Posts
Bullingdon Photoshop: Nothing To See, Or Is There?
This one shows evidence of very clumsy photoshoppery and "dodging".
This one simply shows a bunch of toffs in the process of drinking industrial quantities of spirits
There is a curious story going round of the "doctoring" of the George Osborne/Nat Rothschild era Bullingdon picture. Curious because many of the papers carrying it have also carried - some many months ago now - the same picture in an undoctored state. We carried it on this blog only last week in fact. And 18 months ago too. The two bits of alleged doctoring are I suppose approximately in positions that might be filled by the posing Cameron and Johnson, if lifted from the earlier Bullingdon picture:
Very odd indeed.
The supposedly doctored picture appears to have been enhanced to show the "burning in" of various hands and buttons and even a whole head - though the photo-conspiracists don't notice the rectangle round "Toff One" to the viewers left of the front row.
They also don't note that as a result of what photographers call "dodging" IIRC is dark, undodged patches over various groins, including young GOO's.
These dark patches do look rather peculiar, as if toilet accidents, unbuttoned flies, or protruding beer bottles etc have been excised.
Both the illustrations at top were as printed in The Mail.
9 comments:
That 10th man is still looking like a young Darius Guppy to me. is that right? And why don't the papers caption the little criminal?
Fake hands on a photograph? Surely not.
Now you'll be saying it's possible to fabricate placard slogans.
Whatever next?
They are not fake hands you daft bugger. You really haven't a clue.
But there is a clear rectangle round one of the front rowers' heads and a less clear one for the next one also.
Before there was Photoshop there were dark room tricks including burning in, dodging, even rephotographing.
Not recommended for colour prints in the darkroom:
Burning and dodging on color darkroom materials is simply inadvisable, since it alters color as well as tone. These two actions are what add the finishing touches to a basic print. They add roundness, depth, and adjust localized contrast.
Have a look at the toff positioned between No2 2 and 3 in the Osborne photo.
View his hands in close up.
Tell me they've not been faked.
Now tell me with a straight face.
Those hands have not been faked as far as I can see. Any more than any of the others or the buttons have. They've been "dodged" or "burnt" in. Probably dodged. The darkroom technician will have seen to it with crafty hand movements that these parts of the photographic paper were exposed LESS so that the detail didn't fill in. Sometimes it's a case of exposing parts more so that they are darker. That's "burning in".
The greatest sign of craftiness is the head of row 1 toff 1. Dodging implements come in all shapes and sizes and it looks like a rectangular one has been used. Or there's been a beheading and a different visage has been substituted. The lower picture - which was used widely has had all the retouching and "post production" it needed.
What you should do now EHC is:
1. Produce a complex photo composite you have created yourself
and
2. Point out any tell tale signs in the Rochdale protest pictures
1. Can't be bothered. But have you by any chance got any that you've noticed?
2. Done that already, several times, with no adequate answers.
1. You said you could do invisible mending on photographic images. You clearly cannot do so as you have failed to produce anything.
If you are in fact Rob Adlard as alleged then I do have an example of your piss poor photoshopping skills. If you are not I do not as I don't know who you are. Cos you are a cowardly anonymous troll.
2. You have not given any proof whatsoever of any photoshopping of the Rochdale images (plural) apart from a gut feeling. As you can see from the Bullingdon picture manipulation of any sort tends to leave a trail. Where is the trail?
I never mentioned "invisible mending". In fact, that's the first time I have heard the term in this connection.
My ability to produce such a photo is totally irrelevant to the arguement. Actually, it only adds to the conspiracy theory if this photo has been doctored but is difficult to do so. Because that would lead to the obvious questions, wouldn't it, Chris?
Your insistence that there has been no trickery intrigues me.
BTW. Do you have any photographs on which placards have been faked?
Help me with the intretation here Chris.
We have 2 photos. "1" (darker) from the Mail in 2007. "2" (lighter) with extra bits, which Hitchens interprets as "toffs who have been taken out" (as picked up by Sadie).
What are you saying?
My initial take is
a) Both photos have 3 extras add in at the front. No idea why. The head transplant of 1 seems to be a separate exercise.
b) The "extra bits" in 2, which Hitchens seems to be saying are the remnants of "toffs taken out", look to be "bits of toffs" added in to dark areas of photo 1. I draw that conclusion because the areas where heads of "missing toffs" would have been before they were removed don't show any evidence of editing - e.g., torso of number 7.
I hesitate to get into Guardian and Mail motivations ...
Can you give a bit more detail as to how you read the runes?
Post a Comment