×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BP Caught Photoshopping Disaster Response Photos

kdawson posted more than 2 years ago | from the at-least-hire-a-decent-graphics-jockey dept.

Earth 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?

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

560 comments

Who cares (3, Insightful)

richy freeway (623503) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975160)

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

Re:Who cares (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975196)

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:Who cares (2, Insightful)

mentil (1748130) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975282)

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 (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975646)

Umm, there's just a _bit_ of a difference between lying and reducing the brightness of a screen so it doesn't wash out the rest of the shot.

Or are you one of those 'interesting' people who use jpeg artifacts to claim the Moon doesn't exist, or whatever?

Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (3, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975304)

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.

Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975376)

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:Who cares?? Well, I care! (2, Funny)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975436)

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! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975466)

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:Who cares?? Well, I care! (2, Funny)

youn (1516637) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975580)

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! (1)

tee-rav (1029032) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975460)

Corexit's old tag line:"Got a slick? Can't correct it? Corexit!"

New tag lines:

"It's Photoshop for oil slicks."

"Photoshop. With neurotoxins!"

"It's like Photoshop, for the real world, on steroids."*

*if steroids caused internal bleeding, cancer, brain damage, and kidney failure.

BP has done a lot of things for aesthetic reasons, and not all of them are as inconsequential as doctoring photos.

Re:Who cares?? Well, I care! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975512)

Ya, but besides the fact that they got caught doc'ing up photos, I think one of the really suprising things is how badly it was done. I've seen sys admins do better "photoshopping" on their lunch break at work.

Lanham Act places bounds on "puffery" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975584)

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.

"Puffery" (lies a company tells in the media about their products) can, in fact, cross the slippery slope and be illegal under the Lanham Act. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/00/00-10071.cv0.wpd.pdf [uscourts.gov]

Re:Who cares (3, Insightful)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975358)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975492)

Oh yes, let's extend your little idea to other places, shall we?

Terrorists attacked [insert large building here], government photoshops the effort to dig out the people, whole area around building is cut off to stop people seeing.
Police officer attacks inmate, they edit video to make it look like inmate attacked the officer.
Should i continue?

These are obviously faked to make it look like they are busier than they actually are. Did you even see the damn images?
Why would they fake images purely for aesthetic reasons? They wouldn't, they are doing it for the sake of shareholders, plain and simple.
This shits just going to cause more people jumping ship.
Why would they need to lie about doing work?

Re:Who cares (3, Interesting)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975198)

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:Who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975322)

It's more likely the "photographer" didn't set the date in camera setup; the 2010 equivalent of the flashing VCR.

This is also why metadata search is doomed.

Re:Who cares (3, Informative)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975294)

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 cases, these fotos are simply "fake, but accurate", right ? And then there are the tings never shown :

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/02/a-dispatch-from.php [michaeltotten.com]

Humanity cares (5, Insightful)

BonquiquiShiquavius (1598579) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975382)

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.

Re:Humanity cares (4, Insightful)

rufty_tufty (888596) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975494)

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:Who cares (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975420)

I'd honestly be surprised if they hadn't.

Really it makes no difference whether they have a hollywood style "command centre", or a few guys ina prefab hut working on laptops. If people had been genuinely impressed even by a completely non-doctored photo then they're simply gullible.

I totally agree with you. The photo tells you nothing. It's meaningless. They replaced it with a meaningless photo that tells you nothing.

Re:Who cares (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975504)

It makes a HUGE difference. If they had simply turned the video monitors on before taking the pictures, it would be fine. But pasting images of the monitors on when they were really OFF is just totally different.

Re:Who cares (You Should) (5, Interesting)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975586)

BP is acting like their major problem is PR. They are not acting like they have committed a major environmental disaster. They are trying to weasel there way out of responsibility in many ways, some of them truly evil. They are trying to silence scientists who might provide evidence against them in both civil and criminal proceedings http://blog.al.com/live/2010/07/bp_buys_up_gulf_scientists_for.html [al.com]

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.

What's the fuss (3, Interesting)

captain_dope_pants (842414) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975172)

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.

Re:What's the fuss (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975266)

One of the pictures was apparently taken in 2001 according to EXIF data

Re:What's the fuss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975428)

One of the commenters apparently has no idea how EXIF data works. And one of the mods is a retard.

Re:What's the fuss (1)

noisyinstrument (1624451) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975666)

The photo is clearly of the same operation that's ongoing.
The operating system used for the mainscreens is clearly windows post XP. There is one screen which is XP (default theme). XP was released in August 2001 (the blogger claimed the photos were taken in June 2001).
There are blurry timestamps in the photo that say 16/07/10.

This is a complete non-story.

So the story is... (5, Insightful)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975180)

"BP Removes reflection of camera flash from meaningless publicity photo! UPDATE: Twice!"

Re:So the story is... (3, Insightful)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975306)

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... (4, Informative)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975470)

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:So the story is... (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975610)

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.

But why even do that? Why take the risk of people figuring out it's been PS'd, because that usually generates even more bad press. I don't think the sinister-ness of the PS job is the issue really, but rather it's that this sort of disinformation and white-lying is part of the culture of BP, so much in fact that they probably do it now without even realizing what they're doing. They've become so comfortable with bending the truth that it's all they can do. Who cares if one of the screens says "loading"? Why is that SO big of an embarrassment to them that they need to PS it out and risk the backlash? It's not. It's not embarrassing at all. Sometimes computers say "loading" -- everyone knows that. It's just that lying is such and ingrained part of their corporate culture that they don't even know when to stop..

Re:So the story is... (1)

klui (457783) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975634)

I didn't know Microsoft Excel could be used as a container for all these video streams.

Re:So the story is... (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975628)

The kind where you say "oh, the monitor was obscured by the flash. Can you just copy & paste one of the other monitors there instead? I don't want a big white glare to be the center of the picture."

Re:So the story is... (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975312)

It was not a big deal, just a little wrong but almost to the level of nitpicking. Still good that it got spotted and reverted. It is ok to photoshop ads picture but pictures from news reports are another thing entirely.

Re:So the story is... (0, Flamebait)

Co0Ps (1539395) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975320)

What? Both photos are clearly more photoshopped than that, with cut in faces and background to manipulate the viewers into thinking BP has control and is concerned.

Re:So the story is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975464)

Look at both of them before you say things about both of them, ok? Then I wouldn't have to call you an asshat.

The first one had fake images pasted into three monitors with blank or uninteresting displays -- "faces" were not pasted in, and were only tangentially involved by being in front of 2 screens, which they tried to trace around with horrendous polygonal outlines. Dishonest? Absolutely! But NOT what you claimed (i.e. "cut in faces and background").

Second one is even farther from your description: They had a room with reduced lighting, a big multi-desk complex, a few display panels, and a big projection screen -- as you might expect, when exposing for the people at their workstations, the projection came out over-exposed. The solution? A localized exposure/contrast adjustment to improve visibility of what was already there. Done correctly, it would be completely non-deceptive and go completely unnoticed. Done by their "photographer" with his patented ham-handed polygons, it's both annoyingly conspicuous and conspicuously annoying, but still non-deceptive.

Asshat.

Actually... it is more like: (1)

denzacar (181829) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975366)

"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 (4, Insightful)

theolein (316044) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975186)

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 (5, Insightful)

protodevilin (1304731) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975248)

BP's credibility as a responsible energy corporation is at stake, and this photo indeed was intended to be a demonstration of BP's response to the oil disaster. Knowing that they'd go to such lengths (albeit haphazardly) to doctor--and subsequently lie about--the photos further damages that credibility. Oil spills are bad, but misinformation about them is no less destructive.

Re:OMG!!!! NOES11111 (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975350)

What lie?

Re:OMG!!!! NOES11111 (1)

protodevilin (1304731) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975416)

From TFA:

"Scott Dean, a spokesman for BP, said that there was nothing sinister in the photo alteration and provided the original unaltered version. He said that a photographer working for the company had inserted the three images in spots where the video screens were blank."

I don't believe that for a second. Unless this "photographer" was trying to make the photo appear doctored, there's no way an imagery professional would produce something so obviously half-assed.

Re:OMG!!!! NOES11111 (1, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975484)

I don't believe that for a second.

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 (1)

protodevilin (1304731) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975526)

True, but as the imagery business is my business, I submit that in my professional opinion, that statement is a lie. The photo itself is a lie, so I've got no reason to believe what BP says about it either, do I?

Re:OMG!!!! NOES11111 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975426)

They're an Evil Corporation, everything they say is a lie! Anyone who says otherwise is a stupid consumer sheep! Now mod me up you groupthinking Slashbot twats.

Re:OMG!!!! NOES11111 (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975348)

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:OMG!!!! NOES11111 (1, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975508)

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:OMG!!!! NOES11111 (0)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975532)

It's a proof that photos are tampered with. It's a proof of ill will.

Imagine court receives 30 photos as evidence. They are all from the same source. Only 5 really matter showing the essential details. But other 2 in the batch bear slight traces of doctoring. What does that do to the evidence as a whole?

Re:OMG!!!! NOES11111 (1)

Le Marteau (206396) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975448)

Aesthetic Photoshop fictions are fine when you are selling soap. Publishing altered photos of company employees while they are supposed to be cleaning up an environmental disaster is over the line.

More BP news... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975194)

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... (4, Informative)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975300)

Also, When can the UK expect Obama to come over and talk with minor MPs to talk about US banks ruining costing the country billions and to pay the British citizens compensation?

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... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975582)

What are you even raving about? Your rant needs more details since I don't know which prisoner you are rambling about. FYI the British banks were part of the feeding frenzy that trashed the economy in the US. If they had gotten away cleanly I doubt you'd be offering to pay back the profits they made off the loans in the US. England keeps wanting other people to pay for their mistakes. How about Iceland? No one questioned Iceland so long as they were making money off them but now that they collapsed you want your money back? Investments are a form of gambling and I'm sorry you don't get your money back when you loose but keep it when you win. Generally profits are based on level of risk but ALL the banks were hiding the risks and selling risky loans as safe loans. Now the British are squealing because their oil company cut corners to save a buck and trashed the coastlines of several states, not to mention an area of ocean larger than the UK. They don't see why it should hurt their investments. Once again you were happy to accept the extra profits gained from cutting corners. I'd place the blame where it belongs, on BP and stop blaming the greedy americans for ruining a British company. If an american oil company had trashed hundreds of miles of English coast and ruined your fishing industry for the forseeable future I'm quite sure you'd be screaming for them to make it right. It's a double standard and I think you know it.

Re:More BP news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975318)

Let's do it! We will stick to the 60%!!!

Re:More BP news... (1)

LukeCrawford (918758) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975424)

I think it has more to do with it being a large corporation sh-tting all over our frontyard. I mean, if my business is driving trucks, say, and I don't properly maintain my air pressure and as a result I have a blowout and I run over your minivan, you are going to want me to buy you a new minivan and pay the medical bills, right? and you are probably going to be pretty pissed at me, even if I do manage to pay for all the stuff I broke.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect BP to pay to clean up it's /very expensive/ mess, and considering how long it has taken them to even stem the flow, I think some anger is reasonable, too.

This isn't about being anti-british or even anti-corporate. this is about cleaning up after yourself when you make a mess of other people's property.

Re:More BP news... (4, Insightful)

Burb (620144) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975442)

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:More BP news... (0, Troll)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975462)

Who gives a shit if they're British, American, or what. They are criminals who have caused irreparable damage to the environment. The company should be seized and every penny of their assets should be headed toward cleaning up the mess they made and creating the necessary conditions to make sure it never happens again. Anyone involved in the decision-making who wants to stay out of prison ought to be working fulltime for those goals. It's pathetic that we're treating this like a minor understandable mistake. They punched a fucking hole in the gulf and it took them months to even start sealing it. What are we doing in response? Letting them punch another one in the arctic.

Re:More BP news... (1, Insightful)

Le Marteau (206396) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975474)

I don't give a fuck if they are British-owned or not, and neither does anyone else, except for you and the other astroturfers

Re:More BP news... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975574)

It's a simple message. If you invest in dirty companies who don't give proper care when care is due, you lose your investment. Something like oil is high risk. It isn't who owns it, that just makes it an easier sale, it's the fact that the company caused actual damage that was a sizable percentage of their market capitalization, and that will either result in bankruptcy or make them ripe for a takeover, both causing massive losses for those who chose to invest in a dirty company. That's how it's supposed to work.

Horrible photoshopping at that (4, Informative)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975208)

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 (4, Informative)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975324)

The EXIF data only indicates that they probably didn't set their camera clock or it got reset changing the batteries.

Re:Horrible photoshopping at that (2, Informative)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975340)

Yeah, noticed that later, apparently they used a camera that wasn't released until 2007. The images are still clearly doctored though.

Re:Horrible photoshopping at that (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975544)

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.

Really ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975230)

Things must be bad when you have to photoshop a fake photo. Most people have their hands full photoshopping the real things.

Oh BP, for shame (1)

DeanLearner (1639959) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975232)

Causing an environmental disaster is one thing, but this... this... I'm sorry it's too much.

On the contrary! (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975252)

Recycling of existing photos is more "green" than wasting them and making new ones.

Re:On the contrary! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975368)

Recycling existing photos is green-washing !
They already own the camera and memory card so taking a new picture has a low environmental cost, compared to photoshopping...

Re:Oh BP, for shame (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975664)

The important thing here is the implication of them lying about the irrelevant details, namely that they can very well also be lying about the important things.

Causing such a disaster in the first place is bad. I hope you understand how lying about their efforts to fix it can be worse.

Quality of work... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975258)

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:Quality of work... (2, Funny)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975452)

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.

Stupid article (2, Interesting)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975276)

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?

Re:Stupid article (4, Funny)

dangitman (862676) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975400)

For one thing. Why the hell does it matter? It's an

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Yeah, I drew a blank on this one, too.

The Story here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975286)

Is in the EXIF data of the high-res picture.

The camera date being 2001-03-06T15:15:50.25-06:00, original filename being 0035.CR2, shot using a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III, firmware 1.1.4, lens being EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM, Serialnumber 633347.

However, the edit seems to be done using Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh, at 2010-07-19T18:54:04-05:00

Notice the dates, camera type, and firmware.

I'm a Nikon-user myself, so I haven't got a clue whether that firmware version matches 2010 or 2001.

Re:The Story here... (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975496)

Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh

In the oilpatch?

Ah yes, that explains a lot :)

Did they... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975336)

actually use Photoshop, or are they abusing the word to mean doctoring the photo?

Re:Did they... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975506)

Either they used Photoshop, or edited the EXIF to make it look that way in a bizarre conspiracy to make your head asplode....

YHBTYHL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975346)

Successful troll is successful.

What's so wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975370)

When did photoshopping a fake photo become unacceptable? I mean what did they do, make it less fake?

The other faked photo (3, Interesting)

fluch (126140) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975412)

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.

The meaning of PR (3, Insightful)

Battal Boy (544978) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975422)

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...

And this is a story why? (1, Informative)

derrickh (157646) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975454)

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:And this is a story why? (2, Insightful)

Huntr (951770) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975530)

'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.

Re:And this is a story why? (2, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975566)

Adding in screens so you, according to you, look somehow busier

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?

Read the date from the screens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975478)

It says 16/07/10 on screens 2 and 3 on the top, and 07/16/10 on the screen 5 on the top.

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/incident_response/STAGING/local_assets/images/HIVE_houston01.jpg

Transport Tycoon (2, Interesting)

johno.ie (102073) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975488)

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 (2, Funny)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975490)

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!

"Green helmet guy" gave it away (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975510)

All they need now is that "wailing woman" and BP will be able to go into business as a "news" agency.

Given the rumors of web image purging (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975520)

from BP's web site and stories of onlookers prohibited from photographing the clean-up, I'm sure this will stir up new conspiracy discussions.

blame BP for a camera's poor dynamic range? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#32975572)

they (badly) masked an area of the screen and darkened it, or conversely they brightened everything that wasn't the screen.

if the photo was exposed for the screen so as not to clip highlights, then the people would be too dark. so they brightened them. big deal. this is done on everything you watch on TV, and every film you see done after 1997 or so. the only difference is it's done better...

would Top Gear cop shit about faking their test drive videos, or be accused of hiding something because of their ridiculously over-graded images? i hope not.

i wish i could remove my hit from that shitty blog's log now...

Looking in image data for evidence. (4, Interesting)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 2 years ago | (#32975600)

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).

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 ... now this 20 megapixel camera wasn't out until 2008, and certainly wasn't around in 2001.

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).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...