Why dubya "bathroom" photo is a fake

[wtmusic]

Look at the border between Junior's index finger and the text behind it below. The blurry line is characteristic of a photoshop "feather" which can be used to meld disparate images:



Now look at the black lower right corner. The way the note drops into complete blackness without any edge features is unnatural, and looks a whole lot like the corner was just brushed out with black to avoid having to fix troublesome details:



Plus: capital "I" is written two different ways.

No, I don't have too much time on my hands. I'm just avoiding work. ;)

[no_to_war_economy]

1. your right it is a thumb NOT a middle finger

[benburch]

2. The second effect...

Could be somebody's shoulder or head in the foreground.

[wtmusic]

5. agree

that thought occurred to me after I posted

[Arugula Latte]

85. I thought it was Bush's shoulder. eom

[Toots]

3. Funny Reuters has confirmed the photos as being authentic

They are aware I believe of how the right will make efforts to debunk the photos but they maintain they had complete control of the photos from beginning til printed. Take your argument to Reuters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Well said

[info being]

61. This may be a clue that Bush is through

If it is fake, that means there is a conspiracy to destroy him. Finally.

[rniel]

73. Are they going to Dan Rather reuters now

Is this just a media diversion magic trick. Look over here while I do this over here.

[bryant69]

4. Does it make bush look bad?

Yes.

then it must be true. Simple as that. Here at Democratic Underground we don't cotten to people who defend Bush in any respect.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[wtmusic]

15. actually

I don't think it makes him look bad or good. You'll find just as many people who believe it's endearing and makes him look human.

I can't defend him. He's indefensible.

[txindy]

32. It certainly shows the contempt some in the media have for Junior

Particularly after his Katrina 'response'. The photographer just spent a week in NO and intends to go back soon. Think that might have something to do with the sudden shift in attitude from respect to contempt? Oh, yeah, I think it does. And the party's just starting.

[efhmc]

18. Not sure you are right about it making him look bad. I think his base

would say, "Look, he's just so real and human like us." then, "Poor thing, to be embarrassed like that by the liberal press."

[me b zola]

25. Freepers don't know when they need to pee, either?

:spray:

Maybe that's why they take port-a-potties with them where ever they go :rofl:

[efhmc]

31. Careful with that one. There were lots of port-o-potties at Camp Casey.

[me b zola]

36. Yes, because they were in the country MILES away from any toilets

where as freepers carry them on their backs in an urban setting :hurts:

[CascadeTide]

29. I don't think it makes him look bad

I wouldn't know what to do about going to the bathroom if I was at the UN and Bush is no more qualified to be president than I am.

[July]

38. He could always hold it.

He's a grown man, meeting with world leaders. I think I'd wait in that situation.

[CascadeTide]

56. Maybe he's like me and can't hold it ;)

I don't know how long the meeting was but if it's more than 2 hours I would have trouble not going. Then again, if I knew it was going to be 2 hours I wouldn't have drunk anything for a few hours before....

[displacedtexan]

6. So why is the Reuters photographer claiming it's real? And...

why is Reuters standing by it?

[DS1]

7. Which is precisely why Reuters issued a release stating that it, in fact,

is real.

I love when people point out Photoshop features on real pictures :-)

[aquart]

8. The "I" is frequently written differently.

Especially since the print I's are personal pronouns and the script I is merely the start of a sentence.

Can't comment about Photoshop.

[magnolia]

23. I don't know anything about photoshop...

...but I do the same thing with "I's". When I write a note quickly I vary from cursive to print and my caps vary too.

(It disturbs me that I have something in common with Junior...even if so insignificant!)

[crispini]

9. Why dubya "bathroom" photo is real.

It's running on REUTERS.

[skids]

10. The blackness...

...is *'s shoulder.



As to the feathering, could be an encoding artifact.

FWIW.

[Horse with no Name]

20. that's not his shoulder

That is his head.
You ever watch a toddler color?
They hold pull their head down and cock it sideways (usually with tongue sticking out).
Gawd this man is an embarrassment.

[HEAVYHEART]

28. Hahaha!

:silly:

[wtmusic]

30. It appears to be something Condi is handing over his shoulder

[Horse with no Name]

34. Pull Ups I tell you Pull Ups

Depends are for grown-ups!
:silly: Great photoshop though!

[wtmusic]

37. true

now we KNOW it's a photoshop...those Depends fasteners are too complicated :D

[DistressedAmerican]

39. You Are Absolutely Correct! There Is Encoding Error. The Same Is Visible

along the edge of the paper where his head overlaps it. It is a function is inaccurate reproduction of the contrasting edges. You can see how it immediately disappears where the contrasting white paper stops. There is also a similar effect created by the white hair and the dark desk (and ends where the desk ends).

If it was the feather effect, it could be consistent throughout. The fact that is appears where there is high contrast and disappears where the contrast is less is proof that it is NOT the feather effect.

Common.

I can see why someone would conclude what was argued in the OP but, it is simply incorrect.

Let's have no more of this...

[IChing]

50. People, Distressed American Knows---HE IS THE KING? OF PHOTOSHOPPING

thank you for your input and knowledge

[Connie_Corleone]

11. It's real. nt

[Ioo]

12. About the Blackness

That is very much what it should look like. If you use a SLR Camera with a real lens, you have a focal point, and anything before or after is blurred. Your own eyes do this, you just ignore it.

That is a photo taken over his sholder, and that is why is is blurry.

[Qibing Zero]

13. Yes, but everything written there is messed up.

Cursive, caps, all of it has no rhyme or reason. I don't think you could say that has any bearing on it's authenticity. The photoshop thing I don't know enough about, soo..

[Beetwasher]

14. *sigh* Whatever, Tell It To Reuters

The blurring effect could be one of two OTHER things, an effect of the digital encoding OR an effect causee because his hand was moving.

[defiant1]

16. Find some of *'s handwriting....

and compare.

[chalky]

42. Done.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4780022&mesg_id=4780022

[defiant1]

64. Thanks....

Even though, after reading that thread, I still don't buy it's real.

[Guaranteed]

17. It WAS a thumb- but this, my friend, is the real deal. nt

[leftchick]

19. I always use two different capital letters for several letters

S,R,P and T right off the top of my head. Is that unusual? Am I weird like the chimp?? :scared:

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

21. Not at all unusual for letter formations to vary, esp. with "I"

Graphologists find the capital "I" formation very informative because it is the expression of self, e.g. I did this, I said that, etc. The variations here occur between the powerfully printed capital I that refers to Bush and the scripted capital I that starts the word "Is".

[Lex]

22. It's a CREDITED Reuters photograph attributed to an actual photographer!

Jeez--don't you think the photographer would be screaming if his name was affixed to photoshopped picture?

"REUTERS/Rick Wilking"

[txindy]

24. And Reuters has explicitly confirmed the authenticity of the photograph

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001137252

NEW YORK In what seems destined to become one of the most joked about photos of the month, a well-known Reuters photographer on Wednesday captured President George W. Bush scribbling a note to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a session at the United Nations. On the note is a message revolving around the need to take a "bathroom break."

The photo, which appeared on Reuters' official photo site, was quickly published all over the Web, though dismissed by some as a likely photoshop special. Others suggested that surely someone must have hacked the Reuters site. But a Reuters spokesman on Thursday told E&P the photo was legit.

"The photographer and editors on this story were looking for other angles in their coverage of this event, something that went beyond the stock pictures of talking heads that these kind of forums usually offer," explained Reuters' Stephen Naru. "This picture certainly does that."

That's as clear as can be.

[RagingInMiami]

26. If they photoshopped the photo

I wish they would have come up with something much more damning in the note than needing a bathroom break. How about something like telling condi he enjoyed that blow job in the oval office last night.

[Individualist]

33. Of course, Reuters always photoshops,

and if you believe that, I have a great deal to offer you on a bridge in Brooklyn.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Damn where did I place my copy of the deed

you had it all along

;-)

[smartvoter]

35. But that blurring also can happen when the focal point is closer than

the background details. The hand is in focus. The text behind is not. There could be blurring at the edge, regardless.

I understand what you are getting at, however. But note that the same blurring runs all above the top knuckle. This would be an atypical, asymmetrical feathering.

Plus, hasn't Reuters vouched for it?

Further, and I know I am in the minority here at DU on this, I don't see where quietly passing a note to an adviser about needing a bathroom break makes someone look bad. Call me all wet, but the last time I checked, everyone I know has to use the bathroom from time to time...

[Lex]

43. Sure, everyone has to use the bathroom from time to time . . .

but does everyone write a note to their Secretary of State for permission?

[smartvoter]

49. I don't have one myself. But if I was in a session I knew nothing about

I might ask the person next to me if it's possible to get a bathroom break...

I hate Bush & Co. Don't get me wrong.

To me, this is a humorous thing, but I don't think it makes him look as bad some do...

Guess I'm strange that way...

[Fifth of Five]

74. That's just it -

Shouldn't he know something about the session he's in? Doesn't he get briefed on protocol before such events?

If he doesn't - why not? Is he unable to keep such details in his brain? Is he too impatient to listen? Is his staff just that incompetent?

I, for one, think it makes him look very bad. He's in his fifth year for God's sake. How much time before the chimp is trained?

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. no does not look him bad, it is just funny as hell

[smartvoter]

51. I'll buy that. Only Bush could get caught with that photo... nt

[benburch]

41. Thinking about that first effect...

It could be a compression artifact from a digital camera.

[wtmusic]

45. It doesn't look like a JPEG artifact

which would have swirlies...but check out how the text even farther away from his finger is lightened higher up.

Weird.

[Minstrel Boy]

46. my first thought is an artifact from sharpening an enlargement n/t

[wtmusic]

47. good call nt

[Politicub]

48. Man, some "DUers" are falling all over themselves to debunk this

so it must be true. This thing is spreading like wildfire. And i'm doing my part to fan the flames.

:rofl:

[hopein08]

52. The black corner of the photo is probably Dubya's shoulder...

he was wearing a dark suit. If the photographer was behind him, he might get Dubya's shoulder in the picture. And no adult writes completely the same every time and every letter, not anyone I know at least.

[DaveJ]

53. I think it does look suspicious....

It may be Photoshopped but perhaps only the typed documents were substituted by Reuters to avoid being accused of revealing top secret information.

[Junkdrawer]

54. And the proportional spacing is a dead giveaway...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4779346

[Atman]

60. You didn't fall for that post, did you?

Didn't all the "LOL's" and "HAHAHA's" clue you in that the post you referenced was the spoof, not the photo?

This "proportional spacing" crap is just that...CRAP.

Of course handwriting would be proportionately spaced. It is fucking handwriting, which by its very nature is proportionately spaced. Not that anyone can actually tell from the photo. I'll tell you what would convince me it's fake...if the spacing was NOT proportional. Do you know how difficult it would be to write by hand on a note pad, in a "monospaced" format? I can do it, if asked, but I've been doing this for nearly 30 years.

I am really amused at the lengths some people are going in their attempts to debunk this. To what end? Give something for the freepers to start an e-mail campaign with?

:eyes:

[Bridget Burke]

71. Junkdrawer is referring to the AWOL memos that got CBS in trouble.

Actually, typewriters with PS existed back then. I used one at work.

And nobody ever disproved the facts of Bush shirking his duty.

[Atman]

72. IBM Selectric

I had one, too. A typewriter with not only proportional spacing, but changeable fonts, too. Just click in a different font ball, and it could go from mono- to proportional-spaced in about five seconds.

Sorry to Junk. But another thread (or two) had actually tried using that argument, and I thought he was picking it up.

[Bridget Burke]

78. I used an IBM Executive....

And an IBM Selectric Composer a few years later.

Now all gone to wherever obsolete office equipment goes.....eBay!

[Atman]

81. Totally off topic...

I have an awesome Epson electronic typewriter in the attic. It was da bomb in its day. Interchangeable fonts, auto correction, dictionary, centering and formatting. It was sooooo cool...at the time. Pretty primitive now, in the age of the word processor and "undo" key.

Anyway, my kids both have their own Macs, with most of the bells and whistles. They found the typewriter one day, and took it out of the attic and just went nuts. They thought it was the coolest thing ever, and one of 'em even tried writing letters and papers on it, until the correction ribbon ran out.

I just found it terribly ironic that these tech-weenie Mac-heads would think this ancient technology was so cool!

[Warren DeMontague]

55. It's the question mark that gets me...

Either that or it's a VERY BIG exclamation point.

Help!

[progressivebydesign]

57. The photos are confirmed as real. Why are you disupting this?

Wierd.. not like you're defending someone we actually LIKE.

[info being]

65. Maybe because truth matters more than partisanship

How are we better than "them" if we don't care about truth?

[txindy]

83. Have you even read the confirmation of authenticity by Reuters?

Or is the source of the photograph not good enough?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001137252

NEW YORK In what seems destined to become one of the most joked about photos of the month, a well-known Reuters photographer on Wednesday captured President George W. Bush scribbling a note to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a session at the United Nations. On the note is a message revolving around the need to take a "bathroom break."

The photo, which appeared on Reuters' official photo site, was quickly published all over the Web, though dismissed by some as a likely photoshop special. Others suggested that surely someone must have hacked the Reuters site. But a Reuters spokesman on Thursday told E&P the photo was legit.

"The photographer and editors on this story were looking for other angles in their coverage of this event, something that went beyond the stock pictures of talking heads that these kind of forums usually offer," explained Reuters' Stephen Naru. "This picture certainly does that."

[Atman]

58. Would you care to hear from a Photoshop "expert?"

I've been using PS since version 1, and I can fake a picture that would have you convinced your grandma was hang gliding with Arnold Schwarzenegger if you paid me enough.

Your observations about the photo are simply not accurate, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, there is no way of telling what "generation" this photo is. I has been copied, posted, e-mailed and re-copied so many times, and each step in the process has the potential to add artifacts to the image.

The halo around Bush's hand are perfect examples. When you compress a photograph for web posting, the .jpg format is almost universal. It is considered a "lossy" compression (as opposed to "loss-less"), which means that when you create the .jpg file, it consolidates like pixels in order to lessen the digital information and thus make the file size smaller, and upload/download faster. There is no way to avoid this. None, except using a very high setting with minimal loss...which no one does for publication on the web, because it completely defeats the purpose of compressing the file in the first place.

ANY photo saved at a normal .jpg setting will exhibit these artifacts.

Second, as to the shadow falling off the back...that is called dodging. It is a photography technique to bring out the important parts of a photo. It's counterpart is called "burning," which does the same thing in reverse. There are Dodge and Burn tools in Photoshop. It is done with a little stick or other shield in convention darkroom developing. It is very common in news photos.

As for the capital I's being different...uh, not like we can really tell anyway, but hey...this is handwritten. Bush writes in mixed case, as I often do. So what? I would expect handwritten letters to differ slightly from character to character.

Now please, stop this nonsense. Reuters is a respected news organization, and has everything to lose by publishing a fake photo like this. Everything.



Just ask Dan Rather.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

59. kick buitt atman!

[info being]

67. You convinced me. Thanks.

[wtmusic]

70. thanks

for your opinion. I also consider myself a photoshop expert, so I don't really care for the condescension.

A few points...

Simply copying the photo would add no artifacts whatsoever. It's a digital file and unless the photo was recompressed each time (unlikely) it would look exactly the same.

No one that I know of uses highly-compressed JPEGs for the web anymore except "Here's a picture of my cat"-type websites. Reuters certainly wouldn't. Also, highly-compressed JPEG artifacts show swirls which are not in evidence here.

Though other posters have fairly conclusively pointed out that the dark blur is W's shoulder, I won't characterize your "dodging" theory as "nonsense"...

[Atman]

76. Ah, but you cannot "simply copy" the photo and re-post it.

You must save it as something. Anything. And that is almost always a .jpg for web publication. So, how can you copy and repost without going through the re-save process? It sounds fascinating, and potentially time-saving.

And this wasn't "simply copied" anyway. It was enlarged, THEN saved again. Those original .jpg artifacts got enlarged when the picture was blown up, then more artifacts were added to the artifacts when the photo was re-saved. There simply is no way aroung this. None, except for posting in .png format, which no one does because most flavors of IE don't support it.

I am not trying to argue. I respectfully submit that you're just misinformed. You cannot copy, manipulate, enlarge and re-save to .jpg without adding artifacts, unless you used a "10" (or, "12" in PS) setting. 12 in PS is virtually lossless. Note, I say virtually, not totally. You seem to assume that I am saying everyone saves pictures at the "2" setting. I am not. "6" is considered "high quality," and it is loaded with artifacts when enlarged. Reuters posted that pic in a slide show on Yahoo, too. That is where I first saw it. And you can bet your bandwidth that that photo was saved with no more than a "4" or "5" medium setting. Because it is only the web, and the artifacts tend to get lost on displays. Plus, as a slide show, the picture must load quickly. At the size of that photo, I'd be totally stunned if they had compressed it any at anything but a "4" or "5." There simply would be no need.

[wtmusic]

80. Anyone can right-click a photo off the web

and save it as a file with no added compression. Unless the photo was enlarged or edited and re-saved it could be copied indefinitely with no loss in quality.

Quite possible that the photo wasn't enlarged at all. A common 5MP camera would have created an image 2600 pixels wide which could have been cropped to show detail. Granted, at that point it would have to be re-encoded.

(All this to say I'm playing devil's advocate here. Points are well-taken, and I admit my photoshops of Granny hang-gliding with Arnold were never quite convincing...) :)

[Atman]

82. You missed the point...(and an Arnie Photoshop)

The OP enlarged and re-cropped the photo to make his points. This is what I am saying cannot be done. Once you crop, even one pixel off the edge, you need to re-save. No way around it. And when you do, even if it is at the exact same setting, those original artifacts don't go away. They are just added to, with even more artifacts. It's just a fact of life. And, speaking of Arnie photoshops (not for kids!)...Scroll about halfway down

[wtmusic]

84. too funny

is that yours?

[Atman]

86. Yes...I wrote all that crap, too.

I tried to keep up a weekly online pubication, but didn't have the money. At the time, Bartcop was already well established, and DU was coming on strong, and there were so many people starting up blogs I just figured, screw it, and dropped the whole project in order to concentrate more on cartoons.

I really liked the weekly "Ari's Soiled Briefs." They were fun to write.

Click here and scroll down to the 2003 cartoons in the lower right column. All the ones with a double asterisk ** also feature full back-issues of Not Banned Yet.

[DaveJ]

62. He seems to be responding to someone else...

The writing underneath the question is entirely different handwriting.

Plus there is a pencil mark that goes off the right side of the paper, but does not continue onto the paper underneath, suggesting the mark was made elsewhere.

Personally I think that requesting a bathroom break would make * look uncharacteristically human, which he is not. Could that be Condi's bathroom request maybe?

[cascadiance]

63. The bottom photo might be explained away...

with the following larger version of this photo:



which shows this "black" area not being a shadow area, but in fact a foreground of Bush's shoulder, which would explain the way the finger's shadow is like it is.

But you are potentially right about the edge artifacts. Too bad we don't have another photo shot there to compare it with to verify this.

[info being]

68. You exposed the original poster as manipulative

Thanks.

[Gregorian]

66. The truth doesn't matter anymore. Does it?

At least it doesn't to this guy.

[Theres-a]

69. From another thread:The truth

[Ilsa]

75. Sometimes I switch between printed and cursive styles in

notes like this. I hope I'm not as screwed up as Dumbya.

[Dora]

77. Nah. Here's why.

THE BLUR:

Bush was writing the note as the picture was taken, so his hand was in motion. The "blurred line" you refer to is, IMO, not a special effect, but an effect of light and motion.

The finger/hand is moving to the right as Bush is scribbling his note. At the same moment, the picture is taken. The text/paper placed on the table behind his hand is masked by his hand, and as his hand moves to the right, more of the text/paper is revealed. In the split second that the camera's shutter is open, Bush's hand continues to move, thereby revealing more of the text/paper and exposing it to the camera's lens. Because this text/paper was not exposed to the film for the same amount of time as the rest of the image (because it was hidden by his hand) it naturally appears more indistinct than the rest of the text, which seems dark and sharp.

It's a natural effect. I imagine that the photographer was not using a flash, and had the camera set on a slightly slower shutter speed to compensate for that. The slower shutter speeds will always blur motion.

THE DARK CORNER:

It's his shoulder, and it's navy blue.

[DaveJ]

79. What you are talking about is motion blur

And that doesn't look like motion blur. As I said before, I think the text might have been substituted by Reuters for security reasons, and the change in handwriting is because he is responding to Condi. Plus, the first sentence looks like female handwriting. Condi was asking Shrub if she could go to the bathroom and Shrub was responding. I doubt Shrub uses the bathroom anyway as that is a human trait, the only time he goes is when he wants to sh*t on America.

[Dora]

87. No. Not just motion blur.

Yes, there is some motion blur, and I understand what you mean, but it's not the only explanation.

IMO the blurred/lightened effect is a result of the background text receiving less exposure time than the rest of the picture (because it was masked by his hand).

The handwriting has been analyzed/compared in another thread (sorry, don't have the link) and it is consistent with other documents he's written.

The photo is legit.

[Taxloss]

88. Why fake it when it could be staged?

This image didn't NEED to be faked; it simplest way of fraudulently creating it would be to stage it.

I personally am unsure. The handwriting looks too heavy and black for a pencil. Reuters or not, it seems suspect at best.