Obama skeet-shooting photo has a BIG problem…

reply to post by Chadwickus


His stance is actually pretty weak and it given the position of his gun (being so level) and the fact he doesn't seem to be on raised land or any sort of landing suggesting an overlook, he is probably not a great skeet shooter. He looks like someone positioned him to the best of their ability, but he's not quite got it down.

Not that it matters, but I doubt he does this for fun with any sort of regularity. Also it's worth noting there is only a choke on the top barrel (in the picture you posted you will see two chokes on the end of the barrels) suggesting either they are reloading the top barrel or it was only prepped for him to take one shot (ie: photo op). There is also an unusual amount of smoke and the gun is ported to reduce recoil which is pretty wimpy if it's a 20 gauge (not certain, but I believe it is a 20 gauge).

I am just picking on him though. He should have probably just kept this "hobby" to himself and definitely shouldn't have caved to pundits it probably hurt him more than it helped.

As one poster stated, it IS public domain. It is public domain for three reasons.

1) The president is public domain.
2) The "official presidential photographer IS public domain.
3) The White house released the photo to the public.

Nice try though, illegal in chief!

reply to post by SBMcG


Taken from the raw archive, edited for publishing. That's how it works. They dont edit every photo untill they are selected for publishing.

well it would help if they didn't add in the smoke

Originally posted by Advantage

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!

He is continually surrounded by the most experienced and highly trained weapons experts on Earth.

I cannot fathom a situation where he would not be advised at least minimally on how to hold and fire a shotgun.

This is just kinda silly. In my college photo course, one of the things we learned and learned well is the first rule of modern digital photography.

EVERYTHING HAS BEEN PHOTOSHOPPED. EVERYTHING. NO EXCEPTIONS.

Only something deliberately left "natural" by CHOICE hasn't been through an image processor at least once. Some in the class scoffed at that notion and really believed their magazine of choice was above all that. The lesson came with the instructor bringing a bunch ..A LOT...of examples in later showing covers and inside photos that were actually published with major photo editing ERRORS. It removed ALL doubt. These weren't The Globe or The Enquirer but major front and center national magazines of all kinds.

Is everything modified for nefarious reasons? Nope... MOST aren't at all. Just changing exposure settings or how the light reflects badly on something or skin tones. Many were taking a few lbs off the model and it's something I was taught as part of that class. Adding and dropping weight. It's tricky at first because everyone (proven by the whole class) wants to over-do it. A little goes a loooong way!

In this case and given the endless headaches they've had over photoshop processing images? I'll bet nothing but those very minor lighting/contrast issues were touched and NOTHING of material substance. They'd be insane to change material facts in the photo and then specifically bring up Photoshop by name as the program they'd ask people not modify the heck out of it with.

*Of course a couple sites have already produced dozens of knock off graphics and I gotta admit...some had me laughing my tail off.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by SBMcG

 

Taken from the raw archive, edited for publishing. That's how it works. They dont edit every photo untill they are selected for publishing.

You might be right. And that would be the end of it for me if it weren't for the obvious anomalies in the actual photo that are apparent to experienced shooters like me and others here.

Originally posted by okiecowboy
well it would help if they didn't add in the smoke

There's something not quite right about that smoke...

reply to post by SBMcG


Cant see anything odd about the picture. Other than how much it draws attention for being such a medicore shot

No one may want Obama on their skeet team after this photo. The picture may have been taken with him just firing at nothing at a skeet range.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Right, and I agree with you to a certain extent. But the combination of the contents of the photo itself, the fact it was taken 6 months ago and opened in Photoshop yesterday, and the coincidence that no one has ever seen Obama holding a firearm before and he has recently made a comment about shooting skeet, is problematic to me.

This is a non thread.

I have done a LOT of digital photography, and there is NEVER a photo that I used that I have not dome something to in Photoshop. At the very least, I shoot in RAW format and then use Photoshop to export it to JPG or whatever the spec is for whatever I am working on.

You never shoot a picture to an SD card, then send THAT file off for publication.

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
This is a non thread.

I have done a LOT of digital photography, and there is NEVER a photo that I used that I have not dome something to in Photoshop. At the very least, I shoot in RAW format and then use Photoshop to export it to JPG or whatever the spec is for whatever I am working on.

You never shoot a picture to an SD card, then send THAT file off for publication.

OK.

Are you a skeet shooter?

Originally posted by SBMcG
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Right, and I agree with you to a certain extent. But the combination of the contents of the photo itself, the fact it was taken 6 months ago and opened in Photoshop yesterday, and the coincidence that no one has ever seen Obama holding a firearm before and he has recently made a comment about shooting skeet, is problematic to me.

Except that someone asked him within the past few days if he had ever shot a gun. The WH photog dug out the original file, sweetened it in PS and there it is.

I see no conspiracy here, personally. As much as I'd love there to be one.

reply to post by SBMcG

Where do you get that noone has seen him shooting? And the coincidence isn't much of anything when you have WH reporters asking if there are photos of him skeet shooting and would the publish one?

Originally posted by SBMcG

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
This is a non thread.

I have done a LOT of digital photography, and there is NEVER a photo that I used that I have not dome something to in Photoshop. At the very least, I shoot in RAW format and then use Photoshop to export it to JPG or whatever the spec is for whatever I am working on.

You never shoot a picture to an SD card, then send THAT file off for publication.

OK.

Are you a skeet shooter?

Oh, I see. On page one it was all about the metadata, but now it's all about whether I am a skeet shooter.

How does that happen?

My friends, again, I would ask you to look at the photo, examine the metadata, and consider the current political narrative.

Again -- this may be nothing. But something doesn't smell right here to me.

I know a lot of photographers and honestly every picture they take goes through photoshop. For touchups, cropping, lighting, every one of them.

reply to post by SBMcG

Okay, fair enough.... I've looked at that pretty closely too since another site had a raging debate and I wanted to know which side had merit if it got out of hand.

I didn't see any anomalies myself. I see an inexperienced shooter that looked almost scared of what he's holding. He's most certainly not comfortable with it. It wouldn't even surprise me if those glasses were worn so you couldn't get a shot of him closing his eyes as he fired....as I'll bet money he does.

He's left handed though, so it's logical in how he's holding it. (My son shoots the same way and it's very hard for me to train his accuracy...since everything is mentally backward to me) Is he left eye or right eye dominant? Does he know? That really determines shoulder side more than writing hand, but I'll bet you he isn't one to take the time on learning all those details for something he likely won't do much more by choice.

One thing that got my attention was the 90 degree stream of gas out the right side on firing. Thats a bit odd, given how far back on the barrel that seems to come from. On the other hand, he's the President. This isn't Billy Jo Bob's shooting range ...and I've seen shotguns like that one running $25,000 and A LOT more in Bass Pro's "Fine Gun Room". I have no idea what little quirks and features the very very high priced ones may have. Nor will I ever have the place in life to learn, I'm sure.

reply to post by SBMcG

How is it strange that they publish a photo of him skeet shooting when there's tons of reporters, political bundits and trolls of all kinds asking for one? From every place from this very site to the WH press confrence.
It's somehow smelly that they actually accomodate this request?