Another doctored image deepens Obama mystery

If I may I'd like to respond to the anomalies that are brought up in Corsi's article by Gilbert Commission's "photo expert" as they pertain to the photograph and play devil's advocate for other explanations:

1st, The problem of the hand itself: The size and shape of the hand are generally consistent with what would be expected of Dunham. The coloration is the only odd aspect, and that has been covered above.

2nd, The brown chair and support bar behind and Dunham's right: It is common practice with fiberglass molded chairs such as these to replace one when it becomes damaged. We've probably all seen a set of chairs like this with different colored chairs on it. The support bar does match up nicely, and is perfect when the image is corrected for a generic lens. All cameras have a very slight warping around the edges caused by the lens, this is much more pronounced in say a fish-eye lens but even the standard lenses in every camera have them. It is surprising to me that an expert in photography would not take this into account.

3rd Dunham's hair: There is slight blurring at the edges of Dunham's hair, this is to be expected anywhere with moving air and a shutter speed longer than 1/80th of a second. If this was a cheaper camera, in the 1970s probably a Kodak Instamatic or something like it, there may not have been many shutter speeds to choose from, if any. I've got an Instamatic in my collection and the shutter speeds it allows are only 1/90 and 1/40, quite common of a 1960s-1970s camera that would be used for family snapshots.

4th Lighting of Dunham: Corsi states that the light on Dunham's face is coming from the left side of the photo, and this is inconsistent. It is not, looking at the young Obama's face you will see the light coming from the same direction.

5th Ghosting of Obama's right elbow: There is not ghosting on or around the elbow, the tonal range is proper, and the "shine" comes from this arm being closer to the light source than the other. If you look at Dunham's arm you will see a similar tonal pattern across it, although of course much lighter.

6th Dunham's age: I can't really speak for her age particularly, I didn't know the woman or anything, but the difference between 20s and 30s can be very arbitrary. She could well be 30, or 25. The photograph is not large enough to show telltale signs of age such as iris rings or small wrinkles. I will say though that if this photo is doctored as Corsi and the expert claim it would have to have been from a period contemporary to the other photo due to the aging of the negative so her age is irrespective to the inquiry.

I think she was making chocolate and forgot to wash her hands.

Yes I'm joking this time.

Or maybe it's REVERSE VITILGO!

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

If I might ask and perhaps learn something...What is it about this which convinces you that is a natural and genuine effect of age on the tinting and degradation? I am in the process of scanning photos from my father's estate from the 70's and some are off, most are not. Most are as clear as I could ask for a digital scan source to be. I do have a few that look like this, though.

We also aged and distressed images in a photo course I was in for the Spring semester as part of my graphics degree program. I pick up the dedicated Photoshop classes next month, so I am certainly curious in more than a passing way. Thanks!

So when you put something in a shadow it gets darker? Omg that's a conspiracy! That should not happen unless it's african american light!

Sometimes a shadow or a light can alter color.

You can see this phenomenon at night when cars color actually changes.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
So when you put something in a shadow it gets darker? Omg that's a conspiracy! That should not happen unless it's african american light!

If you look at how pale her arm is compared to the other guy's arm, and his hand is in shadow and it's lighter than her hand? And I don't see that much shadow on the white stripes of O's shirt. That would take a lot of shadow. Shadow I'm just not seeing. If I got that dark just by walking into some shade I think I'd see a doctor, and quickly.

Probably just a damaged photo.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

If I might ask and perhaps learn something...What is it about this which convinces you that is a natural and genuine effect of age on the tinting and degradation? I am in the process of scanning photos from my father's estate from the 70's and some are off, most are not. Most are as clear as I could ask for a digital scan source to be. I do have a few that look like this, though.

We also aged and distressed images in a photo course I was in for the Spring semester as part of my graphics degree program. I pick up the dedicated Photoshop classes next month, so I am certainly curious in more than a passing way. Thanks!

The aging effect here, the overall red coming over the photo, the lighter tones washing out and the areas around the darker tones becoming darker with a slight purple tone to them are all common and well known things that happen in the C-22 and C-41 processes with older films over time due to the dyes used in the coloration. The example shown here in the OP is rather extreme really, but not out of the ordinary. These systems were used in the development of snapshot photographs, and a variant of C-41 is still used today. You're absolutely right that some will weather and some wont almost at random it seems. I'm not positive of why this is myself actually, but really the best thing you can always do is to scan your negatives as you are doing. Over time all negatives using those processes will deteriorate, it's just a matter of when.

There is some debate over newer C-41 processed negatives, from the 1980s and later, as we don't yet know how well they will hold up compared to those before then. They should be better, and last at least a while longer before degrading but scanning is always your best option. Note though too that the Kodachrome K-14 professional process was different, and films that use that are much more resistant to degradation. Still a good plate hard drive will always last longer than film.

As for aging photos, it is very possible, and it's also possible to restore most damaged negatives to look far better than they do on their own. What is harder to do though is superimposing images from two old negatives to look the same. Which is what we are talking about here. As you noticed, they age differently and every shot has slightly, if not majorly, different aging qualities.

There are a lot of programs and Photoshop actions now to make digital photos look "vintage" by adding in aging, but this one, if it was aged, was done absolutely expertly and with incredible care to perfectly mimic the look of the exact process. If this image is comprised of two superimposed vintage shots, with the time and precision needed to make the image, it's highly unlikely that the hand would have been left in by accident. Especially when it would have been very easy, as you'll find in your Photoshop class, to put the "correct" hand in.

We live in an age of absolutely incredible photo manipulation technology, and that is why I say that I cannot outright say this is a hoax, but only that it is far more likely given what I see and what we assume we know about the motivations of the people posting it, that it is instead just a matter of the degradation instead of a conspiratorial plot.

Hmmm... Interesting... Here is a site in Indonesia that would seem to date 2009 by the Meta Data on the title of the article. Perhaps someone here can read it clearly. Google translate isn't worth much. Here is page source for the relevant clip though.


Source story

(this wouldn't let me post the Metadata lines but right click the page to View Source and it's in the head meta lines leading the article title. Old...but then, that makes it all the more interesting for it being in this condition.)

and this sure is a bit easier to work with when it doesn't have the faded red tint. Hmm...



I just checked back on this thread to see where it went so I haven't had this loaded into PS for more than a couple mins... Heck, it's practice though. I suppose I'll play with the clean copy for a bit and see how lines match and such. That is one heck of a shadow though. Wow... Just something else to have that contrast. Heck, that effect alone is enough to play with if it's a genuine shadow,

Oh and one more note on scanning of negatives, including the photo in question, although I'm not sure if it was scanned from the negative or a good print of the photo: Do make sure the negative is clean! As we can see in the photo here, it is a good digitization. While it's not the largest photo, I don't see any dust or impurities on it. If you have access to one when scanning negatives yourself, use an air compressor to gently blow any dust off of the negative before scanning. One can usually get rid of small specks in Photoshop using the Healing Brush tool, but it's always good to start with a clean photo to begin with.

I have a bit of a reputation myself as a perfectionist when it comes to scanning negatives, probably comes from having mild OCD, but a good scan once corrected and repaired should not be able to be told from a digital photograph.

I heard someone say there are no baby pics of Obama, only 2 and up. I find that odd, other than the normal ears in young Obama pics compared to his dumbo ears now. One more thing, I thought Obama said he was a skinny kid, he looks little chubby here.

An interesting thing I just noticed on this photo, if one loads it into Photoshop and simply uses the Auto Levels tool (which completely removes the red-tinting) one will see that the arms of the man behind Obama are very close in skin tone to Obama and the hand in question. This is again probably due to the tonal bleeding that occurs with the damage to the negative, and leads more potential to the theory that this is not a doctored photo.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Hmm.. Well, I'm gonna jump off the thread. After spending some time at a few hundred percent and beyond....Well, I'll never agree with the general consensus of saying it's a shadow or that this is undoctored. I'm not considering the multitude of people I'm finding around with the same opinion but if I'm all wrong, misery loves company anyway. lol..

Posting something like this that is modified in the least makes little sense, but then a great deal I've seen for 12 years now hasn't made much sense. So.... Interesting times. I guess I'll learn more when I get back to the classes and ask the instructors their opinion. Heck..one this term is my Department Head.. Surely a good insight can be had there. It just doesn't look the same in that region to what is out further around it... Pixelation and all. Odd.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


There are plenty of geologists who support abiogenic oil.

Marty king IS a shakedown artist.

Cant speak to the other two accusations you throw out here but I dont read WND.
You do however throw out a prety serious charge that WND doctored this photo. Since its available on O's Facebook page with this same shadow I find that charge baseless.

The photo may or may not have been doctored and you are obviously qualified to speak to that point but stick to that and not taking pop shots at the source. It degrades your presentation.