White House using stitched photos?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Apr 30, 2009.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Apr 30, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Hans Kruse Guest

    Hans Kruse, Apr 30, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Dave Cohen Guest

    Hans Kruse wrote:
    > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
    >> stitched.
    >> And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
    >>
    >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454

    >
    > Where is the stitching done? Maybe it is so obvious that I don't see it.
    >


    Stitching was done on the op's head. They didn't do a very good job and
    every now and then a little bit of garbage oozes out and contaminates
    the ng.
    Dave Cohen
    Dave Cohen, Apr 30, 2009
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    Hans Kruse Guest

    "Dave Cohen" <> wrote in message
    news:gtcn9d$do2$-september.org...
    >
    > Stitching was done on the op's head. They didn't do a very good job and
    > every now and then a little bit of garbage oozes out and contaminates the
    > ng.


    Ah, what stitching software is used?

    --
    Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
    Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com, www.hanskruse.com
    Hans Kruse, Apr 30, 2009
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Apr 30, 5:58 am, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
    > stitched.
    > And poorly done at that.  Is this change we can believe in?
    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454


    I can see where you might think there is a stitch line, but I really
    don't think the image was stitched.

    My only problem with the photo is that it was edited on a Mac (just
    kidding, well mostly).
    Scott W, Apr 30, 2009
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    Xxxxx Guest

    I do see an artifact that might be a stitch line. Clearly, this was done to
    hide the fact that Obama is a communist.

    But, seriously... even if there is a stitch line... what's the point? Who
    gives a shit?

    The more serious problem with this photo is the fact that they're both
    wearing long sleeve shirts and ties. That's unacceptable, IMO.

    --
    nadie
    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
    > stitched.
    > And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454
    Xxxxx, Apr 30, 2009
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Rich Guest

    On Apr 30, 6:28 pm, "Xxxxx" <> wrote:
    > I do see an artifact that might be a stitch line. Clearly, this was done to
    > hide the fact that Obama is a communist.
    >
    > But, seriously... even if there is a stitch line... what's the point? Who
    > gives a shit?
    >
    > The more serious  problem with this photo is the fact that they're both
    > wearing long sleeve shirts and ties. That's unacceptable, IMO.
    >
    > --
    > nadie"Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
    > > stitched.
    > > And poorly done at that.  Is this change we can believe in?

    >
    > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454


    As one commenter said, Obama is breaking his wrists. Golf lessons...
    Rich, May 1, 2009
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    Charles Guest

    "Xxxxx" <> wrote in message
    news:_BpKl.3758$...
    >I do see an artifact that might be a stitch line. Clearly, this was done to
    >hide the fact that Obama is a communist.
    >
    > But, seriously... even if there is a stitch line... what's the point? Who
    > gives a shit?


    Not me.

    > The more serious problem with this photo is the fact that they're both
    > wearing long sleeve shirts and ties. That's unacceptable, IMO.


    It's a dumb shot, but that's just me.


    > nadie
    > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
    >> stitched.
    >> And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
    >>
    >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454

    >
    Charles, May 1, 2009
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Apr 30, 12:12 pm, "Hans Kruse" <> wrote:

    > Where is the stitching done? Maybe it is so obvious that I don't see it.


    First look at the Large size photo.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/l/

    Notice the line down the tree in the background where the tree changes
    colors. This line continues down into the grass.

    Now look at the photo at it's original size.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/o/

    You can clearly see where the photos have been joined.

    My guess is that either Obama and Biden weren't there at the same
    moment or somebody else was there that was taken out. And who's
    shadow is that to the right?
    And what is Obama putting to?
    Annika1980, May 1, 2009
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Bob Larter Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:
    > On Apr 30, 12:12 pm, "Hans Kruse" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Where is the stitching done? Maybe it is so obvious that I don't see it.

    >
    > First look at the Large size photo.
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/l/
    >
    > Notice the line down the tree in the background where the tree changes
    > colors. This line continues down into the grass.


    I can't see a "line" at all, let alone one in the grass.

    > Now look at the photo at it's original size.
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/o/
    >
    > You can clearly see where the photos have been joined.
    >
    > My guess is that either Obama and Biden weren't there at the same
    > moment or somebody else was there that was taken out. And who's
    > shadow is that to the right?


    Look at it closely, it's obviously the shadow of a branch.

    > And what is Obama putting to?


    A hole in the ground, presumably, out of shot.

    I think you're imagining things.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, May 1, 2009
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Paul Bartram Guest

    "Bob Larter" <> wrote

    > Look at it closely, it's obviously the shadow of a branch.


    Can't see a tree there on any aerial views of the White house I've found so
    far. More likely it is the shadow of a Secret Service guy *disguised* as a
    tree!

    Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
    all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
    since the Johnson days. Maybe they didn't maintain it as one until Obama
    took over? Unlikely they ever let Bush loose with a dangerous weapon like a
    golf club...

    Paul
    Paul Bartram, May 1, 2009
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Twibil Guest

    On Apr 30, 10:58 pm, "Bill Graham" <> wrote:
    >
    > > And poorly done at that.  Is this change we can believe in?

    >
    > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454

    >
    > Perhaps, but it sure is change we are paying for.......


    Can you name one government, any time, anywhere, that has operated
    without cost?

    Taxes have been a reality of life ever since Og figured out that since
    he was the biggest guy in the cave community he could collect a
    healthy percentage of his neighbor's property by simply threatening to
    crush the skull of anyone who objected.

    The main difference between then and now is that we get F-22s -and
    some other stuff- for our money instead of watching Og take our
    property *and* our women with no recompense whatsoever
    Twibil, May 1, 2009
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Twibil Guest

    On Apr 30, 10:11 pm, "Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR
    lizzy.com.au> wrote:
    >
    > Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
    > all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
    > since the Johnson days.


    Google Earth shows one clearly, and located right where the picture
    was taken too. However, it also shows a tree bordering/overhanging the
    golf green that is apparently no longer there.

    This should be no great surprise, as the Google Earth pics of *my*
    house were apparently taken clear back in 2006 and there's no reasion
    to suspect that the White House pics were taken any more recently.

    ~Pete
    Twibil, May 1, 2009
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    Twibil Guest

    On Apr 30, 10:57 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1{>
    wrote:
    >
    > Google Earth shows it as 2009 imagery, but who knows?


    I do. And 2009 is the copyright date. But if you look down about
    halfway to the right on the lower edge of the Google Earth screen you
    will find the photo's titular date: 2002.

    This is not surprising, as a lot of Google Earth's shots are several
    years out of date (the pic featuring my house is dated 2003) and there
    may well be security reasons for not keeping everything right up to
    date on the White House photos anyway.

    Matter of fact, I'd be a little surprised if a few of the White
    House's less-publicised security features have not been either erased
    or carefully distorted to mislead potential troublemakers.

    ~Pete
    Twibil, May 1, 2009
    #14
  15. Annika1980

    Paul Bartram Guest


    > "Twibil" <> wrote


    > Google Earth shows one clearly, and located right where the picture

    was taken too. However, it also shows a tree bordering/overhanging the
    golf green that is apparently no longer there.

    Ah, now I see it. (I didn't use GE at first, it takes forever to load on
    dialup!) The green is further away from the building than I thought, the
    picture we're talking about makes it look a lot closer.

    Paul
    Paul Bartram, May 1, 2009
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    Bob Larter Guest

    Paul Bartram wrote:
    > "Bob Larter" <> wrote
    >
    >> Look at it closely, it's obviously the shadow of a branch.

    >
    > Can't see a tree there on any aerial views of the White house I've found so
    > far. More likely it is the shadow of a Secret Service guy *disguised* as a
    > tree!


    Of course! *cough*

    > Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
    > all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
    > since the Johnson days. Maybe they didn't maintain it as one until Obama
    > took over? Unlikely they ever let Bush loose with a dangerous weapon like a
    > golf club...


    Indeed.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, May 1, 2009
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    Bob Larter Guest

    wrote:
    > On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
    >> stitched.
    >> And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
    >>
    >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454

    >
    > And if you look long enough you'll also see a UFO and Damien staring
    > out the window.


    Well, I'm sure that Brett can see them. ;^)

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
    Bob Larter, May 1, 2009
    #17
  18. Annika1980

    K W Hart Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Apr 30, 12:12 pm, "Hans Kruse" <> wrote:

    > Where is the stitching done? Maybe it is so obvious that I don't see it.


    First look at the Large size photo.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/l/

    Notice the line down the tree in the background where the tree changes
    colors. This line continues down into the grass.

    Now look at the photo at it's original size.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454/sizes/o/

    You can clearly see where the photos have been joined.

    My guess is that either Obama and Biden weren't there at the same
    moment or somebody else was there that was taken out. And who's
    shadow is that to the right?
    And what is Obama putting to?
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is a painting of the signing of the Declaration of Indenpendence which
    also appears on the back of the $2 bill. There are about a half dozen people
    in that painting who weren't at the signing. Additionally, there are about a
    half dozen people who were at the signing who aren't in the painting.
    My point? Who cares! It's the spirit or intent of the picture that counts.
    K W Hart, May 1, 2009
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Pat Guest

    On May 1, 1:57 am, Savageduck <savageduck1{> wrote:
    > On 2009-04-30 22:11:16 -0700, "Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR
    > lizzy.com.au> said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > "Bob Larter" <> wrote

    >
    > >> Look at it closely, it's obviously the shadow of a branch.

    >
    > > Can't see a tree there on any aerial views of the White house I've found so
    > > far. More likely it is the shadow of a Secret Service guy *disguised* as a
    > > tree!

    >
    > I have to agree.
    > That is a South Lawn view, confirmed by the South facing of the WH and
    > the awning extending out of the building. There is no tree anywhere
    > near that area on the lawn. So the shadow is certainly a third party.


    You win the award for stating the obvious. Anyone who ever thought it
    was a tree or Secret Service agent or anything like that doesn't know
    enough about photo analysis to comment on the picture. Not all photo
    analysis involves analyzing photos. Sometimes you just have to use a
    bit of old-fashioned common sense. It is completely obvious what the
    shadow is ... dramatic pause ... it is the person who owns the third
    golf ball !!! That is the obvious thing in the photo.

    The only thing I thought there were only two unusual elements to the
    picture, which you-all missed: first, the President of the United
    States is using a Nike golf club. Second, no one put a piece of tape
    over the logo so he isn't seen as endorsing Nike.

    >
    >
    >
    > > Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
    > > all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
    > > since the Johnson days. Maybe they didn't maintain it as one until Obama
    > > took over? Unlikely they ever let Bush loose with a dangerous weapon like a
    > > golf club...

    >
    > Google Earth shows it as 2009 imagery, but who knows?
    > The line of the building visible between the trees, appears to be part
    > of the East Wing.
    >
    >
    >
    > > Paul

    >
    > --
    > Regards,
    > Savageduck
    Pat, May 1, 2009
    #19
  20. Annika1980

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 01 May 2009 14:45:41 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >> And what is Obama putting to?

    >
    >Multiple holes on a putting practice green is not unusual.


    It is, in fact, the usual configuration.

    >I'm sure the White House has better things to risk a "photo manipulation
    >scandal" on.


    Let's say for a minute that it *is* Photoshopped, stitched, and
    manipulated seven ways from the middle. What would be scandalous
    about it?

    Now if the Republicans came up with a similar photo with Chavez
    Photoshopped in as Obama's putting partner, *that* would be
    scandalous.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, May 1, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charles Packer

    White House roof edited in USGS photos

    Charles Packer, May 9, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    93
    Views:
    2,007
    Mxsmanic
    May 15, 2004
  2. RFCSAC627N
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    616
    Black Locust
    Oct 18, 2004
  3. Replies:
    11
    Views:
    809
  4. ps56k

    printing for panorama stitched photos

    ps56k, Mar 1, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    350
  5. DD

    Displaying stitched panorama photographs.

    DD, Jan 28, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    366
Loading...

Share This Page