The Situation Room Meets Photoshop

Remember how about a week ago everyone was a-clamoring to see the photos of Osama bin Laden with his head all blown to smithereens? (Insert Osama bin Laden joke here: What happens when Navy SEALs find Osama bin Laden? It's a no brainer. End joke.) There were a few reasons thrown around as to why that wasn't going to happen. But do you know what it came down to? Us. You. Me. That's right. The Internets.

According to Politico, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a bunch of Marines at Camp Lejune in North Carolina, "One of the things that I think concerns Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton and I is the risk not only of the pictures themselves inflaming people who were bin Laden's adherents and radical extremists, but we were also worried about the potential for manipulation of those photos and doing things with those photos that would be pretty outrageous in terms of provoking a reaction that might in fact put our troops at greater risk in both Iraq and Afghanistan." You know what that means don't you? Photoshop.

The Internets are creative places. And Gates knows it. First-hand, it would seem, as he went on to say: "I have gotten from friends all over the country copies of the picture that was this iconic picture taken in the Situation Room while we were watching the operation. And they have been photoshopped in every way you can imagine, including putting you know, coming after the royal wedding, one of these had all of us in one of these big, wide-brimmed hats from the wedding." Huh. I wonder what ever he could be referring to?

No, I don't. I knew. I knew all along. He also went on to say: "Another had various football players seated at the table that had been photoshopped in." I know what that's in reference to also. Behold!

At least, I think that's the one that he's referring to. They're not really seated at the table, per se, but there are football players there, so I'm going to green light that one. If those are the only ones that he's seen, however, he's really missing out. I call this one "SNAFU". Behold!Then there's the Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino Room:Then there's "Everybody Get In The Situation Room":

And my personal favorite, The Hall of Justice:I really enjoy seeing Hillary as Wonder Woman. I don'tknow why they made Joe Biden The Flash. He looked so complacent in the original photo. It seemed like he was thinking about trains and not much more. I think the point here is that if Bob Gates was afraid that the Internets would Photoshop the hell out of the bin Laden death photos, he's probably got a pretty good point. And I'm OK with not seeing them. Dead is dead. I'm good with that. Photoshop on!

moreless

A Dead Terrorist Meets Photoshop

Ah, Photoshop. Is there nothing you can't do? With your abilities and the creative wit and talent of the Internets, it really adds an extra element after the assassination of the most hunted man in the world. Let's review.

I'm sure that a bunch of lefties think that this picture is just great and that it's a smack in W's face. Me, I'm just glad that ol' Weird Beard is dead. I don't care who did it. But that doesn't mean that I don't find the image below a bit amusing. Because I do. A bit.

The question now is whether or not people will continue to mix up their names?

You knew that there'd be something referencing that buffoon, Donald Trump. Could he look like any more of a jackass at this point? (Only if he continues to press stupid, stupid issues about Obama's qualifications. Or just open his mouth to speak in general.)

What I didn't expect was a Michael Scott reference.

And you know that this is going to be remembered in North Korea just a little bit differently than in the rest of the world.

And even though every news anchor was thinking the thought below, some of them still couldn't get it right.

And while this started out about Photoshopped images, I must sadly mention a couple of fairly amusing but NON-Photoshopped instances that occurred on Sunday. Whoever was responsible for changing the headlines at Fox News should be fired. Who the hell is Usama Bin Landen and what in the hell is 'Confrims'?

And after someone is done firing that idiot, can they fire the announcer below who reported: "President Obama speaking from the East Room of the White House, telling the nation and the world President Obama is in fact dead." Seriously? I'm pretty sure in fact that President Barry is NOT dead. I can understand the Obama/Osama slip up. But the words "President Obama" sounds absolutely nothing like "Osama Bin Laden". Not even close. How do you make that mistake?

And with so much excitement this past weekend, I shall remember all of it with a single image.

moreless

A Photoshop Is Worth 1,000 Words

Isn't it just assumed that every single magazine cover out there is Photoshopped? I thought that was a given. I thought we all knew at this point that no one looks like the people that are on magazine covers and that includes the people that are on the magazine covers! So why deny it if you're called on it? Tell you what. How about you get someone who can actually Photoshop worth a damn or you get someone who can copy edit worth a damn and then you won't run into debacles like the W Magazine cover with Demi Moore, OK? OK.

Here's the story: Demi Moore does a cover story for W Magazine. The magazine comes out. People take one look at it and say, "No effin' way." Now, it wasn't a "No effin' way" in a jealous sort of manner. It was more of a "No effin' way" in a "Where's the rest of her hip?" sort of fashion. Behold!

Yeah, that's frightening. How old is she? 47?! Wow. Well, listen, Photoshopped or not, that's a pretty darn good looking 47 right there. But whether or not she looks good isn't necessarily the point. The point is that it seems fairly obvious that this photo was touched up and yet W Magazine and Demi Moore are denying that it was. Here are some of the flaws that I'd like to have explained.

First we have this arm over here. Behold!

That seems like a fairly muscular arm and it doesn't seem to be mirrored in it's counterpart, also known as "Her Left Arm". That could just be lighting, though.

But over here, if you look at the picture from W with this shape made with her right arm (that would be on your left) and you compare it to the picture that Demi (also known, seemingly only by herself, as Mrs. Kutcher) posted on her Twitter account (it's called a TwitPic. It's pics for twits. Catchy, eh?) you will notice that it's not the same. It seems to be a little bumpier in the W shot than in the "original" shot. It's not much, but it's there! But bumpy or not isn't so much the point as is really that it adds to the assertion (by everyone except for W and Demi Moore) that it has been, shall we say, touched up a tad?

Honestly though, are we all really supposed to believe that the TwitPic posted by Mrs. Kutcher is just one of the photos right after the popped out of the lens? I don't think that we are!

But here's the kicker: Where's the rest of her leg? Behold!

Yeah, see, you're going to be needing some leg there. See, that's the main reason people are crying Photoshop because do you see that place where there isn't any leg? But there should be leg? That's it! That's where you're going to need your leg. Where's your leg, Demi? Why does it do that?

Perhaps if she wasn't wearing something that merely resembled a conglomeration of one of Michael Jackson's military outfits and Liberace's drapes, she could explain her missing chunk of thigh by saying that she was wrapped tighter than a tourniquet. But judging from the loose fitting-ness of the outfit there, I hardly think that's the case. Someone screwed up. Someone else didn't catch it. The thing went to press. Everyone else pointed and laughed. Isn't that what happened? I'm pretty sure that it is.

Look, again, don't get me wrong, she looks great. A little thin, but great. But she doesn't look that great because no one looks that great. You know what I mean? Of course you do. Am I saying that people shouldn't look like that because it sends the wrong message? Um, not exactly. I'm saying that I'm not a big fan of the Photoshopping of models and acting like they're not Photoshopped nor freaks of nature. If you're going to do it, at least admit it. But really, if you're going to do it, do a better job at it. Sheesh.

moreless

Selective Diversity in Advertising

I'm thinking that if you're a company that markets its product to just about every conceivable demographic that there is, what say you either increase your advertising budget so that you can create custom ads tailored to each particular group or that you just hire people who can use Photoshop in such a way that your end result doesn't look like you used Photoshop. Either way, whatever you do, don't airbrush out the black guy and Photoshop in a white guy. (BONUS TIP: Don't use your competitors products in your ads as if they are your products. Realllllllly awkward.)

Here's the scoop: Microsoft ran a photo ad for Microsoft's business productivity software on their website. The photo shows three people in some sort of business meeting. There's an Asian guy, a black guy and a white woman. All three appear to be just giddy with interest at whatever the woman is doing there with her little remote thing. I'm guessing she's not looking for a ball game, which is unfortunate. (Nothing makes the work day go by faster like watching some ball.) Behold!

Now, if you just glance at the photo, I doubt anything in particular is going to jump out at you. But if you look at it for a minute, you might notice that something just doesn't seem right. There's something amiss(and it's not the chick). For instance, the guy in the middle, why does he have a big ol' jack-o'lantern head there? It's way too big for that body that it's on. And the guy on the end? Where's the rest of his hand?!

I also can't figure out why everyone only has one hand above the table and the other hand below the table (God sees everything!), but maybe it's just some weird policy HR implemented. I really don't know. But we'll get back to the oddities in a minute. Before we do that, we're going to take a stroll over to the Polish version of the same Microsoft site which is advertising the same product with the same photo. Er, uh, well....it's almost the same photo. They had to change few things, starting with Pumpkin Gourd there in the middle. Behold!

Oh. Well. That's...um...different. Sooooooo....they really needed a white guy, eh? What gives? No one is really quite sure, but the general consensus seems to be that it was not racism. Thank God that Al Sharpton is all tied up with exploiting Michael Jackson's death to get involved in this one. If Jacko hadn't been using some sort of an equivalent to an elephant tranquilizer to get to sleep permanently, we could very well have been subjected to the Reverend Al and his Long, Long List of Things Racist White People Do INCLUDING Photoshopping out all black tech workers in Poland! But the take from folks in Poland was that there are very few black people in Poland and Microsoft was probably trying to create an ad that reflected the culture over there. And fair enough. But couldn't they have found a competent photo editor to recreate that culture?

The ad has so many things wrong with it, it's really hard to know where to start. Even though the black guy became much whiter (and a considerable amount younger as well), all of him didn't become whiter, as his hand is still that of the black guy. Behold!

Seriously, how do you miss something like that if you're the one doing the editing? Wouldn't it have just been easier to get another stock photo and make two different ads? I'm thinking it would have, but what do I know? I've always been white. Kind of like that computer. I don't recall Microsoft based computer products coming with that nifty white finish that the laptop in the photo is sporting. No, the only laptops that I recall seeing come in white were.....oh. Macs. Again....awk-ward.

They sure didn't try very hard to cover up that it's a Mac in the photo. Why would they do that? Was it someone's last day? Was there a surge in the hiring of the mentally handicapped? Free food in the lunchroom? I don't get it. You're advertising Microsoft products and you're displaying a Mac. Nice job, Mac-hole! Too bad someone couldn't have explained that concept to said awful, hopefully now unemployed, Photoshop guy. Perhaps at the same time they could have explained that you need to have your peripherals plug INTO something!

Why does the woman's keyboard have a cord that goes to absolutely nothing? Why do the legs of the man (in whichever color) in the middle not seem to line up with where his body is? The woman's left eye (so the one on your right) seems awfully dilated; is she having a stroke? She might be as the front of her jacket there is awfully dark in that one area. Perhaps a stronger anti-perspirant might have been a better choice that morning? (Or maybe just an employee who knows how to use Photoshop.) The whole bloody thing is just a freakin' mess. But it's not like this is the first time that a company's ad was horribly edited. There have been others. Hoo-boy have there been.

Then there was another Microsoft ad, this one for Office. The picture they're using is like some sort of M.C. Escher inspired track runner. Where does he start? Where does he end? Where is the never ending staircase on his head?

Take this gem from both ASUS and MSI who, apparently, both decided to use the same stock photo for their ad. MSI, however, decided to enhance theirs just a bit. I'm guessing because they have a huge client base of elves.

There was this ad for the Lexar Professional 8GB. It was the step up from the 4GB. Unfortunately, the Photoshop job didn't take that same step up. (Note to self: Always check the shadows.)

But I think that my favorite is probably this ad for a computer desk. Thanks for PC World for highlighting this bit of amusement for me. Judging from the size of the monitor and the style of the clothing (not to mention the Bowl Extreme haircut on the blond chap there), I'm guessing we're looking at a preview of the first budding Internet porn addict.

moreless