Galway tornado/waterfront fake

MissPuscifer · 01-08-2013 6:09pm #1

Was suspicious so searched images of waterspouts... Wasn't that hard to find.

SalteeDog · 01-08-2013 6:49pm

MissPuscifer wrote: »

Was suspicious so searched images of waterspouts... Wasn't that hard to find.

I suspected as much. Didn't stop the media running the story though.

whiteandlight · 01-08-2013 6:50pm

I'm no expert by any stretch but those images don't look all that alike?

MissPuscifer · 01-08-2013 7:05pm

Musicmental85 wrote: »

I'm no expert by any stretch but those images don't look all that alike?

It's actually just the funnel part that has been copied and blended into the picture.

MissPuscifer · 01-08-2013 7:28pm

Easier to see in this pic.

Lumi · 01-08-2013 9:54pm

The local restauranteur who created the waterspout picture has given his story to the Galway City Tribune so you can all read the story on how and why he faked it tomorrow morning.

It's getting a great laugh all around town and yes, Mispuscifer identified the correct original image from the Great Lakes - well spotted!
Here's a screenshot of the front page

E04F6B71-4F03-4C76-AD27-00B5EBC5F3FC-3965-0000039427490FAF.jpg

E04F6B71-4F03-4C76-AD27-00B5EBC5F3FC-3965-0000039427490FAF.jpg

Grandeeod · 01-08-2013 10:16pm

Lumi wrote: »

The local restauranteur who created the waterspout picture has given his story to the Galway City Tribune so you can all read the story on how and why he faked it tomorrow morning.

It's getting a great laugh all around town and yes, Mispuscifer identified the correct original image from the Great Lakes - well spotted!
Here's a screenshot of the front page

Cool! Well done to all of us brave enough to state the obvious! Mispuscifer gets the biggest pat on the back though!

MissPuscifer · 01-08-2013 11:24pm

Thanks for the support over there guys.

One thing I can say I hate, is the spreading of misinformation. It was ALL over Facebook... I sent RTE an email too, just complaining about it not being researched properly, but it will probably not even be noticed.

I'm glad the person who made it has come forward though! Will some people still try to argue that we are wrong? Probably. :P

Skerries · 02-08-2013 7:26am

you have been mentioned on Broadsheet.ie

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/08/02/genuine-dublin-twister/

Red Nissan · 02-08-2013 10:28am

Good, so it was an advertising stunt, I was suspicious that MissPuscifer knew it was but was unable to convince me how they knew.

MissPuscifer · 02-08-2013 10:44am

Red Nissan wrote: »

Good, so it was an advertising stunt, I was suspicious that MissPuscifer knew it was but was unable to convince me how they knew.

I knew because I could see it. I have absolutely nothing to do with the person who made this. I was only out to prove the picture wrong because it had spread so far as truth, something that annoys me greatly. Me being unable to convince you is your failing.

Red Nissan · 02-08-2013 10:53am

MissPuscifer wrote: »

Me being unable to convince you is your failing.

The insert had a lot of JPEG artifacts around it, evidence of it being from a different DPI, web is typically only 75dpi or even less whereas original camera art is typically 300dpi, the edging shows artifacts

steve french · 02-08-2013 11:15am

Theres a picture of a real one in Shannon yesterday

pistolpetes11 · 02-08-2013 11:15am

Ok now , enough about it and keep it on topic please

MissPuscifer · 02-08-2013 11:24am

Red Nissan wrote: »

The insert had a lot of JPEG artifacts around it, evidence of it being from a different DPI, web is typically only 75dpi or even less whereas original camera art is typically 300dpi, the edging shows artifacts

It really had almost nothing to do with dpi and artifacting... More that it was the EXACT same formation as the Great Lakes photo. Which was obvious from the pictures I posted.

EDIT actually looking back at them again, there is hardly any noticeable artifacting so I don't even know what you are talking about.

Red Nissan · 02-08-2013 11:37am

MissPuscifer wrote: »

It really had almost nothing to do with dpi and artifacting... More that it was the EXACT same formation as the Great Lakes photo. Which was obvious from the pictures I posted.

In the other thread I posted both and they are not an exact match.

MissPuscifer · 02-08-2013 11:51am

Red Nissan wrote: »

In the other thread I posted both and they are not an exact match.

There is a little set of tools in Photoshop, and in most other image editing programs, that can stretch/squeeze and skew images... They don't sit exactly over each other because a transformation has been applied by the faker.
you don't have view them like that to see the similarity in shape. Can you still not see it?
I really don't know what you are trying to prove/disprove though...

EDIT have you seen the second image I posted? The transformation is corrected in that one.

Granolite · 02-08-2013 1:09pm

steve french wrote: »

Theres a picture of a real one in Shannon yesterday

Use you powers of critical analysis/thinking...it's another Photoshop 101.

meelick · 02-08-2013 1:48pm

This one?

http://www.clareherald.com/2013/07/funnel-cloud-photographed-over.html

OK, so it's not a tornado, only a funnel cloud, but it's real.

MissPuscifer · 02-08-2013 2:11pm

meelick wrote: »

This one?

http://www.clareherald.com/2013/07/funnel-cloud-photographed-over.html

OK, so it's not a tornado, only a funnel cloud, but it's real.

No this is the one from shannon. Tbh I thought it was a smoke cloud over photoshop, but I havent looked into it

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wqvnRUcTJMY/UfqNNWWKnnI/AAAAAAAAbGQ/MB9_xwY48DM/s1600/999818_605770969445773_1299117802_n.jpg

Granolite · 02-08-2013 2:20pm

No the one I believe poster Steve French is referring was this one..

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/603333_10151793425141718_1945240675_n.jpg

I don't doubt the veracity of the photo's you've linked but if you read the photo captions they were not observed yesterday. The poster above implied a ''real one'' was photographed/observed yesterday in Shannon (I presume he meant in Shannon town/business park). The photo I have linked was doing the rounds yesterday as well.

Lumi · 02-08-2013 4:10pm

MissPuscifer wrote: »

There is a little set of tools in Photoshop, and in most other image editing programs, that can stretch/squeeze and skew images... They don't sit exactly over each other because a transformation has been applied by the faker.

There's an interview with the Galway restauranteur in the Indo today in which he describes exactly how he used photoshop to blend the Great Lakes funnel pic with a picture of Galway Bay

Nice also to see that they have quoted MissPuscifer's comments on the Boards.ie Weather Forum and credited her with 'outing' the fake (scroll to the end of the linked piece)

sunset · 02-08-2013 4:31pm

I wonder ..... the person claiming to have faked this is a bistro owner, Michael O'Meara, according to the Indo account. But the original facebook page posted on the boards thread gives the credits as -
GMIT Students' Union: Picture taken out in Salthill 20 minutes ago. ‪#‎HeatWave‬ - PHOTO: David Lambe
GMIT is the Galway and Mayo Institute of Technology. Is Mr O'Meara doing a double fake here? Who is David Lambe?

Lumi · 02-08-2013 5:04pm

sunset wrote: »

I wonder ..... the person claiming to have faked this is a bistro owner, Michael O'Meara, according to the Indo account. But the original facebook page posted on the boards thread gives the credits as -
GMIT Students' Union: Picture taken out in Salthill 20 minutes ago. ‪#‎HeatWave‬ - PHOTO: David Lambe
GMIT is the Galway and Mayo Institute of Technology. Is Mr O'Meara doing a double fake here? Who is David Lambe?

The picture appeared on the Oscars Seafood Bistro page first at 13.29pm
It was posted on the GMITSU page later at 13.50pm

I reckon David Lambe is as real as the waterspout :pac:

Red Nissan · 02-08-2013 5:37pm

MissPuscifer wrote: »

It really had almost nothing to do with dpi and artifacting...

It actually does, the link to the interview says the manipulator deliberately reduced the quality of the insert to make it undetectable.

He produced the artifacts in that process and that was what I saw which convinced me it was fake.

He went to considerable lengths to fake this, he knows a fair bit about PS and many other images could equally have been used as the insert, he changed it a lot. I was not convinced by the mere similarity of the images.

Red Nissan · 02-08-2013 5:40pm

Lumi wrote: »

The picture appeared on the Oscars Seafood Bistro page first at 13.29pm
It was posted on the GMITSU page later at 13.50pm

I reckon David Lambe is as real as the waterspout :pac:

Interesting. Wherever I read a comment I don't know, but, it was posters crediting David with integrity that made the picture initially accepted.

MissPuscifer · 02-08-2013 6:01pm

Red Nissan wrote: »

It actually does, the link to the interview says the manipulator deliberately reduced the quality of the insert to make it undetectable.

He produced the artifacts in that process and that was what I saw which convinced me it was fake.

He went to considerable lengths to fake this, he knows a fair bit about PS and many other images could equally have been used as the insert, he changed it a lot. I was not convinced by the mere similarity of the images.

If he made it so it was undetectable then how did you detect it? Show me your evidence this time.. Where is the artifacting that you picked up on?

Yes the resolution is reduced but not just around the fake bit, the whole picture was.

He did not change it much at all... It was stuck in, skewed and blended.

Im pretty sure he even said it in one of these links posted that it was a picture of the great lakes that he used.

Still not sure what your angle is, sir.

Grandeeod · 02-08-2013 6:01pm

Red Nissan wrote: »

It actually does, the link to the interview says the manipulator deliberately reduced the quality of the insert to make it undetectable.

He produced the artifacts in that process and that was what I saw which convinced me it was fake.

He went to considerable lengths to fake this, he knows a fair bit about PS and many other images could equally have been used as the insert, he changed it a lot. I was not convinced by the mere similarity of the images.

With all due respect, if you looked at both images, it was pretty obvious that he had lifted part of one and inserted it into the other. No big job and it doesn't take long on PS. I really can't see how you can continue to claim that any great lengths were went to in order to create the fake photo.

Going back to last night, you were having a go at us about claiming it was a fake because you thought one of us knew it was a fake. Its a fake. The originator has confessed and explained it. Lets move on.

Red Nissan · 02-08-2013 6:16pm

Grandeeod wrote: »

Going back to last night, you were having a go at us about claiming it was a fake because you thought one of us knew it was a fake. Its a fake. The originator has confessed and explained it. Lets move on.

That about sums it up. Concur.

MissPuscifer · 02-08-2013 6:24pm

Red Nissan wrote: »

That about sums it up. Concur.

Will you be replying to me, sir? Or is that your step out of the conversation?

Red Nissan · 02-08-2013 6:55pm

MissPuscifer wrote: »

Will you be replying to me, sir? Or is that your step out of the conversation?

You know something, you got all your answers last night, I asked a question that you were unable to answer. Before I saw the interview I posted a reply, the interview supports my statements.

You could not convince me last night and you called it my failing, well today it is your failing if you can't see what is in the file that you sent.

I could see manipulation but I had no way of knowing who did it, you? Either deliberately or accidentally in re-saving the file.

We now know there are several files in the wild. I only looked at the one you sent. I believed that you might have been the wife, sister, daughter or girl friend of the file poster and you knew it was a fake and you knew which insert was used ~ you failed to convince me that your Photoshop knowledge led to the discovery of the duplicity.

I have to go out about nine for an errand.

MissPuscifer · 02-08-2013 8:04pm

Red Nissan wrote: »

You know something, you got all your answers last night, I asked a question that you were unable to answer. Before I saw the interview I posted a reply, the interview supports my statements.

You could not convince me last night and you called it my failing, well today it is your failing if you can't see what is in the file that you sent.

I could see manipulation but I had no way of knowing who did it, you? Either deliberately or accidentally in re-saving the file.

We now know there are several files in the wild. I only looked at the one you sent. I believed that you might have been the wife, sister, daughter or girl friend of the file poster and you knew it was a fake and you knew which insert was used ~ you failed to convince me that your Photoshop knowledge led to the discovery of the duplicity.

I have to go out about nine for an errand.

Firstly, I attach a file which I have drawn over so you can see the shape I saw that helped me identify the copy and paste.(Everyone else can see this, I'm intrigued as to why you cant.) My Photoshop knowledge led me to acknowledge that it is a very easy effect to create. By using layer modes and some softening of edges... (there is also a tell tale halo around the funnel that showed it came from an image with a brighter background, that was difficult for the restaurant owner to get rid of)

Secondly, I received no answers from you about where you are seeing the artifacting. Can you tell where the image bounds are for the "insert", as you call it? If you can see the artifacts you should be able to tell me that.

MichaelOMeara · 04-08-2013 12:02pm

Hi guys, I spotted that it was Misspuscier that rattled me!! She is pretty accurate and has been all the time along (drink on me if your in Galway). Although it was really intended to be a joke of course I'm not going to complain about the marketing. I told the local paper about it at a pretty early stage as with any joke it would get a bit boring if drawn out

I don't normally use PS in this way as food photography is my thing (contributor to Getty Images & istockphoto.com) but the real thing that made this work was the Wednesday tornado weather report, a lot of people really wanted a twister!

Granolite · 04-08-2013 2:23pm

MichaelOMeara wrote: »

Hi guys, I spotted that it was Misspuscier that rattled me!! She is pretty accurate and has been all the time along (drink on me if your in Galway). Although it was really intended to be a joke of course I'm not going to complain about the marketing. I told the local paper about it at a pretty early stage as with any joke it would get a bit boring if drawn out
I don't normally use PS in this way as food photography is my thing (contributor to Getty Images & istockphoto.com) but the real thing that made this work was the Wednesday tornado weather report, a lot of people really wanted a twister!

Oh to live in a society where such an admission might elicit a hint of embarrassment..or dare I say it shame..

MissPuscifer · 04-08-2013 5:23pm

MichaelOMeara wrote: »

Hi guys, I spotted that it was Misspuscier that rattled me!! She is pretty accurate and has been all the time along (drink on me if your in Galway). Although it was really intended to be a joke of course I'm not going to complain about the marketing. I told the local paper about it at a pretty early stage as with any joke it would get a bit boring if drawn out
I don't normally use PS in this way as food photography is my thing (contributor to Getty Images & istockphoto.com) but the real thing that made this work was the Wednesday tornado weather report, a lot of people really wanted a twister!

Fair play to you. If I hadn't come across the original picture I wouldn't have noticed

The initial prank doesn't bother me whatsoever, it was only the widespread acceptance that got to me, and the fact that rte used it without confirming it.
Great to hear from you! And I'm not really ever in galway, so a virtual cheers will have to do for now

Cheers!

Red Nissan · 05-08-2013 9:29am

MichaelOMeara wrote: »

Although it was really intended to be a joke of course I'm not going to complain about the marketing. I told the local paper about it at a pretty early stage as with any joke it would get a bit boring if drawn out

Well, it's like this, you posted your picture, it was however credited to another photographer, a student, whose credibility was vouched for that allowed his image to be accepted into the weather community as genuine.

It was initially called a fake and the integrity of the photographer was the accepting point. It was much later that we found out here that it was in fact your own photo.

The evidence put forward was too weak and too many images could have been used that would have fitted as well, that I believed you put up a first time poster to announce to the world, but fair enough for coming forward yourself.

However, technically, it was not your image that went viral and before I knew it was your image, other people were adamant that it was faked, so there are two versions at least and in all these cases we have found that as one poster takes the image they may "enhance" it more so it can be quite legitimate looking or made to look quite faked for a legitimate image, depending on their agenda.

The first thing we do is cry is fake TBH.

Was it you who found Shergar a few years ago as well?

I used do fine art photography with a 5x4" as well as being an assistant to a food photographer, so you don't have to say anymore. Mum's the word.

Galway tornado/waterfront fake

Comments