« New Plan #3 | Main | Forgotten Camera: Mark Gregg »

Wednesday, 03 September 2008


Oh no Mike,

The photo is real. They just thought the camouflage bikini she was actually wearing to be a bit tacky.

The dude in the background with a cigarette and a Schlitz is a particularly nice touch.

Snopes concurs:

Neat bit of work, no doubt about it.

Wonder how long it took the guy to find two images where the lighting matched.

Still a scary face for anyone to pull!

I'd just like to point out that the undoctored picture is kind of creepy in its own way.

That's a BB gun anyway!

I don't know , but the one where she's holding the papers looks scary enough, the pen is mightier than the sword and all that.

It is too bad that Tina Fey is not on Saturday Night Live any more.

I don't mean to take the discussion off the Photoshop job, but it has occurred to me that this woman really could mean trouble for Obama. She pulls in as much attention as he ever did, and particularly in some demographics where he's a bit shaky (working-class folks.) And she really is kind of attractive, in a soccer-mom way. The fact that this Photoshop job is both fake and credible at the same time is pretty interesting.


How disappointing! I though this was about Michael Palin.

major LOL here...the dude with the smoke and the brew is priceless. Let the good times roll.

I'm worried about this country.

Personally I think Mike has the sequence wrong, I think the second pic was photoshopped from the bikini one...

What would take this photo from a well-manipulated fake to a real classic is for someone to skillfully Photoshop Cheney's head onto the guy with the cigarette and beer.

Thanks Mike for mentioning the evidence of a yet another faked story. How sad that talented people work so hard to ridicule accomplished women. Whether its Hillary or Sarah, in the end its all about keeping the little woman in her proper place. I feel like crying.

Remember the young John Kerry with Jane Fonda photo? The photographer of the original un-photoshopped photo surfaced with the original negative. My photo class was listening to me pontificate about the perils and ethics of Photoshop and I used that Kerry/Fonda photo along with the originals, plus the photographer holding the original negative. One student refused to accept the explanation, insisting that the photo of Kerry/Fonda together was the original, and the separate photos were fakes. He didn't buy the photo of the photographer holding his original neg, either. As far as he was concerned:
1. The photog worked for the MSM.
2. Therefore was liberal and biased against conservatives.
3. The negative meant nothing, because that could be photoshopped, too.
4. Even if it WAS photoshopped, Kerry and Fonda obviously thought alike, and would have appeared together if they could have, therefore there was nothing wrong with the combined photo. It was as valid as reality.

People like this scare hell out of me.

Mike, here's the original, which was itself a spoof of right-wing values.


The photographer, "Doctor Casino," added this in the comments:
To anyone else reading - I still have misgivings about all this. The tropes being attached to Sarah Palin here - of being unserious and also of being a sexual body rather than a professional intellect - are, not coincidentally, sexist tropes about womanhood generally. The image is funny to the extent that it plays on something specific to Palin: she is a goofball and more specifically a gun nut who makes lipservice to patriotism (a la American Flag Bikini) while harboring dubious views on fundamental American principles ("Can you tell me how to go about banning a book?"). But to the extent that it's a lightweight's first resort against a female political candidate, it's odious. The proliferation of lizard-brain responses to/uses of the image is particularly telling.

(It was taken at a quarry in Georgia in 2004.)

What a coincidence. I just finished watching Sarah Palin on TV giving her "acceptance speech". I believe the photo was done in jest, but in a way it reflects the sad state of US politics and media today. Sham photos, fake videos, lies, fairy tales, cover-ups, spin, etc.


Please, what that photoshop job amounts to is political satire.

We see it on the editorial page in the newspaper every day. It's nothing more than a political cartoon, no punch line necessary.

Sarah's a big girl and I'm sure she's experienced worse than that. Welcome to the big leagues and it's gonna get MUCH worse than that.

So it's a photoshop job...exposed immediately and easily. And, certainly not a case for the honesty and authenticity in digital photography issue. IMO, very funny...if you can keep a sense of humor for those you vote for / those you don't vote for.

Her speech tonight was pretty good, inaccurate and typical "convention" material, but she delivered it well.

Sad. Really sad.

Mrs Palin earned points with me when I saw the photo in the bikini - probably because I am a really, really sick guy. And now it turns out she's just your run-of-the-mill pen-pushing grab-the-money-and-run leaflet-thrower.

The world is mean, or Mrs Palin is right, there is at least one god and [s]he has a lot of fun with the world. A suspicion I have been entertaining since I was 3 years old.

The torso etc. seems pretty credible as well, however after 5 kids stretch marks on the tummy might be unavoidable. My conclusion: Photoshopped by a male!

Regards - Ross

No, you're wrong!
The original photo is actually the one with the gun and bikini.
That was flipped and photoshopped to make the other, I'm sure about that.

Anyway MICHAEL Palin for president :)

It's just a new take on an old trope. _SPY_ magazine did something similar to Hillary Clinton in February of '93, putting the then-new First Lady in a leather dominatrix outfit.

I could tell it was fake right away. Sarah Palin undoubtedly has better-looking legs!

(Oh; most of you were thinking the same thing.)

How can we know a true photo from a fake/manipulation? Those images that seem to be proving a point without attribution are suspect. Who is delivering the image to you?
I don't believe a photo is not manipulated unless it has a traceable attribution. It is very sad, my first thought is how did they fake this?

The comments to this entry are closed.