Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama skeet-shooting photo has a BIG problem…

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Dude doesn't shoot trap much. Look how high on the shoulder the stock is. And he doesn't lean into it.

Amateur.

What are we supposed to make of this? He's showing off that he's pro sport shooting before he signs antigun legislation? I bet the photoshop is the smoke coming from the barrel.

But its probably a mole on his forearm or something...




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Those were some low "flying" skeet or he was waiting for them to darned near hit the ground before firing.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
Dude doesn't shoot trap much. Look how high on the shoulder the stock is. And he doesn't lean into it.

Amateur.

What are we supposed to make of this? He's showing off that he's pro sport shooting before he signs antigun legislation? I bet the photoshop is the smoke coming from the barrel.

But its probably a mole on his forearm or something...


Look at the blur-motion of the shotgun. Now look at Obama's shoulder.

Strange.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SBMcG
 
I don't see anything wrong with it. So the White House requests a photo from one of those days back at Camp David whre he was shooting. I mean President Obama didn't just fly down there the other day for a photo shoot.
So this guy pulls up a photo maybe makes some color adjustments , or crops or whatever in Photoshop and then releases it. Maybe he just needs to add in a copyright info or something. I do not feel this warrants scrutiny.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advantage
Those were some low "flying" skeet or he was waiting for them to darned near hit the ground before firing.


I've been shooting skeet for 35 years and never fired at a clay pigeon from that angle.

Never would...



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SBMcG
 


How would you see recoil in a single frame image?

And his hand looks normal. The shadow makes it look a bit funny, but that's it.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by evc1shop
reply to post by SBMcG
 
I don't see anything wrong with it. So the White House requests a photo from one of those days back at Camp David whre he was shooting. I mean President Obama didn't just fly down there the other day for a photo shoot.
So this guy pulls up a photo maybe makes some color adjustments , or crops or whatever in Photoshop and then releases it. Maybe he just needs to add in a copyright info or something. I do not feel this warrants scrutiny.



Are you a skeet shooter?

If you are, I'm sure you will recognize several anomalies within the photo itself.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SBMcG
 


Its so sad some of you will look for absolutely any reason possible (even if there isnt one there) to slam this president, when there are so many real reasons to slam the government!




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SBMcG
And why would the White House ask that no one else photoshop a now public image...?


They didn't say that. It's obvious they were saying don't manipulate it then use it in an advertisement.


I'm sure this is absolutely nothing. It's the freakin president. If they were photoshopping it for some nefarious purpose, I'm pretty sure they have the technology to cover it up.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by SBMcG
 


How would you see recoil in a single frame image?

And his hand looks normal. The shadow makes it look a bit funny, but that's it.


Are you a skeet shooter?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Well first of all, of course it is "edited". All photographs pretty much are. First clue would be the size. They don't come out of the camera that sized so some program would be used to down size them. Second any half decent photographer shoots raw. That needs to be converted into a jpeg in a program. Another "edit". Then there's the actual adjustments to the image. White balance, sharpening etc.
None of this is manipulation. Editing and manipulation are two entirely different things. Manipulation changes the reality of the image and it's content. Editing just makes the image look better for publishing and in many circumstances actually makes the image look more life like.

[add] Actually I didn't notice that they do have a high res one up there. 3000x2000
[add correction] Didn't notice before that they have the original one up there. I'm pwning myself here
edit on 3/2/2013 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by SBMcG
 




And why would the White House ask that no one else photoshop a now public image...?


Every photo has the same disclaimer on it.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by SBMcG
 


Its so sad some of you will look for absolutely any reason possible (even if there isnt one there) to slam this president, when there are so many real reasons to slam the government!



I understand that Obama supporters are going to respond this way.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SBMcG
 


So what do you think has been "shopped"...?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by SBMcG
 


No, but this guy is:



And his wrist looks pretty damn similar to Obama's...



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I created a thread on the subject that the W.H. didn't want the photo to be manipulated (and encouraged people to do so
), but mods came in, removed the photoshops and promptly closed the thread down and it has yet to be reopened. Apparently they are a little paranoid around here and it as to be ascertained as to whether the W.H. actually has any recourse.

I, personally believe (and believe that it is true) that any photos put forth by the W.H. are in the public domain, and even regardless to that fact it isn't illegal to manipulate the photo and display it if there is no profit to be made. It's really a shame because I was hoping to inspire higher quality out of ATS members and have them open up P.S. and create some original content. ATS born.

My (hopefully temporarily) comatose thread : here



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by SBMcG
And why would the White House ask that no one else photoshop a now public image...?


They didn't say that. It's obvious they were saying don't manipulate it then use it in an advertisement.


I'm sure this is absolutely nothing. It's the freakin president. If they were photoshopping it for some nefarious purpose, I'm pretty sure they have the technology to cover it up.


I'm not so sure. I agree that it's probably nothing nefarious, but I find it odd that this photo was taken 6 months ago and opened in Photoshop only yesterday.

As an experienced skeet shooter, I also see several troubling anomalies in the photo, the angle of the gun and lack of impact recoil on the President's shoulder, for example.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I created a thread on the subject that the W.H. didn't want the photo to be manipulated (and encouraged people to do so
), but mods came in, removed the photoshops and promptly closed the thread down and it has yet to be reopened. Apparently they are a little paranoid around here and it as to be ascertained as to whether the W.H. actually has any recourse.

I, personally believe (and believe that it is true) that any photos put forth by the W.H. are in the public domain, and even regardless to that fact it isn't illegal to manipulate the photo and display it if there is no profit to be made. It's really a shame because I was hoping to inspire higher quality out of ATS members and have them open up P.S. and create some original content. ATS born.

My (hopefully temporarily) comatose thread : here


I saw that.

And that's why I created this one.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SBMcG

Originally posted by Advantage
Those were some low "flying" skeet or he was waiting for them to darned near hit the ground before firing.


I've been shooting skeet for 35 years and never fired at a clay pigeon from that angle.

Never would...


Exactly. It looks to me like he is shooting at a stationary target just outside of the camera view. The excuse of him being an amateur is not a good one. He DOES have professionals instructing him and ... skeet dont roll on ground.


**shrug** who cares. Its just so annoying how this is so absurd and still put out there.

As far as the exif data.. it being manipulated ( the pic) doesnt mean its "photoshopped"... as that term is used these days anyway!



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by SBMcG
 


So what do you think has been "shopped"...?


I would have no way of knowing.

Nevertheless, the image has at the very least -- and maybe that's a standard practice, been opened and in some way altered (data or image) in Photoshop.






top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join