The composition of the three of them always looked strange to me, the way Stanley Armour's hand is floating above zero's shoulder in particular...there are many items in that image that just do not look natural, and why would the line of shoulders and arms of Madelyn and zero be in line...unless zero was posed that way, to be added later and create a snug fit. I wasn't the only one, I came across a blog (forgot which) where someone else made a similar observation.
PhilDragoo, whose FReepername appears on the image I believe to be the actual image taken on that day, helpfully removed zero from the compostion, and presto! There you have it. Both are 'fakes' - but can you tell which may have been the original?
WHO IS THE MAN WHO WAS NEVER THERE AT ALL.
I’ve done right much photoshop work myself, and tried compositing. It is not easy, and interestingly, it seems tell-tale indicators become more apparent when he image is saved down to a coarser resolution.
Especially with Jpgs: it’s hard to beat the artifacts caused by that kind of compression.
This thing is an amazing study of fakery, on many levels:
Propaganda, theme: When did this thing emerge? What is it trying to say?
Gesture and drama: Some grandson, huh? Posing for a family memory but not embracing?
Anatomy: Has he broken that poor woman’s ribs? And yes, and that disembodied hand hovering over the shoulder; UFO?
Light,shade: no matter how you try it never stands up. Michelangelo couldn’t pull it off. There’s something just wrong about the whole “gestalt” of the thing, not so obvious in the details.
Elements of the composite: The scarf is there to cover something. Note the bright pixels along the border. That’s “clipping,” typically occurring when you bump the contrast or intensity of a color too far. It doesn’t appear any where else on the image.
Sources: the pic is supposed to be in Central Park. There are pictures of Obama from his time at Columbia dressed in a similar jacket. Were gramps and gram in NYC in that time?
Why fake a pic with the grandparents? Is there no authentic picture expressing this theme?
It could be the work of an adoration by a nitwit with too much time on his hands. And for what it is, it ain’t too bad.
But if this thing is official ‘bamster propaganda, traceable as an sanctioned campaign image, a study of it could fill a book. (Too bad Roland Barthe’s not around.)
Of course, in the end we’d all be left wondering: Is there really an Obama?
Yes!
It's Chauncy the Gardner!
Marx said: "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce." Something else he got ass-backwards.
Should have acknowledged your comment earlier, but jumped the gun.