Obama skeet-shooting photo has a BIG problem…

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Second..I took a moment to double check and confirm what the photographer was using. That is a $3,500-$4,000 camera. That isn't with a lens, mind you. JUST the Camera body runs out to that price. The lens is extra. If a Canon 5D Mark III blurs movement on THAT kind of picture? Either they need a new camera or a new photographer. One of the two, but something had to go.

Motion blur has nothing to do with the price of the camera. I can put down a million dollars for a camera and the result will still be the same. It has everything to do with shutter speed used. Like in this one 1/320.

reply to post by okiecowboy


Did you go and check sunset time before making such a comment?

No, of course not. It's better to be so desperate to find something wrong, that all common sense goes out the window...

The sun set at 8:15pm on August 4th 2012.

Link

reply to post by Chadwickus

Of course i did.....he also played golf that day...his 104th round...he was on the golf course for 6 hours before flying to camp david....then he is supposed to be out shooting skeet...with a double barrel shotgun that he can only fire one barrel of because the choke is missing out of the other...and he is shooting a gun that is ported by only has smoke coming out of one side, and holding the gun in a way he couldn't hit anything with and he is doing this an less than an hour before sunset...on a range that looks nothing like any photos of the range in question.....yeah ok...

reply to post by SBMcG


Can you reverse-apply those effects and see what it originally looked like ?

The area around his right elbow/shirt sleeve looks strange and there is no shadow from his shirt projected on his arm?

reply to post by PsykoOps

Okie,... Let me put this another way ..since almost nothing here can even be said anymore without someone correcting the finest point of technicality.

Cheap cameras often do not work as advertised. They sure aren't FULL SENSOR cameras such as the 5D M-III is. Thats a very big deal, that full sensor part. However, that isn't the biggest issue on motion blur. It is settings...and those settings doing what they're supposed to do. For instance, I have a Sony 10 Megapixel that cost a small fortune several years ago. It can do most things that the Canon 60D can. I used mine and I used the brand new 60D's the school issued for the Photography course I was required to take as part of the Graphics Tech program last year.

Some of those assignments were specifically about depth of field and motion blur. Both CAUSING it by manipulation of settings and REMOVING it by the same method. Never moving the camera. Just changing settings. I used a busy intersection for my series. Others used flowing water or aircraft at one of two airports and the two trauma centers we have here flying helicopters in and out all the time. (GOOD QUALITY Cameras can make that helicopter almost appear to be parked with stationary blades in mid-air....try that while going the bargain route for equipment)

Having those two with which to compare, side by side, on the same assignments specifically to manipulate the presence and nature of blur in the images they produced? There is a *HUGE* difference in performance of "good" vs. "Very Good"....and it's stretching it to even say the 60D falls into "Very Good" at all.

I'm sorry, but to suggest quality of optics, sensor and internals doesn't relate to things like the ability to take an action shot without suggestion or even hint of motion...while catching a moment of extreme motion? That's called money invested....not merely knowing which way to turn the dial for each stage of the settings.

It's like saying you're wasting money on a 5D or 6D when a T3i will do the same thing. Yeah.... on PAPER. Kinda.

reply to post by okiecowboy


Ok, let's say that all you've said is true...

Why?

Why go to all that trouble when he could have just shot the thing in the first place?

it depends which processes were done in photoshop. All digital images uploaded from a camera have a kind of misty film over them and need to have the levels adjusted (lights on the right need to come up a bit and darks on the left need to deepen a bit), also can be good to bring up the saturation a little to give a bit more colour and life to a picture.
The way I see it, he took a bunch of pictures 6 months ago. The Whitehouse needed one of the photos to 'make a point' and chose one from that summer to put out to the public. Before he publishes it he runs it through photoshop to make it look nice and crisp and clean. It get's published and from that date no one is allowed to mess with it.

I don't see anything untoward with this scenario, unless they are trying to pass the picture off as a recent one in which case that part is a lie.

Well yeah, of COURSE it's shopped...

How else they gonna hide all this:



I suspect that the whole government is shopped as well.

I don't believe a dang WORD they say anymore.

I can't even stand to listen to them TALK anymore!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Full censor (frame) is overrated Also even an entry lvl dslr can stop the motion completely if that is what the photographer wants. In this case the photographer choose to show the motion.

reply to post by SBMcG


OMG

Are you bloddy serious? Do you even know how Exif and Meta data works? Do you even know how a professional photographer works?

Do you HONESTLY think that we just snap a photo and then hand the raw image to the press????

Then you are a bloody ignoramus. Sorry, but that is just what you are.

I work full time as a professional commercial photographer. I've worked at one of the largest press houses in Denmark, making image ready for print or web broadcast.

And now... for the sake of the remaining sanity of this world, I will tell you how photographers work:

1. We take our digital camera and go to work. Some people "snap", some compose.

2. The camera records raw data, which conrtains nothing more than information of exposure, date, focal lengths etc. etc.... boring info (for anyone except the photographer)

3. We take that raw file... import it to our workstation by dumping the card or via cable to our preferred computer.
NOW... while a raw file can look just great depending on circumstances, 99% of the time, we take this raw file and open it in our preferred editing software. In 90% of the cases this is Photoshop and most likely the newest version. WHY? Because we want the image to look great... we want it to pop. Maybe the background is too bright, maybe the subjects forehead is glistening and we take it down a bit, maybe he has blemishes that is not so great to look at. But we almost ALWAYS open ANY file in Photoshop. Not to "tamper with the evidence".... simply because this is our work and we want it to look good.

4. We save that retouched file AND if you are professional, ESPECIALLY when dealing with press images, you attach more metadata that serves the purpose of retaining rights to the image, identifying who is allowed to use it and where... WHO MADE IT.... and so on.
Attaching this data can be done in Bridge but also in Photoshop, and once this is done the file will also contain information that the photo had been opened in Photoshop.
We also add a statement of copyright because we OWN the bloody photo taken, or our clients own it. By attaching the information of retaining rights, that means that I can succesfully ( and very easilly.....) sue ANYONE who uses my or my clients photo without having obtained the right to do so or if they photoshop it in any way.
This is plain simply reasonable.......... in short, stay the # away from my photos, no matter how public they may be.

THERE IS NOTHING AMAZING ABOUT THIS GOD DAMMMIT!

This is just the way we work... with ANY photo. I do this... my colleagues do this, and all our files will show that they have been through Photoshop. You do realize that Photoshop was not created to help people make fake photos right? I was created to help professional photographers remove themselves from the darkroom and complete our work in the digital world instead.

Now close this bloody thread down before it becomes even more stupid and humiliating for ATS.

Originally posted by SBMcG

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by SBMcG

 

This thread's funny.

Do you guys not realize, all professional photos go through photoshop? They have to be re-sized and minor color corrections etc.

Please educate yourself before making a thread.

edit on 3-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

I'm not discounting that possibility. What I'm questioning is the content and intent of the photo coupled with the likely alteration in one form or another via Photoshop, with a certain political expediency.

To me this has a Fast-and-Furious, Benghazi, stink to it...

Excuse me... but you saying that, just make you look like an illiterate #.... ignorant, sensationalist.

ALL professional photos go through Photoshop, for whatever reason. End of story.

reply to post by SBMcG


I did not say it was required. I said it was used. I am not required to do so either. I could use my Canon software. I however use Windows camera and fax wizard. I COULD use Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro as well to do the job.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

First.. It wouldn't have Photoshop on it from downloading images out of the Camera. If using Adobe software to pull images, it would almost certainly be going through Adobe Bridge. Photoshop would literally be loading (who knows how many) raw images directly into the editor. Errr... Even a Cray Supercomputer would crash eventually that way and Photoshop is a real BEAST for resources.

Opening RAW files in Photoshop CS6 will open a new dialogue box with a program called Camera Raw 7.0 which merely previews the image for opening. I just previewed 750 RAW files this way, it took about 15 seconds for the thumbnail for the first image to preview, and each successive image was previewed at a rate of between 1 and 2 per second. By the time the 750 files were previewed Photoshop was using ~750 MB of memory. Of course, something like Adobe Bridge would be far better for this.

In any case, Photoshop could have easily been used for postprocessing. It's what I do, except generally I clear the EXIF data before putting it on the web.

Second..I took a moment to double check and confirm what the photographer was using. That is a $3,500-$4,000 camera. That isn't with a lens, mind you. JUST the Camera body runs out to that price. The lens is extra. If a Canon 5D Mark III blurs movement on THAT kind of picture? Either they need a new camera or a new photographer. One of the two, but something had to go.

From looking at the settings in the EXIF data, the lens was likely at the maximum possible aperture for that focal length, F4.0 @ 170 mm. The shutter speed was a fairly high 1/320 of a second. My new consumer body and lens, APS-C mind you, cannot even approach that kind of performance.

For less motion blur the cameraman would therefore have to be closer to Obama decrease the focal length and increase the aperture, since there were guns this may have not been possible. Or it could be underexposed with the intention of fixing this in post, but this risks losing detail in shadows.

Or the ISO would have to be increased which introduces noise. ISO 800 or 1600 probably wouldn't have been a problem with a body like that, but unfortunately not every photo is perfect and it is unreasonable to suggest that every photo should be. In addition, I doubt Whitehouse photographers have a large amount of experience of people firing high powered weapons, if they were not firing guns, the settings used for that lighting seem entirely reasonable.

Overall, I really don't see why a little motion blur or the fact that it was opened with photoshop really matter.

Originally posted by SBMcG
reply to post by opethPA

 

I could probably overlook this altogether if the photo and the photoshopping thereof weren't separated by 6 months.

If I take a picture on my Canon, the usual process is that I get all the images off the camera and then review them in Photoshop. If I were to save them to my PC from photoshop, they would appear "photoshopped", all right, even If i don't do any changes.

It would be normal that this photographer will load whatever images he takes in PS too for review, or standard things like cropping, resizing or whatever. Possible. We also know that EXIF data is edited (copyright notices, picture description, whatever). So..yes...it's "photoshopped"...and what does this mean? NOTHING AT ALL.

Originally posted by flice
ALL professional photos go through Photoshop, for whatever reason. End of story.

Because that's what effing Photoshop IS FOR

Of course, this is hard to grasp for some people... /facepalm

reply to post by SBMcG


I always use my Photoshop program to crop my photos. Why not? It works as good as any other video cropping tool.

This isn't news.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Full censor (frame) is overrated

Also even an entry lvl dslr can stop the motion completely if that is what the photographer wants. In this case the photographer choose to show the motion.

edit on 4/2/2013 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)

It's a Sensor. Learn how to spell it before correcting people on it.

Really... This "gotcha" crap about harassing people on the little stuff and technical details as though you're a professional and certified expert teaching a class is just absurd. Knock it off. If you're even impressing yourself with it, that's as far as it's going.

This is the kind of childish B.S. that has good people ready to just say F.E. and leave. Be part of the solution. Not the problem. Eh?

They photoshopped the smoke because he didn`t really shoot the gun, look at the position of the trigger.he isn`t shooting the gun he is just standing there holding it and they added the smoke.