Is this photoshopped?

May 14th, 2014 at 2:42 pm by David Farrar

10290653_745931255452051_758842494378045277_n

A reader sent me this photo, from Labour’s facebook page.

They comment:

They’ve obviously photoshopped Cunliffe into this photo – check out the right side of his head.

I’m not a expert but I’ve shown it to a couple of people who handy with photo editing, and they reckon it is photoshopped. They may be wrong. Any experts out there who can offer an opinion?

UPDATE: Have had confirmed that was at the rally. So the image may be touched up, but is genuine.

UPDATE2: Or maybe not. A reader e-mails:

Place your Cunliffe image in Photoshop

Go Image > Adjustments > Brightness/contrast and change brightness to about 40

separates Cunliffe from background

obvious fiddle

9 added arrows indicate small ‘artifacts’ in sloppy selection in cutting him out of original

1 on suit should is wrong lighting

The adjusted image is below:

10290653_745931255452051_758842494378045277_n-560x560 copy

 

UPDATE3: Heh, a reader sends in this photo, from the archives:

Martin Luther Cunliffe

Tags: ,

101 Responses to “Is this photoshopped?”

  1. Bovver (168 comments) says:

    His image has been photo shopped in, is it a big deal?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 29 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. hubbers (137 comments) says:

    The fact that people would even ask this says a lot

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    It further proves this guy is more slippery than his favourite host John Campbell. Anything at any cost to try and gain traction . . . try being straight and honest “Tojo”, it may work . . . maybe too late!

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. johnwellingtonwells (137 comments) says:

    Is it a photoshop of a photoshop?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (13,518 comments) says:

    Do you realise very few people mention who abducted these girls? They seem to forget some followers of the vile religion of peace are responsible for this crime. The MSM plays a complicit role.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Rich Prick (1,669 comments) says:

    It’s called doing a Faafoi.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. David Farrar (1,883 comments) says:

    The photo is designed to give the impression that he attended the protect rally in Parliament. Did he attend? Why pretend you did attend, if you din’t. You could do am image showing support for the cause that doesn’t leave a false impression (if indeed this is a photoshop).

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ashley Schaeffer (460 comments) says:

    Kim Jong Un favours photoshop too. It must be a Socialist thing.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nuwanda (83 comments) says:

    It’s a little suspect.

    The right–his right–has a little aura to it, but the hair is well blended. Also his shirt is far too white in the context of the general tonal balance of the background.

    Faked? I wouldn’t put money on it, but if the odds were right…? iPredict?

    Raises an interesting ethical point: if he actually attended the event but they failed to get a decent pic of him, is it unethical to fake yourself in a position that you weren’t actually in? Maybe. In any case, it’s not wise.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    Yes it is photoshopped.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ben (2,375 comments) says:

    Absolutely it is photoshopped. I’d say Cunliffe was there but they have greyed the background a bit and probably blurred it a bit to make Cunliffe stand out and look less trivial. A standard photoshop trick. They got lazy with the selection tool. Way to respect the victims, Labour.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. BeaB (2,108 comments) says:

    Why does he do these thngs? He knows he has a shifty image with all those stories about his youth, Harvard and Fonterra not to mention his tricky ways as Leader of the Opposition. He and his advisers should be ensuring everything is kosher.
    You have to suspect he is being undermined.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. alex Masterley (1,507 comments) says:

    Who knows if it is photo shopped, who cares?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. ben (2,375 comments) says:

    Cunliffe’s left shoulder, nearest the camera, really highlights the greyness of those immediately behind him. I don’t think there is that much fog in Wellington today. Plus there is a glow because they got the selection a bit misaligned here, too.

    Ok, it’s touching up the pic not wholesale fakery, but it says something about genuineness and competence.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. davidp (3,578 comments) says:

    I do a fair amount of photography and photochopping, and the use of PhotoChop isn’t clear to me. I think the photo is just poorly focused… the woman to the left of the frame is in focus but Cunliffe isn’t. That’s lack of depth of field combined with incompetent use of the camera.

    The real issues here aren’t photography, but:

    1. Photobombing a protest? Very poor taste!

    2. It’s fashionable to slap a hashtag on to some pithy liberal slogan, even if in this case Cunliffe has slapped it on a photo rather than use it on Twitter so that people could actually use the hashtag. But do we really think some nutcase religious leader in Nigeria is going to see Cunliffe at the protest and decide to change his evil ways? Of course not. Now if Cunliffe proposed sending the SAS to Nigeria to assist a search and rescue operation, then that would be a realistic plan. But essentially Cunliffe’s plan is to do nothing other than wring his hands and pose for the photo opportunity.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    The image has been adjusted, but whether by Photoshop or not, is not clear. Whether Cunnliffe has been placed into a photo, where he was not previously is not completely obvious. A process is often used where are particular image (part an existing image) is desired to be more obvious/clearer etc that the rest of the photo – this process requires ‘lifting’ that part of the image, and enhancing it, and then replacing that part back within the existing image.

    Therefore, unless you have an image of the original view – it is difficult to say whether Cunnliffe was there or not.

    BUT – be warned, the same sort of processes have been used by most of our political parties, and making something of this particular one might fall very flat should other examples be offered.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Rich Prick (1,669 comments) says:

    I’m curious, why does a photo of Cunliffe, allegedly at a public rally, have an authorisation statement?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. contheneo (27 comments) says:

    My first reaction was that it had been instagrammed. But looking at it again, the fact that the blacks on his jacket are so deep and rich, vs the blacks elsewhere being flat and grey makes me wonder.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Ashley Schaeffer (460 comments) says:

    #BringBackDavidShearer

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. jams (48 comments) says:

    I don’t think it’s faked, but It’s been really badly edited.

    The Error Level Analysis shows that the image has roughly the same level of compression throughout. Which only means the face and background have been saved the same number of times. http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=a9bc3aa7869b4e8974064a26054d4bfdf46581f1.60477

    They’ve clearly gone nuts with the contrast and Doge + Burn brushes in phtoshop. They couldn’t even paint inside the lines as they’ve boosted the contrast of a sliver of tree beside his face. The blackpoint on his jacket is far darker then the background and his face is brigher then the sky which is illuminating it. (Those the the first things you adjust when photochopping someone in) His face is certainly less sharp then the other people around, but I think this is because someone has purposely softened it. But they didn’t know about using a low pass filter to soften his features while keeping the details sharp. His shirt collar is as sharp as his face should be. So I think they’ve just softened it after boosting the contrast too much. I think They were just trying to save a shitty camera phone pic with heavy handed editing.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. itstricky (1,774 comments) says:

    DPF – You’re beginning to sound a bit like Whale. Say it ain’t so.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. alloytoo (526 comments) says:

    Faked or not, it certainly doesn’t look as if DC was part of the proceedings, he comes across as a mildly curious onlooker.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Richard Hurst (836 comments) says:

    Once there was Helen and her pledge card- or rather a pic of a smooth skinned , youthful women on a labour party pledge card instead of putting a pic of Helen on it. Labour have a history of misleading images.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. gump (1,622 comments) says:

    I think that he really was there in the photo, but they’ve applied a selection mask and adjusted the levels to give him a bit more ‘pop’ from the background.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. The worm that turned (13 comments) says:

    Just badly edited, the obvious fake in the picture is Cunliff himself, no Photoshop needed.

    The look of contempt from the lady to his right glancing at him indicates innocent bystanders were subjected to his faux-concern and felt unwell.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. RightNow (6,975 comments) says:

    The woman on the left seems to be looking down, which suggests they’ve photoshopped it to make Cun’liffe look taller.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. anonymouse (709 comments) says:

    I’m with jams on this, the image mask is so loose that is certainly looks like he may have been dropped in, but more likely it is just that the editor got carried away with the “grey and blur the background,” tool and severely overused of the “highlight the leader” tool

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. itstricky (1,774 comments) says:

    Once there was Helen and her pledge card- or rather a pic of a smooth skinned , youthful women on a labour party pledge card instead of putting a pic of Helen on it. Labour have a history of misleading images.

    And John Key’s election billboards and phamplets are never Photoshop’d? Sessh. What’s that noise? Must be the 2014 Reality alert going off again.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    But surely Cunliffe is channelling his War-Hero Grandad and preparing a one-man commando raid to rescue those poor girls??

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Zapper (1,017 comments) says:

    The abduction of these girls is terrible and just as terrible as the many other atrocities that occur in countries with a high population of fundamental Muslims. I don’t understand why the fact that it was girls abducted means it gets so much more coverage (and so many brave people put their lives on the line by tweeting a hashtag or liking a photo).

    Surely atrocities committed against all ages and genders are equally bad?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    It is photo shopped! I really hate “hashtagvism”! People think by putting a hashtag or sharing or liking a status that they are doing something effective. It gives peoples social conscience instant gratification but achieves nothing! Last time I checked it hasn’t wiped out poverty, stopped animals being skinned alive and it hasn’t done anything to find these girls.

    #savetheworld There that was easy and I feel great about myself!

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. xy (182 comments) says:

    Getting worried, DPF?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 4 Thumb down 24 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Yvette (2,767 comments) says:

    Photoshopped or use of similar software

    Anyone with a iMac or other Macintosh
    click on Cunliffe photo, hold and drag off browser to Desktop.
    Open in Preview.
    Under Tools go to Adjust colour
    Move Exposure slider to right and see Cunliffe separate from background.

    Also there are several artifacts [9] where the selection of the Cunliffe shape is sloppy.

    So, why would Labour do this?

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Yvette (2,602 comments) says:
    May 14th, 2014 at 3:51 pm

    That doesn’t necessarily mean Cunnliffe wasn’t there. His image may have been isolated and enhanced which would produce the same results you are talking about.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. kowtow (8,211 comments) says:

    “Our girls”?

    They’re Nigerian,not ours.Years ago Nigerians said white man go home.We want to run our country into the ground and set up a kleptocracy ,so that the political elite of Nigeria could live off the exploited black masses and the natural resources of that nation.

    It was alway a serious crime for white colonials to do the same thing ,but we turn a blind eye and wilfully ignore it when a black elite engage in same.

    And this ridiculous celebrity campaign? Why is it only now they care? Boko haram has done far worst in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. iMP (2,356 comments) says:

    MP/Mayor Lianne Dalziel’s 2013 mayoral image and her real life look. They bear no connection to each other. Same old same old from Labour. Never in the real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Yvette (2,767 comments) says:

    It does not appear to be photo-enhoncement or “touching up” – the two images would not separate as they do if it was all an original shot.
    Surely no photographer is that bad they couldn’t take a reasonable if Cunliffe was there, to actually show he was?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. ross001 (193 comments) says:

    DPF – You’re beginning to sound a bit like Whale

    You mean, desperate and obsessive? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 21 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Tharg (15 comments) says:

    Maybe it was, or maybe it wasn’t but he was at the rally… if this MSM journalist can be believed.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/10043866/Students-rally-for-kidnapped-girls
    Ooh, conspiracy

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. kowtow (8,211 comments) says:

    It’s encouraging to see people finally rallying against the danger that is Islam .They just won’t admit that is the problem though.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. kowtow (8,211 comments) says:

    Here they come.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Jim (396 comments) says:

    Whether or not he was at the rally – that photo is a definitely a composite.

    Lighting, contrast and black levels are obviously different. It is likely that the colour temperature differences must have been even more obvious, hence it has been converted to monochrome to try to hide that.

    Lesson: if you want to astroturf and not be noticed then you should hire a professional to shop your photos.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Remember Clark air brushing hoarding shots to try and look respectable . . . did not work.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Captain Pugwash (98 comments) says:

    Is this photoshopped??…… I’ve gotta say so what if it is. There is a bigger issue here about a couple of hundred teenage being kidnapped and held more or less as as slaves.

    It seems political point scoring of more important than the the future of these girls. Am I to take it the National party doesn’t care about these girls being held. Surely its not because they are black.

    I’m not a fan of the Labour party at the best of times, but at least they’re showing some concern.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Nick R (506 comments) says:

    Never mind whether it was photoshopped. There are more important questions to be answered. Why won’t he release his full birth certificate?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Colville (2,256 comments) says:

    http://thestandard.org.nz/john-keys-bullshit-about-rising-inequality/

    Look at the picture of Key on this thread… bet ya the same dork did the shopping on it… its the same quality :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Richard Hurst (836 comments) says:

    I think I can see the second gun man that shot JFK in some bushes in this pic. Closer study needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. twofish (86 comments) says:

    “Authorised by David Cunliffe, Parliament Buildings, Wellington”

    authorised – give official permission for or approval to (an undertaking or agent)
    but not
    authenticated – prove or show (something, esp. a claim or an artistic work) to be true or genuine

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. MikeG (425 comments) says:

    Kiwiblog – focusing on the issues that matter since 2003

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. TMC (75 comments) says:

    I’m not sure anyone is claiming it to be a major issue MikeG just another weird one from Mr 13%. Didn’t anyone bother to think the photo at the very least just looks like sh*t and could be mistaken for a photoshop attempt? Any phone these days could have taken a better photo. And why even touch it up?

    Or maybe Cunners is dropped in? Wouldn’t surprise me if Cunliffe wasn’t happy with the photos that were taken so requested “Someone drop in me with my concerned face…you know the one!” “Yes, this is my concerned face….look at me…I’m concerned.”

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Yvette (2,767 comments) says:

    Sorry, applying the same test [see 3.51pm] reveals the Martin Luther Cunliffe / David KIng photo to be a collage as well.
    But, merde, it is a much bigger better crowd.
    David should have whacked SAVE OUR GiRLS on it and gone with that one.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    RE: Update 2

    It entirely depends on the manner in which the enhancement was done. Some use a method where the part of the image that is required for altering is ‘lifted, adjusted and replaced’ in a layering effect that would also produce a separation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. mara (764 comments) says:

    Why not just ask Cuntliffe what’s up with the photo? I’m sure you could trust his reply.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. itstricky (1,774 comments) says:

    DPF – You’re beginning to sound a bit like Whale

    You mean, desperate and obsessive?

    Well, when you receive word that he was at the rally but still keep harping on about it, yes, exactly nail on head. Don’t forget the part about the tabloids and Woman’s Weekly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. RRM (9,786 comments) says:

    PHOTO SHOP COMP!!!

    Quick, someone… Cunliffe with Armstrong on the Moon.

    Cunliffe in the railway carriage signing the Armistice with the Germans.

    Cunliffe in the car with JFK…

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Steve (North Shore) (4,544 comments) says:

    Cunliffe with Armstrong on the Moon?

    That’s classified and you know it.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. OneTrack (2,987 comments) says:

    “Don’t forget the part about the tabloids and Woman’s Weekly.”

    What do TV1 and TV3 have to do with this? Did they do the photoshopping?

    I heard that the TV1 nest of the Labour Party had been shutdown. Oh, right. Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink. Say no more.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. wikiriwhis business (3,883 comments) says:

    Cunniliffe certainly is a decent reminder of JFK

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Yvette (2,767 comments) says:

    Judith – Some use a method where the part of the image that is required for altering is ‘lifted, adjusted and replaced’ in a layering effect that would also produce a separation.

    If you have people who are doing this on any work for you, Judith, abandon them. It should NOT separate out like Update 2. There could be nothing that wrong with the original exposure to give such a result, if you know how Photoshop and similar work.

    Why can you not accept that Martin Luther Cunliffe was there at the rally, was not happy with the selfies for Labour Facebook, so someone bunged two of the shots together as one, that suited better.

    It’s no big deal – just emphasises for Cunliffe it may have been more about image than compassion – otherwise why do it?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Yvette (2,605 comments) says:
    May 14th, 2014 at 6:53 pm

    Advice came from Creative Technologies 3rd year student. Stated it was an old way of doing it, but can still be done that way, so it cannot be ruled out.

    Personally, I think this entire thread is pathetic. It has been said he was there – why he needs to publish that I don’t know. If that photo was released with a dialogue of how more has to be done to find the girls, fair enough, but a photo, and an enhanced one tells us what? Does what? Will achieve what ? Now that last one I can answer – a distraction – the same of just about everything that seems to happen around here lately. The message “I was there – you weren’t” – to bad about the girls!.

    More shyte that does nothing to help prospective voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Yvette (2,767 comments) says:

    And PS:
    As someone else has already pointed out, screwing around with the original is very likely why the photo is now black and white, which the perpetrator will have erroneously explained to Cunliffe, looks more “news” “war-photo” and “documentary” before giving him the invoice.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. doggone7 (769 comments) says:

    To borrow from the other story;

    Maybe DPF is playing a game. You know, the game where someone says “We’re more pathetic than others as a media outlet and we will prove it. Often. ”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Yvette (2,767 comments) says:

    The first comment on Labour’s Facebook page beneath the photo in question –

    Taaef Hazari though i commend you for joining a noble cause, i must bring it to your attention, and all who read this, that i am appalled by the people of the west for trying to “raise awareness” for girls kidnapped in nigeria by hastagging “bringbackthegirls”. this is nothing but a disgusting act of self-promotion and feeding your own selfish desire to feel like you’ve done something, when it turn you have actually done fuck all except for liking a page on facebook or typing a few letters. this is a real life situation, not some bullshit “1 like = 1 prayer” bullshit. these are the lives of real people. if you want to do something about it, then do it. If you don’t wanna do something, then don’t. Either way you go, both are a better options than hashtagging a twitter trend to make it seem like you care or to make yourself feel like you’ve achieved something today.

    nb: when i say “you” i don’t mean david cunliffe, i mean every one who is a part of this.
    thumb-ups 16

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. burt (8,206 comments) says:

    Yvette

    Well captured, it’s hard to imagine that will stay there for long. The fact it even made it to the page just shows how effective the lprent ‘undesirable words and phrases’ filter really is for auto moderation. Facebook should buy him !

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. freemark (564 comments) says:

    More self manipulation by a lying, troughing Socialist. More (concerted & directed) defence of it by Trolls on KB, probably paid-per-comment by the Taxpayer via Socialist theft.
    You can see it in the War Room – “ok, here are this month’s cowardly handles, go forth and spew hate & lies”
    The good thing is that the more real people view this obvious bullshit, the less they believe the delusions of caring.
    Imagine the international laughing stock NZ would be (not to mention the economic disaster) with this clown, Norman, Hone, The Fat German, The Drunk Dwarf etc representing & directing us.
    What a fucking nightmare.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Photoshop the ugly bastard as much as you like he still looks like a fucking Turtle. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    It’s the complete lack of any resemblance to having a chin that does it really! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Plus the downward angle of the eyes of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    The leftazis at the standard are a wee big exercised about this post…..akin to blasphemy I think. I got banned for 4 weeks for suggesting that DC needed someone with slightly better touch up skills than whoever mucked this up.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    The size and shape of the beak doesn’t help matters either! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Shearer was a handsome looking bloke in comparison of course and even Goofie had a certain puckish charm about him! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    And as we all know if Helen had taken our hint and got her teeth done she would be a shoo in for Ban Ki Moons job! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. jcuk (665 comments) says:

    Cunliffe with Armstrong on the moon …. could not be done as the studio mock-up of the moon has been destroyed.

    Yvette/Taaef … the point is that the people have to rise up to get those with the power and means to do something get their A into G

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Had your dinner then have you minus? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. twofish (86 comments) says:

    I am using an iMac, so I followed Yvette’s instructions :

    Anyone with a iMac or other Macintosh

    click on Cunliffe photo, hold and drag off browser to Desktop.

    Open in Preview.
    
Under Tools go to Adjust colour
    
Move Exposure slider to right and see Cunliffe separate from background.

    Definitely a pasted-up image

    Cunliffe was at the rally -partly hidden by a lamp post
    So why fiddle with photos, unless they didn’t have their own photographer in place
    or they were unhappy with the real shots so doctored this, only not well enough to get away with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. srylands (405 comments) says:

    Lynn Prentice at The Standard is going completely ape shit over this. No idea what pressed his button but fuck is he crazy. If you say “boo” to him you get banned :-)

    “And on to a series of justification about why he David Farrar really is not just a petty dipshit putting out this kind of nonsense and never bothering to check it. I guess he is trying to remember the glory days when he was the single big voice in the local blogs and could lie like this for his paymasters with relative impunity.”

    I don’t know what a sockpuppet is but he says DPF is one.

    “The desperation of the National’s sockpuppets”

    http://thestandard.org.nz/the-desperation-of-the-nationals-sockpuppets/

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. srylands (405 comments) says:

    Lynn Prentice:

    “National’s paid for bloggers acting like fools heading into this election because National only being good at putting us heavily into debt (again!) rather limits the good news they can write.”

    http://thestandard.org.nz/the-desperation-of-the-nationals-sockpuppets/

    Slightly off topic but it makes me fucking vomit when I hear this line over and over from the Left – and Prentice is a champion at it.

    “Labour ran surpluses. National has put us into debt.”

    The fucking cheek.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. freemark (564 comments) says:

    Yes srylands, the Limp Prent is lathering himself up bigtime. Hilarious how anyone who challenges his self obvious intellectual & moral superiority is banned with comments deleted..what a soft cock.
    I suspect he may be responsible for the obvious and amateur photoshopping , his skills with graphics are as poor as his “sysop” efforts.
    Did anyone see the pathetic & sycophantic moderation of the Cun*Lips Post?.. it certainly showed up a couple of delusional fools…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. twofish (86 comments) says:

    At the rally Cunliffe wears a white shirt with mid grey line (about quarter inch) check pattern so white squares are perhaps inch and a half to two inches.
    Any work to enhance the photo concerned would surely bring this feature back to a better exposure but it is fucked on the Labour Facebook photo (featured above) however not on Getty images which incidentally are in colour.

    gettyimages # gty.im/490272271 Marty Melville / stringer

    It is so obvious that they just didn’t get the most empathetic shot they wanted.

    So why is the guy at the Standard going so batshit loopey ?
    Because his masters have been exposed being just a little too enthusiastic over a sensitive photo opportunity – from empathetic to just pathetic
    Simple

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    This whole thread is evidence of the mental derangement that is increasingly taking over the right these days.

    If you want to see photoshopping, every picture of Slater is shopped to hide the fact that he has a human anus embedded right under his nose.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. RightNow (6,975 comments) says:

    @Tom Jackson, diddums

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    What’s particularly ironic is this from lprent:

    National Party pollster David Farrar must be seeing some numbers he really doesn’t like because he’s veered off on another weird attack on David Cunliffe.

    As Prentice launches weird attacks in all directions, looking more and more desperate about something. The whole thread is making him look more past it than Winston.

    The rule at The Standard is “But you didn’t heed my warnings about what I the author considered this post to be about” – in other words, unless you go along with lprent’s rants about DPF and Whale he’ll ban you – and there’s a warning and two bans within 34 comments.

    There’s clear signs that the Labour propaganda machine is becoming more actively involved using The Standard for spreading the party message and protecting the message from criticism.

    And more irony, lprent keeps repeating bullshit about Kiwiblog and Whale Oil while accusing them of the same.

    It looks like turning to custard for the Labour activists, and when they get mad they tend to lash out and of course everyone else and everything else is to blame.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    freemark – the Cunliffe Q&A was a good idea but poorly executed. Cunliffe’s few answers were little more than cut&pastes from his PR parrot speeches.

    “He wasn’t kidding about his staff having him running around for the rest of the night. He will be back when he has some time. ” He hasn’t been back and lprent has been left with egg on his ego.

    And after it fizzled lprent claimed he didn’t organise it.

    @ Lynn – thanks for organising this.

    Reply
    lprent 41.2.1.1
    14 May 2014 at 2:41 pm

    I didn’t. The request came from Cunliffe’s staff. They did most of the work.

    I just went to work early so I could go home early to moderate.

    An admission Cunliffe’s staff are running what they want at The Standard. And lprent accuses National of running KB and WO.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Jacob Cohen (46 comments) says:

    Bugger David Cunliffe’s call for taxpayer funding of this sort of questionable crap
    An straight honest approach to some issues could help them

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. srylands (405 comments) says:

    “If you want to see photoshopping, every picture of Slater is shopped to hide the fact that he has a human anus embedded right under his nose.”

    Charming.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    lprent also continues Labour accusations of collusion between National and the media. Of course it’s not Cunliffe or Robertson or Mallard or McCarten or lprent are to blame for Labour’s poor research, stuff-ups, negative attacks turning sour on them and poor media coverage. The media won’t repeat what Labour try and push through The Standard so the hissy fitting has flared up more than the sun spots.

    Note the double irony in what the post is called: The desperation of the National’s sockpuppets.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. burt (8,206 comments) says:

    twofish

    So it goes like this…. He was there, so he gets to represent it however he likes … kind of like his CV with regard to Fonterra The NZ Dairy Board.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. adze (2,093 comments) says:

    This one’s for you JohnBoy: :)

    http://imgur.com/pAoSG3q

    Though strictly speaking he’s a tortoise.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Tojo: He looks, acts, and is a goose!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. weizguy (118 comments) says:

    #Benghazi

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. odysseus (25 comments) says:

    This really takes the cake for being desperate DPF

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. burt (8,206 comments) says:

    odysseus

    This really takes the cake for being desperate DPF

    It sure does, pasting yourself into a picture to present an image which possibly never actually happened. A bit like being involved in the formation of Fonterra….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. itstricky (1,774 comments) says:

    It sure does, pasting yourself into a picture to present an image which possibly never actually happened. A bit like being involved in the formation of Fonterra….

    The key word being ‘possibly’ – there is no evidence.

    Being a smart guy, Burt, as I am sure you are having read some of your posts, you would naturally realise that the National party have put the label ‘tricky’ on Cunliffe. Thus, they will try at every opportunity, no matter how inconsequential, to paste him with more of that paint such as people pick it up subconsciously and just run with it and pass it on to people they know. It’s all part of the game. Obviously Whale is plonk right in the sea of shit but I thought DPF was above it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Ed Snack (1,839 comments) says:

    So I’ve looked at the pictures and having some experience with this my verdict : Shopped, and badly shopped at that. Hope it was an unpaid job for Labour because if not they got ripped off. My guess is a composite of two photos, Cunliffe was at the rally (stupidity exemplified in itself) but for whatever reason sufficiently dramatic photos of him demonstrating his moral fitness were not obtained, so it was necessary to create such.

    It’s not that important, but if you want to be taken seriously do it right ! It quite simply exemplifies Cunliffe and Labour: the appearance of seeming to care is all that matters, having anything that remotely resembles a genuine desire to actually help those Nigerian girls and other Boko Haram victims is superfluous.

    And this is the reason lprent and others like our Tom Jackson above are going ape-shit and casting the insults about: they’re getting called on their absurd, pretentious twattery and they don’t like it ! They’re SERIOUSLY CONCERNED I tell you, seriously seriously seriously concerned, and they really mean it. How dare you disparage their moral superiority, why next you’ll be doubting their commitment to the common man !

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. minus (174 comments) says:

    The key word being ‘possibly’ – there is no evidence.

    The evidence is
    1) Cunliffe was at the rally – television and Gettyimages
    2) For some unexplained reason the photo, supposedly actual, is in fact a paste up of more than one image.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. RightNow (6,975 comments) says:

    Aside from all the tricky grand-standing from Cun’liffe, this show of caring while actually doing nothing by the usual luvvies pisses me off.
    What really needs to happen is for someone like Navy Seals, or even our SAS, to go into Nigeria, hunt the bad guys down and shoot the shit out of them and rescue the girls.
    You’d think Obama could arrange for such a thing to happen, but instead all we get is this show-boating from his wife about how good a person she is for posting a picture of herself holding a sign.
    John Key – while the rest of the liberal panty-waists are standing around taking selfies, can you send our SAS to go and sort this shit out please?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Sinnic (2 comments) says:

    As much as I would like this picture to have had Conlife ‘shopped’ into it I dont believe it has. It is definitely photoshopped but it is just to make Conlife stand out more.

    The original photo is on their website https://www.flickr.com/photos/nzlabour/13996007757/in/photostream/

    – the jpeg signature and exif say:

    EXIF IFD0 @ Absolute 0x00000014
    Dir Length = 0x000A
    [Make ] = “Apple”
    [Model ] = “iPhone 4S”
    [XResolution ] = 72/1
    [YResolution ] = 72/1
    [ResolutionUnit ] = Inch
    [Software ] = “7.1”
    [DateTime ] = “2014:05:14 13:13:10″
    [YCbCrPositioning ] = Centered
    [ExifOffset ] = @ 0x00BA
    [GPSOffset ] = @ 0x03A2

    EXIF GPSIFD @ Absolute 0x000003AE
    Dir Length = 0x000A
    [GPSLatitudeRef ] = “S”
    [GPSLatitude ] = 41 deg 16′ 0.000″
    [GPSLongitudeRef ] = “E”
    [GPSLongitude ] = 174 deg 46′ 0.000″
    [GPSAltitudeRef ] = Above Sea Level
    [GPSTimeStamp ] = 11/1
    [GPSSatellites ] = 1/1, 13/1, 10/1
    [GPSImgDirectionRef ] = “True direction”
    [GPSImgDirection ] = 30608/253
    [GPSDateStamp ] = “2014:05:14″

    ASSESSMENT: Class 3 – Image has high probability of being original
    Note that EXIF Software field is set (typically contains Firmware version)……….(JPEGsnoop)

    If this image had been shopped before uploading to flickr it would appear in the exif data.

    The picture from FB has had all the exif data removed as do all FB picture uploads.

    This would have been hilarious if he had been shopped in but unfortunately it’s just had crappy processing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. burt (8,206 comments) says:

    minus

    That’s the key thing isn’t it. He was at the rally. There were photo’s taken. These points are not being disputed. If this particular photo is an enhancement rather than a paste up from multiple shots then then surely it will be easy to veryify via seeing the unenhanced original. I’ll put $1 on that there is no original that matches this shot. Cunliffe is a fake – a champion for workers rights who lives in a multi million dollar house earning hundreds of times the average income of the people he claims to represent.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. goldnkiwi (1,265 comments) says:

    Judith (6,057 comments) says:

    May 14th, 2014 at 3:07 pm

    How many ‘n’s are there in Cunliffe?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. SHG (310 comments) says:

    Over at the Standard I posted something like “I’m not disputing he was at the event, but that photo on Cunliffe’s FB page has obviously been manipulated” – within seconds Lynn Prentice had edited my post to remove the second clause, leaving my comment as “I’m not disputing he was at the event” and then banned me.

    Apeshit sensitive about this photo, I don’t know why. Maybe it plays into the “Cunliffe invents or exaggerates things to make himself look better” metastory a bit too much, and in a very public way.

    Because it’s obvious to anyone with eyes and a computer that the photo has been modified.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. waikatosinger (22 comments) says:

    It sure looks photoshopped. If it isn’t photoshopped then there is something very strange about David Cunliffe which makes him look weirdly out of place in photographs. Anyway regardless of what was or was not done to the photo to make it look like that, you can be sure that David didn’t do it. He has minions for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.