The wonders of photoshop

As anyone in the blogosphere knows photoshop is a requirement if you are going to fake photos and send them to Reuters or if you are the Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Actually there has been a great deal printed over the years about The Hollow Woman's photoshopped photo and the bint herself has never said anything about it except to continue to use the image as her official image.

I decided to look into this a little. Now most images these days leave behind meta-data trails so you can find out interesting details about images. Meta-data can include the camera used to take an image, the editor used to enhance it and any filters used in compiling the image.

So what do we know about the meta-data of the Hollow Woman's image. Well if we look at the image on Wikipedia which we are told the photo has been granted a GFDL lisence by the owner: "the office of the prime minister" contact: Antony Rhodes The permission for use of this work has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system.

Note that they use the word "work" as in art, and note that the Office of the Prime Minister issued the photo.

So what does the meta-data tell us. Well quite a lot.

  Orientation: Normal

  Horizontal resolution: 300 dpi

  Vertical resolution: 300 dpi

  Software used: Adobe Photoshop 7.0

  File change date and time: 13:05, 29 June 2005

  Color space: 65535

So it is true, The Hollow Woman's image is Photoshopped. No surprises there. Note there is no information about the camera used, only information about the editing software.

What does this all mean? Well not a lot except that Clark cannpt claim that the photo is not photoshopped as it demonstrably and verifiably has been.

 

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

Tagged:
  • Bogusnews

    There are a couple of reasons why this is important.  First because I am not aware of any other politician having such extensive photo shopping of their image.  Second, and far and away the most important, HC has vehemently denied that there was any touchup.  She has always stated it was an untouched image.

     

    If the PM tells blatent porkies I would have thought that was newsworthy.  (But then again, what am I saying, surely it's just same old same old with paintergate, speedgate, doongate etc etc etc etc) 

  • Anonymous Sooky La-la

    The history of the PMs photo on wikipedia is interesting in itself. There was once another version which actually had a long discussion about its extensive modification. But one day it was deleted and later replaced with "Helen Clark 2.jpg"… with all the criticism and skepticism erased.

  • Anonymous Sooky La-la

    So it was created in photoshop? What else is there apart from evidence that photoshop is better for resizing etc. than default windows default programmes to nail her? Do her media peeps have better taste than microsoft pain? Is that a scandal?

  • redneck

    i bet peter d got a wet spot with that enginered pictureSealed

  • barnsleybill

    "tweaked a little"

    The most fantastic understatement of our time, are you mad or blind? 

     

     

     

  • Trog

    Whaleoil – is this really important? You are sadly obsessed.

27%