest in making themselves look as good as possible, while attributing any issues or setbacks, either to someone else, or to some "inherent difficulty", even if actually due to management failure.
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. )
--- Relax, that mass muderer is just trying to reduce our carbon footprint, one fetus at a time...
Reading through the comments and seeing the deluge of "who cares" comments, I'm simply baffled. Who cares about a major corporation deceiving the public? Who cares about this deception occurring while the corporation is dealing with an ecological/public relations disaster? Who cares about a corporation being caught outright lying?
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.
Unless you're trying to trick people into thinking you're good looking when you're really not.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
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
have a laptop on the bottom left that's left running the sims... or sim city... or something like that?
The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
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 artificial inflation of the company share prices especially when insiders start selling stock.
Most countries have consumer protection agencies and in the event of sufficient registered consumer complaints they will investigate and if appropriate prosecute (don't forget to make formal complaints they count). Truth in advertising, it was tackled before by people in the fifties and sixties and it is pretty bloody obvious not enough was done. It is time that truth in advertising became a major political issue again so that it can be further tightened up, especially advertising as news B$ (lies for profit).
The big thing about this story, lamed arsed British Petroleum, is too slack and stupid not to do a better job of it web PR=B$ efforts, it seems pretty obvious it needs to let go of it's current antiquated amateurish staff and replace them with some quality amoral professionals. There a many major corporations who all recognise the power and the danger of the internet, yet time and time again they show some real noob like efforts, you can't help but imagine all those BP marketdroids sitting in a office together nodding and agreeing with each others brilliance, wiping white powder off their noses as they launch yet another ill fated marketing stunt.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
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!
Makeup won't help an ugly chick at all.
Not true. Just add dim lighting and alcohol.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Another example of "aesthetics" would be the chemical dispersants used to hide the oil spill below the surface of the water.
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 can be really tough on the newbies.
http://www.slate.com/id/2173965
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v10/n10/abs/nn1979.html
-FL