« King Of the Jews, Poles | Main | The Munchausen Majority »
AP Bedevils Bush?
Drudge linked it. Hot Air reserved judgment. I'm calling fauxtography.
Here's the original AP image:

And here's another photo buried deeper in the same slide show:
The shape of Bush's mouth is different, but these images appear to have been snapped within a split second of each other (the fingers on his right hand and even the orientation of his shirt cuff under his suit jacket is nearly identical) and from a very similar vantage point. The camera appears to be roughly eye-level with Bush - no sense in either photo of looking down on or up at him.
For the seal to shift so dramatically in relation to Bush's head (since the pictures appear to be taken from similar, if not identical elevations) would require the photographer to be right smack in front of the subject, in order for such an unnoticeably small elevation change to pivot the background scenery so drastically.
Anyway, that's my lay take. It's far from conclusive, but on an even odds bet, I'd lay my money on it being just a wee bit doctored. And even if it's not, it's fun to play Hunt the Flimflammer with the MSM.
For reference, the two images are set against each other below, highlighting the clearly close temporal proximity of the two photos.

Update: Meh, maybe I take that back. Looking at the microphones, the bedeviled photo does appear to be taken from a slightly lower vantage point. No way to know without knowing how far away the photographer(s) were when the photos were taken, I guess. For now, one has to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt, allowing that it was likely just intentionally unflattering cropping that led to the bedevilment.
Handcrafted by Flip on December 20, 2006 |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572653ef00d835065cfa69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference AP Bedevils Bush?:
Comments
ok maybe; but why the color change and if you look through all the photos you see the seal is a good 15 feet behind him, and there are several photos where if veiwed consecutively either the photographer is moving to the shot or is moving away from the shot. There are too many pics with the seal close to his head to have been a mistake considering the other vantage points of other pics. I'd say that was the money shot the photog wanted.Posted by: waza | Dec 21, 2006 9:26:10 AM
So you move from accusation to "benefit of the doubt". Those are incompatible sentiments. Do some technical analysis of the photo, as bloggers have done in the past. Don't jump to conclusions.Posted by: Chris | Dec 21, 2006 2:43:07 PM
True, they are incompatible statements, one written before I noticed the different angle of the microphones and the other after. You can see my opinion changing right before your eyes during the word "meh". The only photographic technical analysis "skill" I could possibly be said to have would be to recognize some of the typical artifacts that result when you go monkeying around with a photo (as I do frequently for this site (for spoofing purposes, not deceitful ones) and have spent too much time grappling with minimizing those artifacts). No such artifacts are blatantly apparent, so there ends my cursory analysis.Posted by: Flip | Dec 21, 2006 2:57:29 PM

