Reading mode: Light Dark

get the picture right vs. photoshop (BP- PR desaster)

Go to last post
S

schmaud

Leading Member
Messages
775
Reaction score
0
Location
CH
There is in the news plenty of coverage on manipulated PR images from BP.

Sure the PR disaster is a joke compared to the real disaster, but this is not the place to discuss the actual disaster.

What I found striking is the image vs. photo shop aspect of the PR disaster. Most of it seem completely unnecessary:
Here is a flickr link were original vs. altered is presented:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bpamerica/sets/72157624429465573/

In the first case ( hive command center) they surely prepped the image, and actually altered the message.

However in the other two cases the message and principal image content is the same between altered and unaltered. The altered one are supposed to look more impressive (I guess). But I think a skilled photographer should have been able to get an image close to the altered images straight out of the camera.

Leaves me puzzles with two questions:

Why are highly paided professionals ( BP PR) rather pay photoshoppers than photographers?

Are we really this used to a fake reality where everything is shiny and over saturated, that the original pictures ( which are just a little less dense composed and lack e.g. contrast on the presentation screens) would not have been good enough?

Sure the pictures were likely prepared selected and published by highly stressed people with pressure from everywhere. And teh end they likely produced wnat they thought people want to see. Thus it does tells a lot about our societies expectations of pictures.

I would be interested to hear what you think about this.

cheers

Ralf

PS: I hope (but am skeptical) that the impact of the real disaster will be mediated as much as possible, and at least we will learn a few things from it to avoid such events in the future. But please stick to photography here and leave politics out of the discussion)
 
In none of those pictures was the essence of the picture altered. He caught a few monitors on an off cycle, so he pasted an image from another one. Okay, so it's not what the camera saw exactly at the moment the shutter clicked, but it didn't change anything. In the last one he did even less.

Tempest in a teapot.
 
Rearrange these words Schmaud.
Nothing - fuss - about.
Jules

--
Julesarnia on twitter
 
onlooker said:
In none of those pictures was the essence of the picture altered. He caught a few monitors on an off cycle, so he pasted an image from another one. Okay, so it's not what the camera saw exactly at the moment the shutter clicked, but it didn't change anything. In the last one he did even less.

Tempest in a teapot.
Click to expand...
In the helecopter shot it looks like a little shadow/highlight was done to show interior detail. I would have done the same. That is just normal editing.
--
Brian Schneider

 
schmaud said:
There is in the news plenty of coverage on manipulated PR images from BP.

Sure the PR disaster is a joke compared to the real disaster, but this is not the place to discuss the actual disaster.

What I found striking is the image vs. photo shop aspect of the PR disaster. Most of it seem completely unnecessary:
Here is a flickr link were original vs. altered is presented:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bpamerica/sets/72157624429465573/

In the first case ( hive command center) they surely prepped the image, and actually altered the message.

However in the other two cases the message and principal image content is the same between altered and unaltered. The altered one are supposed to look more impressive (I guess). But I think a skilled photographer should have been able to get an image close to the altered images straight out of the camera.

Leaves me puzzles with two questions:

Why are highly paided professionals ( BP PR) rather pay photoshoppers than photographers?

Are we really this used to a fake reality where everything is shiny and over saturated, that the original pictures ( which are just a little less dense composed and lack e.g. contrast on the presentation screens) would not have been good enough?

Sure the pictures were likely prepared selected and published by highly stressed people with pressure from everywhere. And teh end they likely produced wnat they thought people want to see. Thus it does tells a lot about our societies expectations of pictures.

I would be interested to hear what you think about this.

cheers

Ralf

PS: I hope (but am skeptical) that the impact of the real disaster will be mediated as much as possible, and at least we will learn a few things from it to avoid such events in the future. But please stick to photography here and leave politics out of the discussion)
Click to expand...
A command headquarters with blank monitors doesn't look professional. A grounded helocopter, as opposed to one in the air, doesn't look professional. They have an image of "High Technology," and "expertsie."

"Why spoil it" is almost certainly their attitude.

Dave
 
Photography is not depicting reality and retouching can, if done well and with good intentions, bring that depiction a little closer to the truth (whatever it may be) or to a higher esthetic level.

Most of the digital pictures I have ever seen were retouched and I don't care much for the others; it's not like the unretouched ones are God's gift : )

Pedantic, sure
erroneous? no
 
BP have told its PR staff to stop cutting and pasting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/oil/7904221/BP-admits-it-Photoshopped-official-images-as-oil-spill-cut-and-paste-row-escalates.html

I believe the real issue here is BP's continual PR failures right from the start of this crisis.

The dumbing down of the amount of oil spilled, initially. The CEO's "I wan't my life back"remark. The chairman's "...those small people"comment, OK he's Swedish (I believe) so you could put it down to not knowing the English language well enough. The CEO's photo of him on his yacht with his son during a sailing race, while big oil was still spilling out. Its possible involvement in getting the terminally ill Lokerbee bomber back home. The doctors said he had 3 months to live, but a year later he still seems healthy. I have a big company branding background, and I can tell you BP's PR performance is not going to do their brand any favours - at least in the short term.
 
Laurentiu Todie said:
Photography is not depicting reality and retouching can, if done well and with good intentions, bring that depiction a little closer to the truth (whatever it may be) or to a higher esthetic level.

Most of the digital pictures I have ever seen were retouched and I don't care much for the others; it's not like the unretouched ones are God's gift : )

Pedantic, sure
erroneous? no
Click to expand...
These little tidbits we are discussing in this thread, are simply a very tiny part of dealing with this image problem. Filling in four blank monitors with images is not "retouching," it's distorting. Putting a helocopter in the air, instead of the ground, is not retouching either.

Admittedly all minor matters. But a journalist would rightly lose their jobs over this. BP is sending these images around as "news."

Dave
 


--
Tom
When my bones turn to dust,
and if my CD's didn't rust,
future generations will see my photos
and think that I was nuts.
 
schmaud said:
There is in the news plenty of coverage on manipulated PR images from BP.

Sure the PR disaster is a joke compared to the real disaster, but this is not the place to discuss the actual disaster.

What I found striking is the image vs. photo shop aspect of the PR disaster. Most of it seem completely unnecessary:
Here is a flickr link were original vs. altered is presented:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bpamerica/sets/72157624429465573/

In the first case ( hive command center) they surely prepped the image, and actually altered the message.

However in the other two cases the message and principal image content is the same between altered and unaltered. The altered one are supposed to look more impressive (I guess). But I think a skilled photographer should have been able to get an image close to the altered images straight out of the camera.

Leaves me puzzles with two questions:

Why are highly paided professionals ( BP PR) rather pay photoshoppers than photographers?

Are we really this used to a fake reality where everything is shiny and over saturated, that the original pictures ( which are just a little less dense composed and lack e.g. contrast on the presentation screens) would not have been good enough?

Sure the pictures were likely prepared selected and published by highly stressed people with pressure from everywhere. And teh end they likely produced wnat they thought people want to see. Thus it does tells a lot about our societies expectations of pictures.

I would be interested to hear what you think about this.

cheers

Ralf

PS: I hope (but am skeptical) that the impact of the real disaster will be mediated as much as possible, and at least we will learn a few things from it to avoid such events in the future. But please stick to photography here and leave politics out of the discussion)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top