Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wasn’t the photo shoot of AF1 supposed to be of Barack by extension?
Annuit Coeptis ^ | 5/9/09 | Blaine Fallis

Posted on 05/09/2009 3:06:24 AM PDT by TWP guy

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last
To: edzo4

Fits the pattern. This whole obama world is fishy.


41 posted on 05/09/2009 8:25:36 PM PDT by Texas resident (Older but smarter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clive
Here is a link to the photo actually released by the White House.

It's important to use the actual file if you want to look for metadata.

In that file you will find the EXIF header has been removed, so we don't know what type of camera was used. My guess is it was the pilot's personal $150 point-and shoot and he took this picture as a souvenir. There was no professional photographer on the F-16, as the intention was to film the two planes together from a thrid platform.

Also, you can tell the file as been photoshopped (maybe just to remove the EXIF data) by the distinctive presence of tags "JFIF", "Ducky", and "Adobe" in the header. Google those tags to see why that is a signature of Photoshop.

42 posted on 05/09/2009 8:27:33 PM PDT by Royal Wulff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal

The original White House photo, as released, was run through Photoshop for some reason. See my post above.


43 posted on 05/09/2009 8:30:23 PM PDT by Royal Wulff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: visualops

Very telling. Those shots reveal something the WH released photo lacks: visual distortion/bluring caused by exhaust heat in the visual field immediately aft of the engines.


44 posted on 05/10/2009 5:30:27 AM PDT by PowderMonkey (Will Work for Ammo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Royal Wulff
This deserves a thread of its own to explicitly discuss evidence that this was a photoshopped picture.
45 posted on 05/10/2009 6:16:30 AM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Royal Wulff; PowderMonkey
It doesn't really matter if it was run through photoshop. The EXIF data however was purposefully removed. As you can see, the other AF1 stock photos have EXIF data albeit limited. What it says though is that the photo was either run through a filter or just the EXIF data removed. It doesn't look like it was run through a filter or enhanced which is actually odd because it is a lousy shot. Now the photo up at the defense link somebody did enhance that copy.
About the exhaust it's hard to tell because they are over water but I do not see any noticeable distortion or blurring of the water surface wave pattern.

The big problem with this image is that it is terrible!! You don't take AF1 glamour shots through a window! This is an amateur photo!!
The flight was so obviously not for the stated purpose and they think we are all idiots!
46 posted on 05/10/2009 3:55:10 PM PDT by visualops (portraits.artlife.us or visit my freeper page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TWP guy

47 posted on 05/10/2009 8:58:23 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson