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?
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.
For one thing. Why the hell does it matter? It's an
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Yeah, I drew a blank on this one, too.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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?
No, I haven't. :(
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.
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?
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?