Because, you know, it’s not – especially when you work for a billion-dollar-a-year corporate media welfare case that’s about to have its mandate reviewed.
(Click image for link)
Now, compare this with the juxtaposition of the logo in two other photos taken during the Harper speech Friday. The crown portion is well above Harper’s head, in one it doesn’t even appear;
So what was Harris doing when he took that shot – lying on the floor? And if he was indeed, shooting from a lower angle, why is the microphone at the same height relative to Harper’s tie in all three images?
(And back to the original point, – what do CBC employees think they’re accomplishing with cheap stunts like this? Beyond adding “coffin nails” to Bev Oda’s shopping list)
This isn’t the first time photog Aaron Harris has “found” this clever angle at the Empire Club. Looking more closely at this older CTV story on the Gov.General, I captured the two images, and resized the smaller one to loosely match that of the Harris credited “crown on head” shot;
Note that the two are taken from nearly the same height comparable to Governor General, but that the Harris photo places the viewer a little more to the left (based on the positioning of the microphone relative to her face). Yet, miraculously, the backdrop with the maple leaf logo not only drops lower, but it also takes a sudden lurch to its right.
So, what does that suggest about how Harris may have achieved his unique image capturing “King Stephen” yesterday?
| Apr 23 Update: Steve Janke has found yet another Harris “crown on head” photo, this one apparently taken last November. |
 |
Discussion in the comments suggests that the Harris would be capable of aligning these images with the assistance of camera technique and technology. I’m willing to consider that explanation, of course – that Aaron Harris has, on at least three different dates, purposefully chosen the lenses, settings and camera angles required to place the crown portion of their logo atop the speaker’s head during speeches at the Empire Club. As was pointed out in the comments;
“the defense goes that a professional photographer with an excellent rep orchestrates using zoom lens and f-stops the same juvenile “bunny ears behind head” photo on three different occasions. Okay. What do you need to do to get a bad reputation in the news photo business?”
*AaronHarris.com
(Flashback: A reminder for those who protest that photo alteration “never” takes place.)
April 24 followup
Absolutely… getting as low as he can possibly get. Par for the course.
Kate: fyi, I can’t use my “yah00.com” email addy as it is considered questionable content. Is this a stand of some sort or a query issue?
I don’t know what’s going on with yahoo – you’re the second person who’s mentioned it. It may be that yahoo has been captured in the spam filter. I’ll try to check into it.
A mirror image of the image in question was shown in the Edmonton Journal today on page A6, credited to the National Post / CanWest News Service. (Hmm, the CBC credit is to CP, I what that means.) The National Post and the Globe and Mail did not cover the story today.
Yahoo dot com is definitely in the spam filter. As a result, I’ve been typing yahoo.nerf and similar nonesense.
Steve Janke had the same thing going on and I figured he just had a hate-on for Yahoo! (I do… when they’re not… until massive publicity forces them to take action… allowing mutiple “old man wants young girl” user-created chat rooms… but with a million times fouler language… or helping imprison Chinese pro-Democracy activists, they’re caught up in click fraud and benefitting from spamming advertising… in a way that Google has systems in place to prevent, yet Yahoo! couldn’t be bothered…)
They’re my anti-spam email and until they clean up their act, I make a point not to buy anything off of them.
Enough of a rant. Yahoo dot com is affected.
Have you seen the election special issue of Maclean’s? It’s been off newsstands for months, but I still have my copy. One of the numerous photos was of a photographer lying on the floor for a shot.
I’ll see if I can scan it.
Looks like a case of “Fear and Loathing in Toronto”.
That said, its better than the backwards blue helmet by a long shot.
Actually, I think the picture is kind of flattering.
Kate,
The shadow says above – left.
Headline – Harper Can’t Explain Why His Shadow is in the Wrong Place!!! SCARY!!!
Nice catch.
Not a bad photochop. With a few minuites, I could put any background behind him, and have it look believable.
Example, I digitally edited a pic of my brother with a 15lb fish he caught. When I was done, the fish was a fiver, and he gained 40lbs and a second chin.
Kinda sad that a “journalist” would counterfiet a photo like that. Pathetic, actually.
Oh, those pesky liberals. You just can’t stay mad at them. Now they have gone and made Prime Minister Harper their King.
Long live the King.
Tip to Harris and all press photographers.
Take you background images (try to get them in focus) before the event … just leave the media bar a drink before the “usual”. This way you won’t have shadows in the background picture.
After you take the actual pictures – email the actual pictures and the background pictures to any 14 year old (with PhotoShop) with your instructions how you want them to look.
In the time it takes you to order another scotch you will have a better picture than you could have done yourself. Give the kid $10.
I Phototshop quite a bit, its easy and alot of fun. Amazing too, what a fellow can do. But I only ‘shop for fun and teasing.
Kate, If I e-mailed you a ‘shopped pic, would you link it, if it was any good? (probably will be silly)
groundbreaking grassroots journalism.
who cares?
get on with it.
Albertan Technophile,
What could be more silly than taxpayers paying for PhotoShopped photos?
I found it funny, and it doesn’t matter if it’s fake because it’s supposed to be eyecatching.
Ural.
Absolutly a fake.
Harper would never allow his shadow to be on the left of anything.
Saskboy,
The CBC news funded by taxpayers dollars is not supposed to be “funny” or “eye-catching” … try to think … like … factual.
If you want funny or eye-catching try the Toronto Star … at least I don’t have have to pay for it.
If he were lying on the floor, the podium would’ve gotten in the way. From the looks of it, the photographer was just closer. The others were shot from further away with a telephoto lens, the this one was from up close, hence the angle. You’ll notice that the microphones are higher compared to his shoulder, and with the distance between PMSH and the background a little angle would’ve made the difference.
Nevertheless, there’s no way they didn’t notice that when they printed the picture. Still, it’s not so bad. The Star would’ve photoshopped out the Maple Leaf and added some horns and flames.
Don’t panic – it’s just the usual nonsense. I work in news, and I see all the wirephotos every day I’m on the job. Bored hipster photographers love to do this stuff – they struggle to be clever and arty instead of just documenting the occasion, so there isn’t one politician or public figure who speaks at the Empire Club who doesn’t get “crowned” – or receive similar treatment where logos, emblems, flags, lights, etc etc, It’s what we call ” a potato” (long story about that) – a visual cliche. The photogs have got a million of ’em. Seems at one time you couldn’t get some of them to turn in a photo of a politician who didn’t have their eyes shut and their mouth open, looking as stupid as possible. With motor drives, the lensmen can take a movie, then select the worst frame. Editorializing? Nah. That said, in spite of the “coronation,” Aaron Harris is actually one of the better shooters I’ve known.
Kate, I’ve got another theory. Tell me what you think:
Maybe that wasn’t a CBC photographer at all because they don’t actually HAVE any still photographers.
Maybe it was a non-taxpayer-funded Canadian Press photographer — a young freelancer, actually — trying to impress his employer by capturing something a little different in addition to the half-dozen more standard photos he published from the same event.
But perhaps it wasn’t all that original.
Maybe photographers get that same angle about 40 times a year at the Empire Club.
And anytime a public figure stands anywhere near a chandelier, a sign with visuals or letters, a house pet, a child, you can pretty much guarantee that Reuters, CP, AP, AFP, UPI and other wire services will move at least one zany, off-beat photo among the batch they send in. (Like the one of Adrienne Clarkson)
But maybe you just notice when it’s Stephen Harper, and you waste large swaths of a perfectly good Saturday evening researching, hyperventilating, and blogging your latest conspiracy theory.
Maybe you hate the MSM so much it’s making you a little kooky.
And maybe you need to chill, Kate.
Kate’s off her Meds.
Kate’s off her Meds.
Its not a question of hating anyone. I leave that for the left who villify and smear those who don’t agree with them( see the last three comments). It is just poining out the obvious bias of the CBC and other left wing organizatiuons , who purport to be fair and balanced. Perhaps bigcity lib thinks its funny to mock people by saying they have mental illnes, but it iss insensitive to patients and their families. I am not surprised fiberals are always hypocrites.
with all due respect, the photo in question could easily be manipulated however, it appears more like a matter of camera angle and serendipity. i’m sorry kate, it looks real to me and i’m still choking on my cheerios this morning.
however, if it turns out that this photo is fraudulent, i take your point.
Some one did a good job here. I went pixel peeping on this photo, blew it up with PhotoShop to have a look. What can be created by one can be viewed by another!!
The job shows very little healing brush use, which means it is an overlay that wnet on top of the same color (the same shade of red is behind his head in all shots).
Except one area. blown up you can see a flat line on his left hairline, and a white area just below it. Someone was a litttle careless catching the natural curve, and did not catch the color difference. Common occurence with cut and paste overlays.
Two points here: I am a digital photographer by “paying hobby” and the D.P.G. stands for Digital Photo Graphics. An electronics tech by trade.
I had to blow this up to be sure. The photo is quite possible to do. The angles look very doable, but would require very close access to get it right. The physical viewing plane would look very similar to this. The shadows don’t matter, with flash photography the shadows will change with every flash used (more than one photog there).
The viewing plane would keep the mics where they are as they are much closer to the speaker than the background, which would change much more dramatically with every movement. The photos do show the camera was much closer nad a different angle than the others. Look at the different views of the features of the face, usually the nose, chin and hairline. Also look at the mics and see where they intercept the body to see the change in angle.
I think someone got it real close and then did a little work to get it right.
Oh these tricksy leftie shutterbugs!
Though I deplore this infantile fakery, the photog thinking that he has duped the Canadian public and showing disrespect for the office of the Prime Minister (something no one should ever do, no matter who the PM is), I rather like the “conceit”:
King Stephen
Royal Extraordinaire
Ruler by Right (of being duly and officially “appointed” by the Canadian electorate)
Oh! And I forgot to say:
“Long live King Stephen!!”
I can’t tell if it’s an altered photograph or not; I’d leave it to “experts” to yak about.
I think Mr. Harris was screwing around and trying to get a picture that’d impress the socks off of the MSM morons, guaranteeing the publication of the photo and his name under it.
If it was photoshopped, well, at least it flatters the PM, who deserves to wear a crown far more than did the Librano PMs.
The CBC likes to be funny, don’t they? Of course; we don’t take them all that seriously anymore, so they figure they’ll have some fun just as we do as bloggers with funny pictures and whatnot. Real professional… focusing too much on imagery and not enough on message and substance. And we pay for it. In Canada.
The MSM should leave the funny stuff to bloggers like Mentok the Mind Taker, who’s better at it than they are, or else admit that they’re really little more than bloggers with millions of dollars to blow on expensive technology and employees…
He’s got some good work in his portfolio. Maybe he can tell us why a talented photographer has to Photoshop any of his work that isn’t meant as a models’ photo-shoot or personal portraiture for private clients?
andy, I’d imagine most professional photographers take all of their photos into Photoshop to do at least some baseline corrections/retouching before submitting them to whoever’s paying for them. At the very least you’d check the exposure levels, sharpness, and cropping/framing, and if you found a “good” photo that’s just a tiny edit away from being “very good” you probably go ahead and make that edit.
Methinks this one is much-ado-about-nothing. I don’t see this photo as any better/worse than the photos the Mother Corp used to run of Martin posing in front of the Canadian flag at events as he was wont to do.
Answer to andycanuck re: (quote)Maybe he can tell us why a talented photographer has to Photoshop any of his work ….. (unquote)
Money.
Sensationalist editors wanting to sell papers control the money. They want “grabber” photos, truth be damned.
Full time pro’s are facing much greater competition now than ever before. Use to be a person needed to know their camera and film and how to use it properly.
Now anyone with a decent digital can take pictures with multiple settings and fix them up and sell them to the editors. No costs for film and processing for taking the same shot multiple times.
The only thing keeping them with credentialed access is by being supported by the media press editors. If the editors would stop buying sensationalist crap and paid attention to the story (and not the politics) we might get better reporting of the facts only.
But that is another topic altogeather!!
OK, by art and design the photographer has produced a more pleasing and sellable picture, with a composed rather than random background.
The rest is partisan paranoia. You got it, Frank.
CBC & Zolf.
Ole Larr spills his beans on CBC.
Zolf says he is a “Red Tory”.
Larr gets paid for this by you, courtesy the CBC.+
Conclusion:
On Lewis’s behalf, let me say to Mr. Layton: Watch out for Harper and the National Citizens Coalition. Climbing into bed with the Harper Tories could lead to fleas for Layton and Canadian socialism. +
CBC via: http://www.voy.com/178771/1690.html
say good bye to the cbc soon
C’mon, Kate, photographers are trained to look for visual setups like that when making images. They would be lousy photographers if they passed up a shot with that kind of visual irony built into it.
If you want to yell at someone, yell at the CBC editor who picked that shot out of the 20+ files the photographer had of the subject on the podium. I guaran-damn-tee you that there were multiple shots taken from multiple angles. A photographer good enough to spot the crown image would have made a variety.
And to the conspiracy theorists who don’t spend at *least* an hour a day using a camera, pour yourself a nice steaming cup of STFU — you’re clueless about how photographers operate.
“Kinda sad that a “journalist” would counterfiet a photo like that. Pathetic, actually.”
It’s not counterfeit — it’s a simple change in perspective and focal length. Now that you’ve mastered Photoshop you may want to learn the basics of how a camera operates.
You may also want to watch your keyboard lest the photographer in question decides your comment is legally actionable. I certainly would if I were the photographer in question. It’s not like members of the MSM aren’t aware of Kate’s blog.
An examination of the image on my part shows no tell-tales of pixel pushing, and I’m expert with Photoshop.
“Now, compare this with the juxtaposition of the logo in two other photos taken during the Harper speech Friday. The crown portion is well above Harper’s head, in one it doesn’t even appear…”
Seeing this comment from Kate leaves me gobsmacked. Look at the bottom of his nose and the underside of his chin, which are slightly more exposed in the shot you’re complaining about. The shift in perspective wasn’t great enough to radically alter the position of the microphones, given how close he was to them, but the lowered perspective moved the background image nicely as it was farther away.
I wouldn’t expect this kind of error from a highly skilled artist who should know better.
Does anyone else here ever go to some of the left-wing blogs? I do, and what a bunch of nuts! A lot of them are rather scary. Most seem to be written by a bunch of young, arrogant undergraduates that believe they are the only people in history to ever receive an education. When a conservative disproofs one of their silly rants, which happens often, they ignore it.
Does anyone know of a left-wing blog that actually has people reading and contributing? Many of the ones I’ve seen – big city lib for instance – only have a few friends and family stop by and comment out of sympathy.
Well, we’re going to have to agree to disagree, Sean. The two Gov General photos taken during the same speech are simply inexplicable. Moving the camera to the left should have moved the flag further from her, not closer and lower.
“Yet, miraculously, the backdrop with the maple leaf logo not only drops lower, but it also takes a sudden lurch to its right.”
And, of course, we won’t consider the possibility that Ms. Clarkson stepped to the left and leaned closer to the mic? You haven’t noticed the shift in angle of the microphone indicatating that the photographer took a few steps to the right?
Dumbest. Post. Ever.
Keep this up and you’re going wind up wearing a tinfoil hat like all those stupid wankers over at StageLeft.
I, for one, am tired of the attacks on our freedom of expression and freedom of opinion by those who may disagree with our position. If we don’t shut up and keep our opinions to ourselves, we could be subject to legal action.
Yet, those on the left seem to be free to express their own opinion without fear of reprisal. As an example, our friend’s in the media (eg. Zolf) who SUPPOSES what our Prime Minister’s intentions and thoughts are and then proceeds to denounce such intentions and thoughts in a most unflattering way.
Sean, although none of us would like to be taken to court, perhaps it would be the best if issues like this WERE discussed in court.
The left seem to be composed of delicate, thin-skinned hypocrites who are prone to cases of the vapours when someone disagrees with them.
So, what can we expect from the CBC other than a doctor’d pic of Stephen and the crown? Just another nail in their coffin, in my view. By the way, looking at the pics of Stephen on both occassions, doesn’t he have another tie?
Whether the shot is shopped or not (and photogs regularly look for ‘gotchas’ that’ll sell to tabloid, if not msm), is immaterial (well, ok, not quite, “journalistic integrity” and all that, quaint oxymoron that that is). The real question is “why would Tony Burman be stupid enough to run it”?
Bottom feeders can be forgiven for trying to scrape their daily bread, but troughers should know better.
Further to my previous post, it probably WOULD be a good idea to precede our opinions with “IMHO” or the like…otherwise we COULD potentially be accused of slander at times. As the saying goes, caution is the better part of valour.
Bob, all are taken on the same occasion, which is why the tie is the same.
I think it’s all a matter of “zooming in” / and moving the f-stop up so as to bring the background more forward.
The same “trick” moved the crown above ex-GG Clarkson and if the camera lens is moved closer… the entire crown will be obscured by her hair, and the microphone will move into her lips. The microphones also move closer to PMSH’s tie in the top foto.
I cannot comment on the photoshop tricks, only real old school.
The real issue, is the intent of the photographer in positioning the crown above PMSH’s head… and the photographer that did this… isn’t a new photographer.
I think “we” are not “off our meds”, if anything the release from the 13 years of crap we have endured along with the rise of some classical liberalism in this country, feels like a drug, but it’s only fresh air from the west.. breathe BCL, you’ll soon know it for what it really is… “freedom”.
Hassle:
a) I’m not on the left, not that I care about labels.
b) I’m familiar with journalistic ethics.
c) I’m familiar with how serious it is when someone accuses you of breaching these ethics when you haven’t.
I’m an expert with cameras. I’m an expert with Photoshop. I give you my word that the discrepencies you see in the photos Kate has selected can be accounted for by subject movement, camera positioning, changes in selective focus (aperture), and focal length.
I’m not a journalist. I’m not cut out for it, and I’ve never enjoyed photographing people in the first place (the prairies are my thang). That being said, I am an admirer of good press photography and someone who avidly follows the Canadian photojournalism scene. I know of Aaron Harris by his work and his reputation within the shooting community, both excellent.
If you folks want to attack someone based on your ignorance of the technical aspects of photography and image composition, that’s your business. Just don’t be surprised if the man whose career you are trying to destroy gets pissed off and bites back. He would be well within his rights in this case.
Christ, you’re all acting like a bunch of leftie moonbats.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I am represented by CP Images for stock photography sales, but I have uploaded remarkably few images to them because they require unmanipulated photos, and the majority of mine get worked enough in Photoshop to be disqualified. CP has always been very clear to me about what is an acceptable image, and what isn’t.
Hassle: “The left seem to be composed of delicate, thin-skinned hypocrites who are prone to cases of the vapours when someone disagrees with them.”
It never ceases to amaze me how, in most ideological debates in the blogospehre, you can substitute subject nouns without changing the validity of statements. Substitue “right” for “left” in the above, and it would be just as applicable. So what’s the point of such statements and debates?
I must have missed something here Kate. The first photos show that the pics were taken on Friday (maybe they used old pics?). The link at the bottom of your posting shows the pics were taken last November. Which is it?
Keeping track… the defense goes that a professional photographer with an excellent rep orchestrates using zoom lens and f-stops the same juvenile “bunny ears behind head” photo on three different occasions. Okay. What do you need to do to get a bad reputation in the news photo business?
The first three photos were taken on April 21 at the Empire Club, published by three different news sources.
The link at the bottom is to an earlier “crown on head” photo taken at a speech in November, found by Steve Janke. Same photographer, same politician, same venue – different date.