Next up on Oprah: Ann-Margret’s body!

Here’s a classic from the Shop Vault – the August 26, 1989 cover of TV Guide. The head belongs to Oprah, but the body was from a 1978 publicity still of Ann-Margret from Rockette: A Holiday Tribute to Radio City Music Hall. Although it is believed by many that this is simply a composite photo (cutting and pasting Oprah’s head on Ann’s body), it turns out the TV Guide cover composite is actually an illustration done in color pencil by artist Chris Notarile. (Much like the infamous Abe Lincoln portrait.)

Here’s an article from the August 30, 1989 New York Times about the cover [source]…

Going Too Far With the Winfrey Diet
August 30, 1989

An editor of TV Guide said yesterday that diet or no diet, Oprah Winfrey’s head does not belong on Ann-Margret’s body.

The cover of the magazine’s Aug. 26-Sept. 1 issue depicts Ms. Winfrey, the host of one of the most popular talk shows on television, in a revealing, glittery gown, leaning against a mound of money. The illustration was drawn by a freelance artist, Chris Notarile, who is credited on an inside page for the illustration.

David Sendler, the editor of the national section of the magazine, said yesterday that Mr. Notarile had used a publicity photograph of Ann-Margret as the basis for the illustration. ”We know artists use photographic references to get a likeness and contours,” Mr. Sendler said. ”But he used it rather too literally. I told him it’s not the policy of the magazine, and not to do it again.”

Mr. Notarile said yesterday that the cover had been commissioned at the last minute and that he did not have time to get recent pictures of Ms. Winfrey on which to base the drawing. Instead, he said, he used an 11-year-old photograph of Ann-Margret as the basis of the illustration because it was a pose he needed for the cover. ”My intent was never to make a portrait of Oprah’s head on Ann’s body,” Mr. Notarile said. ”If Flipper had been in the proper position, I would have used that piicture [sic].”

A spokeswoman for Ms. Winfrey, Christine Tardio, said yesterday that Ms. Winfrey ”is on vacation and in a place where there are no phones, and is happily avoiding the fray.” She added, however, that Ms. Winfrey ”would never have agreed to pose in such a revealing dress, or on a pile of cash.”

When Dictators Shop Pt. II

[mouse over to see the original image]

Above: Benito Mussolini wanted to give the appearance that he was an imposing, heroic leader, but you can’t do that very well with someone holding your horse. Therefore, he had one horse handler turned into a tree (original image, left) and the one holding the horse removed completely (original image, right).

[mouse over to see the original image]

Another one from the breaking up is hard to do, even for Dictators file: Adolf Hitler had his Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, (second from the right in the original image) removed from this photograph. It was a pretty lousy job too, you can see some of Goebbels’ left shoulder still remaining in the doctored photo. As to why Hitler had Goebbels – a loyal friend and follower up until his death in 1945 – removed from this photograph is unknown. Perhaps Goebbels – one of the most influential people in Nazi Germany – had himself removed from the photo. IMO, the best theory is that he was deleted from the picture because the woman he’s standing next to is Lida Baarová – a Czech actress Goebbels was having an extramarital affair with. (He later broke it off at Hitler’s insistence.) As the Minister of Propaganda, perhaps he figured the best PR move would be to cover up all evidence of himself with Lida.

Abraham Lincoln portrait – a Shop or a political bitch slap?

What do you get when you take a portrait of Southern politician John Calhoun (left), and add it to Mathew Brady’s portrait of Abraham Lincoln? Well, you get Lincoln’s standing portrait (right) – probably one of the earliest known composite images in American history. This is not a simple cut & paste job – as you can see below the Calhoun image seems to be more of an etching (wood cut perhaps?) and the image of Lincoln is more realistically detailed. The composite portrait of Lincoln was created sometime in the early to mid-1860s, and is attributed to Thomas Hicks – a portrait painter from that era who had painted Lincoln before. There were hardly any heroic, Presidential looking portraits of Lincoln at that time, which is one of the theories as to why this portrait might have been created. As to why Hicks would have felt the need to do a composite image – perhaps Lincoln was not able to sit for a portrait and requested the Calhoun pose be used as a basis for his, or maybe it was even created shortly after Lincoln’s death as a memorial portrait.

Personally, I find it quite interesting that the body of Calhoun was used for the Lincoln portrait. John Calhoun was quite vocal on states rights, and was an inspirational figure for the Southern secessionists who formed the Confederate States of America. (Most historians consider him to be an integral figure for the beginnings of the American Civil war even though he died a decade before it. ) He was also an outspoken proponent of slavery, referring to it as a “positive good” (basically everything Lincoln rallied against). Perhaps re-creating Calhoun’s portrait as Lincoln was a way of mocking Calhoun, or maybe it was an attempt to erase him from history altogether – literally covering up Calhoun’s old ideals with Lincoln’s new, progressive ones.

[mouse over to see the original portrait of John Calhoun]

Lincoln image: [Thomas Hicks]. “Abraham Lincoln.” New York: William Pate & Boston: L.A. Elliot & Co., circa 1865. 26 1/2 x 19 5/8. Engraving. Available for purchase through The Philadelphia Print Shop Ltd.

Calhoun image: [No known information].

Test your Shop detecting skills!

Neil deGrasse Tyson with Barack Obama – is this photo real or fake?

OK, here is where I fess up and admit I have somewhat of a crush on NOVA scienceNOW host Neil deGrasse Tyson. If I am flipping through the channels and see him on a program, I put the clicker down instantly. I think it is just the way he explains things and his obvious enthusiasm for science that reels me in every time. (Either that or his rockin’ ‘stache!)

So when I saw the Fake or Real? photo test on the NOVA site featuring digitally doctored and real photos of Neil alongside celebrities with commentary from digital forensics expert Hany Farid, it was like the ultimate geek out for me! Why don’t you try taking the test yourself and see how you do? After you click on your choice of whether you think a photo is real or fake, a video commentary by Hany pops up with a brief tutorial to tell you which answer was correct and why. Even I got one wrong, thus proving that someone with a lot of experience in Photoshop can be fooled sometimes!

After you take the test, you can check out Hany’s profile page on the NOVA site for additional videos, links and discussion.

gives new meaning to the term “skinny jeans”

[mouse over to see the original image]

Ever wonder why when you order something it doesn’t always look as good on you as it did in the catalog or on the website? Well, for one thing the people used to model the clothes don’t have average body types, but it is also sometimes due to the fact that the clothes themselves are Shopped.

J.Crew made the mistake of uploading the original image next to the Shopped image on a pair of pants in their online catalog. It shows that the pants were blatantly Shopped to make them appear to be not as bulky and lumpy.

The Evolution Revolution

This is a short commercial film that was put together by Dove a couple years back called “Evolution”. Condensed down to 60 seconds, it shows a model going through makeup, being Shopped and then the final product. For those out there who don’t know the extent of the “beautification” process, it will be a real eye opener…

Milk – It Does A Body Not So Good

Attention new users of Photoshop – if you are creating a composite Shop, be very careful to get your shadows and reflections correct, but – above all – be sure to get rid of any stray body parts that don’t belong there. That sort of stuff really ruins the realism of the Shop.

The above photo is from a current “Got Milk?” ad campaign featuring US Olympic athletes. If I had to hedge a bet, Maritza Correia (far left) was probably in Leslie Osborne’s (2nd from left) position and those floating fingers on Maritza’s shoulder belong to Bryan Clay (top). Maybe Leslie needed to be added in after the fact and they figured that would be a good place to stick her. It would have worked if it weren’t for the fingers. The entire ad can be seen here, and as of this posting the image is still being used on the “Body By Milk – Games ’08″ website.

7/31 UPDATE: It appears they finally caught on to the floating fingers – they have been removed from the main image on their website and on the advertisement download. You can still see the original floating fingers version of the ad here.

When Dictators Shop

If I ruled the world, all images of me would look thinner than I actually am. Also, in photos I would command that my breasts be made to look perkier and, uh, larger than they actually are. History would remember me as the hottest woman EVER!

That is, until someone found the originals.

When these men ruled they had the power to erase you from their lives. Literally. People who were once their loyal followers were removed from photos when they fell out of favor – wiped clean from history. I can only compare it to when people make dating site or social networking profiles and use a photo of themselves that had their ex-girlfriend or boyfriend in it, and the ex is now OBVIOUSLY CROPPED OUT.

Well, I suppose breaking up is hard to do. Even for Dictators.

Above: Nikolai Yezhov, the young man to the right of Stalin, was shot and killed in 1940. After he was removed from life he was also removed from the photo (below).

And Stalin wasn’t the only Commie Dictator who Shopped…

Lenin and Trotsky (top center) celebrate the 2nd anniversary of the Russian Revolution in Red Square. When Trotsky fell out of favor with Lenin, he was airbrushed out of all photographs (including the one below).

Such extensive photo retouching back then would have been time consuming and difficult work. And I think it goes without saying that if it is a Dictator telling you to do it, your results had better be damn good lest you be permanently erased yourself.

I got all of the above photos from The Commissar Vanishes – a site about falsified photos in Stalin’s Russia. They have lots of other examples of “edited” images from that era, so if the photos here interest you be sure to check out their site!

How to spot a Shop

One of the questions I am asked most often is: How can you spot a “Shop” (or faked photo)? Usually, my baseline rule for an image is: If something looks “not quite right” about a photo, that usually means there is something not quite right about the photo.

Digital forensics expert Hany Farid wrote a couple articles on this subject for the Scientific American which I highly recommend. He doesn’t get too technical, either – they are good reads even for the novice Shopper. The first was titled Digital Forensics: How Experts Uncover Doctored Images, and the second is a much more detailed supplement to that article titled Digital Forensics: 5 Ways to Spot a Fake Photo. The supplement article goes into greater detail and shows lots of visual examples of how lighting, reflections and shadowing play a part in uncovering Shops. These articles will reinforce the old adage: Don’t always believe what you see.

If you are a more advanced Photoshop user and are interested in the real nitty gritty of digital forensics, check out Hany Faird’s website. There you’ll find links to most of the research papers he has written on the topic of digital manipulation and image analysis.

When Terrorists Shop

[mouse over to see the original image]

The above image of an Iranian missile test appeared on the front page of practically every major news outlet (print, web and tv). The image originated from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s media web site, Sepah News. After the original publication of this photo, The Associated Press released an identical-looking photo, except there were only 3 missiles fired and one remained on the ground.

Scientific American talked to Hany Farid – a digital forensics expert at Dartmouth College – about the photo, and his theories were the best I have read so far…

Do you think the picture with the four missiles has been altered?
It’s pretty clear that all four missiles didn’t launch at the same time. The question is whether this is a straight clone job [copy and paste], like The New York Times blog is suggesting, or if the fourth missile is in fact a separate missile launch that was photographed and then composited into the original picture.

What are some of things that tip you off in these two pictures?
Well, at first glance it looks like the second missile from the left and its trail was possibly copied in the original and then pasted in as the second missile from the right in the edited version. But I’m not so sure it’s that simple a story. If we look at the trails from these two missiles, for starters, there’s a black dot just under the second-from-right missile that’s not there on the other one.

Then there’s the smoke plumes rising from the ground. If you look at the smoke plumes underneath two rockets on the right, those folds of smoke on the right-hand side of the trail look pretty similar, too, though. But if you look very closely, they are not identical; the pixels don’t line up exactly. This distortion could have happened when the JPEG file [a common kind of digital image] was compressed, so it could just be cloned image. Or, it may be that the same kind of missile can make a very similar-looking plume.

Something else to notice here is that in the edited version, the rockets look a little bigger and thicker. This means that they are closer to the camera or the ground. So, it’s a possibility that that so-called edited and the original are actually different shots entirely, taken by two people who took the pictures almost at the same time but from slightly different distances from the launch.

The missile in question is most certainly a combination of a cut & paste job from another photo entirely as well as generous use of the clone tool. The color definition of the sky surrounding the missile indicates that the missile itself was pasted in from another photo. (I doubt it was from the “original photo” above, but we only know of 2 photos of this event. There could be more we just don’t have access to.) I determined this by simply opening the image in Photoshop and saturating the color levels. The pasted in missile sticks out like a sore thumb. If it had been cloned or copied and pasted from the same image, the surrounding color would have blended much better.

There are also areas on the image that were cloned, however. (Shops are usually created from a few methods, not just by the use of one tool.)

As you can see there are some very basic methods that news organizations can use to determine authenticity of photos. Basically just examining this image more closely in Photoshop would have revealed it as fake before the AP even released the second image.