AP Global Warming Fauxtography? (UPDATED)
by Andrew Marcus
Is the Associated Press distributing a doctored photo that news organizations are now running in their Copenhagen coverage?
Founding Bloggers’ very own, Allan Sluis, is calling attention to an image that just might be the latest example of what has come to be know as “Fauxtography” – or – passing doctored images off as good faith representations of reality.
Below is a detailed examination of the image, beginning with the shot as it was displayed Monday, December 7th, on Foxnews.com (Fox link via SPQA.org):
And here is the image as seen without the cropping Fox News applied. It is from the Baltimore Sun, dated July 2009:
Oh those poor geese flying right through those rust colored smoke plumes! They might start dropping out of the sky at any moment!
But what if the truth is not as apocalyptic as the AP image appears to depict?
A number of things about this image look unusual to Allan, who is a professional photo retoucher and graphic illustrator with nearly 20 years experience pushing pixels.
Below is the image with arrows highlighting specific features which upon close examination look very suspect, calling into question the honesty of the presentation of this picture.
Allan’s observations:
There is ample reason to believe that this photograph supplied to news organizations by the Associated Press has been substantially color-enhanced, perhaps to convey a false impression of pollution coming from a smoke stack from a purported coal-fueled power plant in Kansas. Here is a detailed description of the evidence that the original photo was either a black-and-white image, or a color image which was converted to black-and-white, and then colorized for dramatic effect. (See Update Below)
A1: Note this area of smoke rising directly from the smokestack is mysteriously missing any orange tone.
A2: Notice the unusual falloff of orange color in the background clouds (yes, those are clouds) just to the right of the smoke rising directly from the smokestack.
A3: A close examination reveals an unnaturally saturated hard color edge on that particular smoke lump.
B: Another unnatural saturation intensity increase to the left of the arrow. Note how rapid the orange tint fades in intensity on the left and the right of the arrow point.
C1, C2 & C3: These three arrows surround an area of sloppy retouching where the color tint was painted in too intense and abrupt to be convincing. Note how this color area pops substantially and quite suspiciously. This is also direct evidence that the retoucher is likely deliberately trying to blur the distinction between the actual smoke rising from the smokestack and the BACKGROUND CLOUDS deceptively conveying the impression that the entire area is choked with nasty orange pollution. This deceptive color continues right across the top of the smokestack and to the right going right over the background clouds.
D: Another area marked by the arrow point where the background clouds were not completely color tinted by the retoucher and the background gray is visibly missing orange tone.
Next, Allan began to reconstruct what he felt the original image might have looked like before it was allegedly enhanced, and in doing so, made a surprising discovery:
The evidence that this photo was originally a grayscale or black-and-white image was arrived at with a simple Photoshop process. We encourage other Photoshop enthusiasts and experts to recreate our work. (Here is the largest version of the image we could find)
1) Add a “Hue/Sat” adjustment layer directly above the original jpeg.
2) Drop the saturation percentage for both the Yellows and Reds Edit category down to zero.
Note how the image is now a perfectly even balance of the Red Green and Blue. This is easily viewable in the Info palette as you move the cursor over the image.
This is only possible if the original image is black-and-white or grayscale.
In a normal full-color image, there WILL be variances in the tone of the blues and greens. The desaturating of the Yellows and Reds would not touch the cooler colors. The other colors are not there.
This leads me to believe that this is a black and white image that has been colorized!
It is not possible to know if the camera original photograph is a black-and-white, but the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the jpeg being distributed was colorized from a black-and-white image. (See update below)
Here is what the image likely looked like before it was colorized after the above test was implemented (See update below):
We also in Hue/Sat discovered that the tone of the smokestack itself has been darkened substantially. A simple “Lightness” move in the same adjustment layer to the Master category readily shows this.
Below is how the image is displayed on the AP website where they are selling it to news organizations. Note the creation date. This dud has been out there for a while:
FILE – The Jan. 10, 2009 file photo shows a flock of geese flying past a smokestack at the Jeffery Energy Center coal power plant near Emmitt, Kan.. Sweeping legislation to curb the pollution linked to global warming and create a new energy-efficient economy is headed to an uncertain future in the Senate after squeaking through the House. The vote was a big win for President Barack Obama, who hailed House passage as a “historic action.” “It’s a bold and necessary step that holds the promise of creating new industries and millions of new jobs, decreasing our dangerous dependence on foreign oil and strictly limiting the release of pollutants that threaten the health of families and communities and the planet itself,” Obama said in a statement on Friday, June 26, 2009. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File)
Location Emmitt, KANSAS, United States Event US Climate Bill Creation Date Saturday, January 10, 2009 4:10 PM Submit Date Saturday, June 27, 2009 8:19 AM Special Instructions JAN. 10, 2009 FILE PHOTO Transmission Reference FRA104 Image ID 090110050409 Image Resolution‡ 3356 x 2465 – 786.68 KB Byline Title STF Credit ASSOCIATED PRESS Person Barack Obama Photographer Charlie Riedel Category International News Source AP
The AP image looks much more red than the images media outlets have published, leading us to wonder if even media outlets felt that the image was over the top in it’s “original” form, and dialed it back a bit.
Well AP….are we wrong???
UPDATE:
Allan Sluis has written to update us, based on feedback he received from readers at BigGovernment. He no longer believes that the manipulation began with a black-and-white image, rather that the manipulation began with the stripping out of all colors other than Yellow and Red. That would explain why the image was rendered greyscale after the Yellow and Red were removed in the test outlined above.
Below is what he wrote, and I have made visible changes in the post above to reflect this information.
We’ve been getting some superb and valuable feedback and a Big Government commenter, AnonymousToo, points out correctly that the doctoring of the color in this photo does not necessarily mean it started as a completely black-and-white image as I originally asserted.
My original assessment that the source for this image was a grayscale photograph was based on the total lack of any color remaining once I desaturated the Reds and Yellows only via Hue/Sat in Photoshop. AnonymousToo rightly points out that the AP retoucher/photographer who processed the image may have done precisely the same thing but with a removal of any of the cooler hues containing cyans or blues using the exact same process. By deliberately removing any colors other than reds and yellows to further saturate the oranges, this would indeed give the exact same effect as a grayscale original if the reds and yellows are desaturated (thus leaving no color data behind but grayscale values). I also agree with AnonymousToo that this would be a much quicker way to achieve a similar effect than colorizing a grayscale original.
This deliberate removal of the blues from the photograph may also explain why there are so many jarring instances of saturation zones in the orange with rapid falloffs in inconsistent intensity. While the probability of additional orange being painted in selective areas is still strong when viewing the labeled areas, desaturating of the blues will also accent and slightly lighten areas of the sky visible in the photo that without doubt originally had some blue present. Again, this is damning evidence of unethical color manipulation for a news photograph by AP.
Another mysterious and blatant area of the AP photo emerged after the initial post. I noticed that the body of the smokestack has no color information in the areas not lit by the orange highlight and are exact RGB grayscale. This is visible without any need to apply adjustment layers and is readily visible with the eyedropper and info palette in Photoshop.
This computer-balanced gray does not happen in real-world outdoor lighting conditions and is a result of color manipulation of the original image. RGB gray is how photo-editing software like Photoshop displays a pure grayscale range with identical numeric values for red, green and blue. This results in pixels with only values of light and dark and absolutely no color information.
Note also that this smokestack has plenty of orange (painted or enhanced) in the highlight but this color is completely absent from the rest of the smokestack. If an object’s specular highlight (such as the orange highlight on the smokestack) is tinted, the rest of the object will have darker and less intense, but present, values of this same color. This is not the case with this image. Note also there would be some ambient color tinting the gray of this smokestack from the sky color and the dingy shade of gray that the smokestack is painted. This also is direct evidence of the image manipulator desaturating everything but the orange tones.
The grayscale smokestack is the most powerful and blatant detail of this photograph revealing the extent of the manipulation in this AP International News photograph. As has been previously stated, as an editorial illustration, we would have no problem with this level of deceptive manipulation. By categorizing this as an International News photograph though, all the misleading elements are an ethical disgrace for intentional hyping of a political movement.
Thank you to AnonymousToo, and all of our readers/commenters, who have helped us better understand how this image was manipulated.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
132 Comments
I can hear Al Gore now… "The sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!!!!!"
Most of what you see coming out of a coal fired power plant's stack is water vapor……
And why the fasination with showing water vapor from cooling towers?
Wow! Who would have thought that we would see geese flying through the air? Isn't that what they do? And if the smokestack was so bad, wouldn't the geese be lying on the ground…dead??? Hmmmm.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by DRIP USA and AZ grassroots, Big Tweeting. Big Tweeting said: BigGovt: AP Global Warming Fauxtography?: Is the Associated Press distributing a doctored ph.. http://bit.ly/68OvsD #BigTweet [...]
I believe they also showed a picture of a polar bear carrying a dead polar bear cub. They tried to show this as evidence of the polar bears starving to death, turning to cannabalism. I guess we shouldn't bother them with the facts that polar bears, black bears, grizzlies, lions, tigers, etc… will kill the cubs of competing male bears and the like. This puts the females into heat and now the big bad bear can breed his own line of bears. But lets not confuse the facts with drama. That's the job of Harry Reid!
Photos can be altered so easily these days that you can't believe most of what you see in them anymore. The days of photos being proof of anything are pretty much over.
What kind of business pumps out orange plumes, anyway?
Is that a TANG factory?
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com...
Ironically, stcks that produce smoke as in the photo, are environmentally safe. The coal stacks that do not produce the smoke, are the ones that are "bad for the environment."
It is water vapor
If these people don't quit this sh!t, doctored photos will be the least their worries.
WATER VAPOR???!!!! DON'T YOU KNOW THAT WATER VAPOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 95% OF ALL GREEN HOUSE GASSES!!!!!!! STOP STEAM NOW!!!!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by brewers_rule, George Croft. George Croft said: AP Global Warming Fauxtography? Did #AP doctor this photo for #ClimateGate? Looks like it. http://bit.ly/8G5GJd #warming #tcot #corruption [...]
As a hobbyist landscape photographer and Photoshop user this strikes me as grabbing at straws. If the picture was taken at 4:10pm on 1/10 it is equally likely the color is due to it being dusk as sunset was likely around 5pm. Also possible the photographer could have used a tobacco colored filter.
Sorry this doesn’t rise to the level of the Photoshopped Iran missile picture or the like. If the whole story was specifically about this plant this sort of investigation might make more sense.
If you have a look at Google Images there are some images that might have painted an even worse picture of the plant.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&um=1&q=Jeffrey+Energy+Center&sa=N&start=0&ndsp=20
Wonder why they didn't use this one. http://media.kansas.com/smedia/2009/03/18/11/986-...
If this global warming fiasco wasn't so trajic it would be hilarious.It reminds me of a movie where an asteroid is hurtling towards earth and we've got two weeks to figure out what to do.
If Obama was president that would be easy, TAX the heck out of everyone.
Now THAT's Funny!!!
This may be the Jefferson Energy Center with actually has a St. Mary's address or the Lawrence Energy Center, located in Lawrence, KS. I can see the plume from the Lawrence plant from my office building. I can state with complete certainty that this must be a doctored photo. The plumes from either plant are primarily water vapor and are almost always white in color. The Lawrence plant may be one of the dirtiest plants in the country, but this picture is a complete fabrication.
"If the picture was taken at 4:10pm on 1/10 it is equally likely the color is due to it being dusk as sunset was likely around 5pm. Also possible the photographer could have used a tobacco colored filter."
That would be fine if it were true. That image either started as b&w or was desaturated and then recolored.
Photo illustrations are fine, but you have to label them as photo illustrations. It is very unethical to sell them as news editorial photos because there is an expectation that the image is true to reality.
If AP identified this as an illustration, we would have less of a problem with it.
As it's sold and used now, it is dishonest.
And it's not smoke anyway. Sheesh.
This type of fauxtography is what closed down the Champion paper mill my father worked in for 19 years.
I know, their primary customer was the Houston Chronicle, but this was way before we all knew the newspaper wasn't fit for kindling much less news.
I am a professional photographer, and it’s obvious to me that this is a late-day photo, with the orange-shifted rays of the sun striking the smokestack side-on (look at it) and illuminating some of the undersides of the surrounding clouds. I’ve made many photographs of this nature.
It is a standard technique in landscape photography to increase the contrast and saturation, as well as the tonal contrast of the digital negative as a part of the post-processing and printing process. Film photographers do the same thing in the darkroom.
There are plenty enough lies and distortions surrounding the AGW cult without needing to manufacture them.
Well water vapor IS the most prevalent "green house gas".
Color photos of the actual plant discharge can be found at:
http://surfaceandsurfacephotography.com/2009/02/1...
There is a coal plant about 30 miles from here.. Sometimes it actially produces really cool clouds.. Plus the fishing is GREAT downstream of the cooling plant : )
Doctored Photograghy?
If you stare intently at the photo, the Pyramids in Gheza all line up in a row, and the Sphynx is laughing in the background. But nobody in history has EVER doctored a photo……….
Not only that, like the a fore mentioned polar bear eating baby polar bear pic, the meaning of a photo can be altered by the description penned by whomever is posting it.
Just look up Eddie Adams' photo of General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a VC officer in Viet Nam in 1968. When the photo was originally published, it was often by anti war folk claiming to show the evil South Vietnamese soldier killing a poor, innocent civilian. The reality is it was a righteous shoot … the VC officer had just killed several American soldiers.
The camera could lie long before Photoshop came out.
I agree with Mike: from the volume of the plume one would guess that the plant is equipped with a wet scrubber (a means of SOx control) so the plume would be pure white. As wildoates points out, it's not even smoke, its water fog. The plume would reflect the color of the sunlight at the time the picture was shot. The clouds would reflect the light in the same way. If the picture was taken at the time of a red sunrise or sunset the colors would not have to be altered to give that "dark satanic mills" effect.
Altered or not, the picture is obviously intended to show the plant's visible emissions to be worse than they actually are.
Looks to me like two plumes. The real steam plume and then another overlaid in front of the steam.
I am also a professional photographer and think you are right about this. Using a picture that color, however, is an editorial comment in itself. Why choose that one rather than one shot on a sunny day? Why always show a picture of George Bush sneezing and pictures of BO with a halo behind his head? There is a lot you can do without photoshop.
[...] View original here: Big Government » Blog Archive » AP Global Warming Fauxtography? [...]
Send that to Al Goracle.
Yes, I agree; that happens a *lot*. But this article is making an elaborate and, IMHO erroneous, claim of deliberate fakery. That just reduces the credibility of this site and of the people working so hard to pull aside the veil of lies that is AGW.
The arguments in the article are utterly unpersuasive, and I say that as a professional photographer.
The "evidence" for it having originated as a B&W photo is not credible. Look at a color photo of the site taken at a different time of day. What colors are present? White plumes, white clouds, grey stack. Now look at the same scene at sunset. Light shifted to orange due to the refraction of sunlight through the atmosphere. Light traveling length-wise through the clouds is absorbed more than it is when shining down through the clouds, rendering the clouds much darker. Orange edges and even bottom highlights on the clouds due to the low angle at which the sunlight is striking them. Darker shadows due to lower light levels and less scattering because of the setting sun. Examine any number of photos made during sunset (or sunrise) hours and you will see that the same characteristics obtain.
Saying that the photo was taken in B&W or converted to B&W and then colored is neither the only nor the most likely explanation (by a long shot).
These kinds of wild-eyed and wrong-headed articles do not help the cause of exposing the AGW cult and its lies; it just makes us look like kooks.
ANONYMOUS TOO, despite your background, your assessment of this photo is incorrect. If you have Photoshop, all you need to do is run the eyedropper over the smokestack and you'll note that the retoucher failed to add orange to the rest of the smokestack but he did manage to tint the highlight on the right. The perfectly even blend of all RGB values throughout the smokestack is proof of a parent grayscale image. This isn't disputable. It's the actual pixel data readable by anyone in Photoshop. I can elaborate even further if you wish.
The assessment made in the article is correct and provable by anyone wishing to check the RGB values in Photoshop. Might I also mention that we have easily isolated the orange tinting in LAB and this can be posted also. This is not an opinion, it's readily available pixel data that Photoshop will reveal. There level of tinting by the retoucher is good but they missed key areas. Sloppy work but they nearly got away with it.
Note the angle of the top circle of the smokestack. This shows how close the photographer had to be to get such an upward angle. The background material is very likely clouds from the height or possibly mist from another area of the plant. What is indisputable is that the photographer deliberately and deceptively painted over on each side of the smokestack to blend the background and foreground.
People have since posted what this powerplant actually looks like without the orange colorization. All the vapor and smoke is intact without retouching done. All the manipulation is in the black and white original and the color tint painted over.
This is now the second time I personally have caught the Associated Press manipulating news images. I also got a write up by Michael Miner in The Chicago Reader titled "How To Move the Taj Mahal" and the publication date was August 3rd, 2001. A similar deal. The Associated Press supplied a photograph of former Pakistani President Musharraf and his wife sitting in front of the Taj Mahal in India. Severe and blatant retouching errors abounded and every retoucher and color-corrector who examined the photo arrived at the same conclusion.
"The arguments in the article are utterly unpersuasive, and I say that as a professional photographer. "
And as a professional photographer, can you explain how there would be at least two completely different color temperatures in a single photo? Even if the shot was taken during magic-hour, there shouldn't be areas of flat grey light. The sun doesn't normally work that way.
LOL when i first saw this photo I assumed it was a sunset picture but the light play isnt right
I guess the Photoshoppers figured that with all the data that's been falsified, what's one photo?
Anonymous, color readings in Photoshop are not subject to opinion. The retoucher failed to add color to the body of the smokestack but did make sure that the highlight was tinted. Anyone who has Photoshop or any other image manipulation software that can give RGB color values will be able to readily see this. This is not opinion, this is the reality of the RGB color space and how grayscale images are translated in RGB. There assessment made by the article is correct and can be proven.
Holy crap, isn't this a stretch? I mean, with the climategate emails who cares about a bunch of photoshop dweebs doctoring photos? I don't look at that photo and get all glossy eyed about the environment and anyone with a critical mind wouldn't either
There's no need to point out lightweight crap when there more than enough BS to sift through.
I have to assume you are joking. You cannot have photographed clouds at sunset without being aware of how light travels. Those areas of cloud directly lit by the setting sun will be orange-tinted. Those areas not so lit are either dark or lit by backscatter from the rest of the sky (which is not orange tinted. Thus, there will be areas of cloud on the back side (relative to the sun) which are not orange-tinted. It is as simple as that. The same is true of the shadow side of the smokestack.
No, your pixel analysis is incorrect. The smokestack itself has uniform colors because it is *grey* and *black*. Take a look, however, at the little hut on the top left of the smoke stack. Take a gander at the pixels there. Not quite grey, are they? Are we to believe that your imaginary retoucher took the time to add some color to it but not to the smokestack? Again, take a look at the pixels on the top black-ish ring of the smokestack. Not quite black is it?
Additionally, I have examined other sunset photos. Applying the same adjustment layer to them yields the same results — what appears to be a greyscale image. That is because it is the reds and yellows that are dominant in the image.
So, no, neither you nor the author have proved that this is a retouched, colorized greyscale image. The only thing you are doing is hurling about a baseless accusations which reflect poorly upon the work to expose the AGW fraud.
Flat grey light will reflect from flat grey objects of whatever tone. Flat grey will also result from (as you did) desaturating the dominant colors of the photograph.
Grab a few sunset shots that don't have strong blue areas present and see for yourself.
Exactly. Inventing a convoluted, and incorrect, theory of Ps manipulation to explain a perfectly ordinary sunset photograph of a smokestack distracts and detracts from the serious issues at stake.
Apparently they are subject to misinterpretation, as the article and your article illustrate.
You have fallen into the same error as many of the climate scientists: you are only looking for data which support your hypothesis rather than seeking (as scientists should) to falsify it. That error is called "confirmation bias."
Examine more photographs having similar characteristics (e.g. sunset-time photos with strongly dominant orange-shifted lighting). See the results.
That's the precise reason the tint is needed (and also the darkening of the smokestack itself) was deemed necessary by the retoucher. Regarding the color of the plumes, all of this was colored by hand with one shade of orange. The irrefutable proof of this is the grayscale values in the smokestack itself. The retoucher didn't realize that the orange also needed to be added to this as well. The complete lack of any color hue or tint and a perfectly even RGB values are indeed the "smoking gun". We've also isolated just the painting that the retoucher did and this may soon be presented in a follow-up post. THANKS for commenting!
"who cares about a bunch of photoshop dweebs doctoring photos?"
The average person might be indifferent, but others think it is highly unethical to distribute an illustration under the banner of news.
I'm not joking. I also appreciate your comments. They do, though, reveal the level of knowledge you possess regarding how images are digitally processed in Photoshop. I hear you regarding the lighting if this was a color photograph taken at sunset. It is not. The original image was an even grayscale black-and-white original. At some point in the production of this image, all the hue color data was shed. This is exactly why the readings inside the smokestack are at exactly matching numbers of red green and blue.
We also have isolated the hand-tinted painting the retoucher did and it is all in one precise shade of orange. This is also easily obtained by others by going into LAB mode instead of RGB mode in Photoshop. This is the easiest way to isolate a single tone, which the orange is. Thanks again for your comments. I'd be happy to further elaborate.
Hehe, now the ad-hominem rolls out. Perform your exact same hue/saturation adjustment layer upon any sunset-time photograph with similar colors and tones. You will get the same result.
I lived near one coal power plant & worked in a district with 2 coke plants & one of the largest blast furnace, as well as, one of the largest basic oxygen furnaces in the world (both are used to make iron & steel). When we would see smoke that color coming out of the stacks, all the area fire houses, EMS & police went on stand-by automatically because something went seriously wrong.
I’m no rocket scientist, but aren’t the giant plumes of “smoke” from a modern coal-fired plant more steam than anything else? Isn’t coal exhaust black-ish?
Secondly, if this is an un-photoshopped photo, the coloring appears to the untrained eye to be a photograph taken around dawn or dusk.
Just my $.02
near me (south of Asheville, NC) there's a coal-fired plant that has its own lake just for cooling. they have bass tourneys on it in the winter. and yeah, the plant makes huge vapor clouds but almost no smoke.
a few years ago someone commented about how ugly it is out on its island. i told them that to me it represented much of what's right with this country. that without power, we're nothing. while i don't want to see one everywhere i look, i find much to admire and marvel at our nation's generating stations.
And water vapor is, uh, vaporized water. Water credits, anybody?
Isn't it time to tie in photos of Somali children with bloated bellies with man made global warming? Surely there is a governmental ad agency that can do that.
colorized or not, the photo was deliberately used to present a biased image to the public. i don't really care how it got that way, using a misleading shot of a steam plume to make a case against pollution is wrong.
"the coloring appears to the untrained eye to be a photograph taken around dawn or dusk."
That was probably part of the intent. The point is moot though, whether they were recreating pollution or sunset or both, the point is that they colorized it from greyscale, which is fine for an illustration but not a news photo.
Frankly they can colorize it green with dripping blood for I care, but then please call it an illustration, not a news photo. One way is ethical, the other is not.
Unfortunately, this article is based upon an erroneous assumption about the photograph and about how light (and Photoshop) work.
This is quite easily illustrated by applying the same Hue/Saturation adjustment layer the author used on the photograph in the article to these photographs, which I located via Google Image Search:
http://images-3.redbubble.net/img/art/size:large/...
http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/sunset-or...
http://raising.deavalon.com/avalon_fiji_sunset_or...
As you can see, this produces the same "proof" of an original greyscale image that the author claims to have found in his article. Are we to believe, then, that three randomly Googled sunset photos were also greyscale images which were later colored?
I call upon the author of this article to admit the error of his assumptions and methodology and to withdraw this article. It distracts and detracts from the yeoman work Breitbart is doing to unmask the AGW fraud.
Andrew, they did no such thing. Your theory does not hold up upon examination.
You are correct that the image we are drawing attention to looks like magic-hour, but it is not.
Your samples help prove our point. Take a look at the sky in your shots versus the sky in the shot we are examining. See any differences? You should.
Also, our beef is less with the AGW issue, and more with the journalistic issue. Dress a pig up like a prostitute if you want, but don't go around claiming she's actually a dog. Colorize a photo if you want, but then sell it as an illustration and not as a news photo.
Thanks for your extremely thoughtful attention to this anyway Anonymous Too. You are completely entitled to your opinion, even though we disagree with it.
No need for you to retract your rebuttal, and I wouldn't hold your breath for a retraction from us without proof that this photo has not been doctored. That would be very easy to confirm if AP made the original image available.
Until then, we will rely on our years of experience with how pixels are manipulated, and the evidence we presented in this post.
One click with photoshop is all it takes… I remember during the OJ Simpson trial a major magazine decided to doctor his photo…there was an uproar. It's sad when news agencies need to change an image to match their bias…a picture is worth a thousand words.
Again, I agree with you. I put the pictures in photoshop and did the eyedropper thing. In that kind of light, the sky would gray out. When I did the eyedropper on the area of the sky that was supposed to be uncolored, it still had some orange tint. The thing that puzzles me about this whole thesis is why go to the trouble of making a black and white photo (are we to believe it's an old one? or that somebody went to the trouble of taking a black and white digital image?) all orangy. It's not like putting an extra explosion in the sky or an extra mistress in Tiger Woods' driveway. What on earth would it prove? I'm with you. There are plenty of things to get them on. This isn't one of them.
Dear Anonymous Too,
I'd like to weigh in here because I believe you have incorrectly indicted the author. I have followed his instructions and generated the same results – results which your provided examples fail to reproduce. I created a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer for the original AP photo and completely de-saturated the reds and yellows. If you examine the RGB data with the resulting image, you will find that every single pixel has equal values for R, G, and B. Dissimilarly, apply the same adjustment layer to the photo at this link (one of yours) and examine the RGB data:
http://pig.sty.nu/Pictures/misc/misc-clouds/half_...
Some random RGB readings: 53,51,64; 33,40,37; 36,34,45; 59,53,56.
I have yet to find a single pixel that does not have equal data for R, G, and B values in the AP shot. It is possible they are there, and if I had all night, I might even find one. But even if you can produce a few, there ought to be hundreds and hundreds of them if the photo captured natural lighting.
I think you owe Mr. Marcus an apology.
Anonymous Too, the images you supplied are excellent. I appreciate your input and the supplied images because they do greatly assist the reader in comprehending why we can prove the AP image has been manipulated. I'm also replying in stages because the response is too long to post as 1 comment.
I've taken each image you supplied and I"ve saved a layered Photoshop version of each file. On top I have placed the Hue/Sat adjustment layer on and have pulled down the saturation of the Yellows and the Reds down to zero. At first glance, they appear to bring all the values to an even level of grayscale exactly as you state but here is the critical difference, the RGB numbers DO NOT maintain uniformity in the blacks. Methodical, steady sweeping of the cursor or eyedropper reveals this.. This is confirming that the images you supplied indeed do have hues (particularly in dark tones) that are present and that cannot be removed completely by pulling down the reds and yelllows. Again, this is proof that the images you supplied are indeed full color images and are not tinted neutral grayscales. Even the image you supplied of the sky with the green band in the middle, which does indeed go to pure gray RGB in the sky, does ALSO have color data in the blacks that DOES NOT stay a uniformly identical RGB value. Again, this is irrefutable proof that the photos that you supplied indeed are full color images.
Here's part 2
I can totally understand your skepticism. Particularly when the test of your sky band with the green is performed but even in this image, methodical analysis reveals where the Red & Yellow Hue/Sat move cannot bring substantial portions of the dark areas to a uniform gray. Proof of color data in the areas other than red and yellow.
What I will also do with the images you've supplied is an HSB analysis which which will show how wide of a color range is present in the skies compared with the doctored AP image. Remember that we have also stated that there are other tests that will reveal that the orange painted color added by AP is a very uniform shade of orange and is a single, painted hue. Each of your supplied images are IDEAL for demonstrating this, perfectly.
and part 3
Anonymous Too, I am being completely sincere when I say that you're feedback in invaluable and you're counter argument is very compelling. This is invaluable to the reader. Many thanks.
What must also be kept in mind is that without ANY adjustments being made, The Associated Press left the most damning and irrefutable evidence in the smokestack. As your images clearly show, in the natural world, particularly in an outdoor, ambient light scenario, a smokestack will NEVER be a perfectly neutral shade of gray with absolutely zero tinting of a cool color or warm color. A blue sky will tint a neutral gray with blue. The same thing will happen with a red sunset. THIS is why I will gladly perform any test you request because this the one area that can only be achieved by a complete desaturation of the parent image before color tinting, or the use of a grayscale image as the basis for the manipulated image. THANK YOU, Anonymous Too.
Please pardon the multiple posts. I was getting Timing Out messages due to the length and they were not appearing. Much appreciated.
arby, this is no stretch. This is deliberate, manipulation of a photograph to convey a dire image that is not based in reality. I appreciate the feedback, but this in many ways is equally damning as falsified scientific data. In this instance, the misinformation is coming from a supplier of purported news images from a major media source.
The photograph from the article also had blacks that were not perfectly uniform, as I pointed out in one of my other comments.
My images most emphatically do not show that a grey smokestack will "NEVER" show up grey. Nor does a blue sky necessarily add a blue tint to things; that depends on the white balance setting a) on the camera or b) as applied/corrected in the image.
Your assumptions are again false.
Yes, there are many pixels in the AP image that have non uniform RGB values. I pointed out some of the areas in my other comments: the hut on the side of the stack, the black collar at the top of the stack. Look also at the geese.
Your argument is basically "I don't have time to thoroughly examine the evidence, but it 'ought to' be true".
Hmmm….
No problem, I've been getting them too…
ROFL darn those astronauts and NASA creating such a powerful pollutant!
Chimpanzees do this as well.
Sir, a basic understanding of how Photoshop distributes a perfectly neutral (not warm or cool) RGB grayscale image into precisely even shades of gray is all that's needed. This is not opinion, it's how this software recreates color. The AP retoucher was sloppy and left ample evidence that cannot be refuted. You're own tests have confirmed this. You provided an IDEAL example with the three photos you supplied, and you have readily emphasized this, that when you completely and artificially removed the color saturation from an RGB image, the resulting RGB values are all identical – PRECISELY like the ENTIRE area of the smokestack. No, this does not happen in a natural photo and you are well aware of this. Thank you, again, for confirming the true nature of the fictitious image that the AP got caught manipulating.
Precisely.
[...] post: Big Government » Blog Archive » AP Global Warming Fauxtography? By admin | category: direct, global direct | tags: are-used, background, [...]
Anonymous, no ad hominem at all and the other readers won't detect it either. In all seriousness, you are assisting us in proving our point. Here's an opportunity for you. If the perfectly neutral grayscale values in the smokestack, (EACH PIXEL, btw, having the odds of being that exact value are at 1 in 65,536), explain again how this unnaturally neutral value is ignoring all ambient light around it and also is STILL a perfect grayscale range- even in the darker painted area of the smokestack? The change in paint color alone WILL cause some form of a tint to emerge in the grayscale values. As will the fresnel effect of reflected values around a curves surface such as the smokestack. Your explanation for this is?
Folks, let's not forget that in addition to the tests that we are discussing, this image also yields damning information when analyzed in the LAB color space as well as an unnaturally limited palette of orange (more evidence of one color painted in varying levels of transparency) when viewing the shade of orange in HSB. Anonymous, if we start looking at the other color photos of this facility and the smokestacks turn out not to be gray but another color, your argument collapses completely.
(Part 2 of 2) My point is this: I had to SEARCH for pixels in the AP image that did not have equal R, G, and B values. I did not have to search with the photos you offered as a retort – no search was necessary because they are all over the image, i.e., they are not exceptional. And so my original observation holds – that the evidence you offer as a retort actually does more to support the author's argument than your counter-argument. Anybody with Photoshop and who knows what they are doing will be able to make the same observations. The problem, of course, is that most people do not have Photoshop and have no idea what the heck any of us are talking about. That your attempt to discredit this article may be successful with non-experts is something of a concern to me. Again, I think you should re-examine the images you have put forth as examples and offer an apology to the author.
Anonymous, define flat grey light. Any outdoor image will have ambient tint from (primarily) whatever hue the sky is at the time, whether blue, reddish sunset or completely overcast. Keep in mind, also, that overcast grey is not perfectly neutral and will never appear in a digitized photograph at exact, to-the-number levels of red, green and blue. There WILL be an influencing hue that will change one of the 3 core colors of RGB.
Agreed. Thankfully, it's easy now to catch clumsy and deceptive photo attempts using the very same Photoshop.
Several photos of the Jeffrey Energy Center exist and are readily available both on Google and Bing. Anyone care to post a link to one so that we can see how the color of the smokestacks holds up by being precisely even matching numbers of R, G and B? Any photo will do. Some are cooler, some are warmer but exactly zero will be at the precise shade of gray that Anonymous insists will exist and a color photograph.
Whats all the commotion about any ways ? We are all going to DIE one day. I just hope all you have asked for forgiveness from our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ ! MERRY CHRISTMAS to everyone and to all a GOOD NIGHT ! For G-D is Master over all things Evil .
OK, Andrew, you have left the path of wisdom. You are not looking at the facts and then drawing conclusions, you are making assumptions and then interpreting information through the filter of your assumptions.
You have advanced the hypothesis that the photo is a greyscale image that has been colorized. The burden is upon you to prove your hypothesis. This you have not done. Your method can be applied to any similar photograph and come up with the same result. Thus, your method does not constitute proof of your hypothesis. It's just that simple.
What, you want more clouds in a photo? OK, here are some more photos that your methodology "proves" are actually colorized greyscale images:
http://cosmos2.ed.shikoku-u.ac.jp/~takeichi/rimag...
http://photos.paulschedler.net/Photos/d/3/4/d3420...
http://pig.sty.nu/Pictures/misc/misc-clouds/half_...
As far as journalism goes, what about your responsibility to the truth? When you level charges based upon a theory which does not hold up, and which you have not adequately tested, are you fulfilling that responsibility?
Andrew, your theory and evidence do not withstand scrutiny and they reflect poorly upon this site.
Anonymous Too, the images you supplied are excellent. I appreciate your input and the supplied images because they do greatly assist the reader in comprehending why we can prove the AP image has been manipulated.
I've taken each image you supplied and I"ve saved a layered Photoshop version of each file. On top I have placed the Hue/Sat adjustment layer on and have pulled down the saturation of the Yellows and the Reds down to zero. At first glance, they appear to bring all the values to an even level of grayscale exactly as you state but here is the critical difference, the RGB numbers DO NOT maintain uniformity in the blacks. Methodical, steady sweeping of the cursor or eyedropper reveals this.. This is confirming that the images you supplied indeed do have hues (particularly in dark tones) that are present and that cannot be removed completely by pulling down the reds and yelllows. Again, this is proof that the images you supplied are indeed full color images and are not tinted neutral grayscales. Even the image you supplied of the sky with the green band in the middle, which does indeed go to pure gray RGB in the sky, does ALSO have color data in the blacks that DOES NOT stay a uniformly identical RGB value. Again, this is irrefutable proof that the photos that you supplied indeed are full color images.
I can totally understand your skepticism. Particularly when the test of your sky band with the green is performed but even in this image, methodical analysis reveals where the Red & Yellow Hue/Sat move cannot bring substantial portions of the dark areas to a uniform gray. Proof of color data in the areas other than red and yellow.
What I will also do with the images you've supplied is an HSB analysis which which will show how wide of a color range is present in the skies compared with the doctored AP image. Remember that we have also stated that there are other tests that will reveal that the orange painted color added by AP is a very uniform shade of orange and is a single, painted hue. Each of your supplied images are IDEAL for demonstrating this, perfectly.
Anonymous Too, I am being completely sincere when I say that you're feedback in invaluable and you're counter argument is very compelling. This is invaluable to the reader. Many thanks.
What must also be kept in mind is that without ANY adjustments being made, The Associated Press left the most damning and irrefutable evidence in the smokestack. As your images clearly show, in the natural world, particularly in an outdoor, ambient light scenario, a smokestack will NEVER be a perfectly neutral shade of gray with absolutely zero tinting of a cool color or warm color. A blue sky will tint a neutral gray with blue. The same thing will happen with a red sunset. THIS is why I will gladly perform any test you request because this the one area that can only be achieved by a complete desaturation of the parent image before color tinting, or the use of a grayscale image as the basis for the manipulated image. THANK YOU, Anonymous Too.
Did you know that water vapor is FULL of Dihydrogen Monoxide? The water vapor coming out of those towers is like, totally comprised of it! DHMO causes an untold number of deaths each year – you can DIE just from INHALING it!
But I guess you just don't care about that. You probably hate the Earth, too.
The location of the highlight in the image, suggests an extremely low angle of the sun, and generally when the sun is that low, the colour of the light tends to shift towards the red end of the spectrum… just a thought.
Ow my sides. Stop it. That's too true!
(Part 1 of 2) Well, that wasn't exactly my argument – but you make a decent point, and so I have taken the time (time that might have otherwise been spent sleeping) and searched and found that you are correct – there are, indeed, pixels that do not have equal R, G, and B data in the AP image. And this possibility, perhaps you will be kind enough to acknowledge, is something that I had already conceded. The greater point, Anonymous Too, is that the frequency at which these pixels appear is suspicious, at best (my guess, and I will concede this is a guess, is that these very few pixels are the result of compression artifacting).
So my teapot can kill me? Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! And the sauna! Om dear, the very device that Danes, Swedea and Norwegians and Greenlanders and ICelanders credit for their good health and longevity can kill them! Somebody better get amemo to Barry while he's still there to keep out of the saunas!
MHO… weak claim. The photo doesn't look bad to me. Likely a dusk photo or something… maybe hue/saturation adjustment. Looks kinda cool.
I think there are bigger fish to fry out there, instead of a possibly color enhanced photo. If they increased the size of the 'smoke'/water vapor… that would be different… or if they added dying geese…
Thorien – So my teapot can kill me? Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! And the sauna! Om dear, the very device that Danes, Swedea and Norwegians and Greenlanders and ICelanders credit for their good health and longevity can kill them! Somebody better get a memo to Barry while he's still there to keep out of the saunas!
DiHydrogen Monoxide = H2O dipstick!
i want to thank you and the others for taking the time to debate this.
as a non pro photographer and tecnology handicaped
i, as most of us i am sure,need to make our decisions based on the
available data we recieve from news and articles such as this.
you all have made compelling cases now i need to try and keep my own bias
aside and decide.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR ADDING ONE MORE THING
TO MY ALREADY OVERLOADED BRAIN CELLS.
No, it's an oompa-loompa skin care product line.
That's why the railroads stopped using steam at the end of WWII.
You mean we have been manipulated by media, government, business and science for money and idealism? What a shocker. I guess this demonstrates how stupid and gullible Americans really are… should have been home schooled maybe that way you could tell when your being fed a s_ _ t sandwich. Public schools sure aren't going to teach scientific method. They're too busy pushing the GLTG and pre teen sex agenda for that.
Adding false color to a black and white underlying image (and a deliberately warmer shade) isn't ethical journalist practice. More updates are coming on this and others are now analyzing the AP's photo as well. If I hadn't caught them modifying an image back in 2001, I wouldn't find it as objectionable. This is direct evidence of the media also pumping up the alarm attempt with global warming and they are failing badly. Here's the link to the piece in The Chicago Reader regarding the other doctored AP photo that ran in The Chicago Sun Times. Thanks for your comments.
Adding false color to a black and white underlying image (and a deliberately warmer shade) isn't ethical journalist practice. More updates are coming on this and others are now analyzing the AP's photo as well. If I hadn't caught them modifying an image back in 2001, I wouldn't find it as objectionable. This is direct evidence of the media also pumping up the alarm attempt with global warming and they are failing badly. Here's the link to the piece in The Chicago Reader regarding the other doctored AP photo that ran in The Chicago Sun Times. Thanks for your comments.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/how-to-move-...
Yeah, it's not right to doctor the photo like that, but there's bigger deceits afoot. That's all I'm saying.
Your link is a good article, but there's no photo…?
Thanks for your comments.
Possible black and white version??
http://www.durangoherald.com/sections/News/2009/0...
justme, many thanks. This news article contains a black and white edition of the same core image – not necessarily, but likely, having the AP-supplied image as it's parent. More PROOF that the AP image has been colorized is available in the image to the story you linked. Note that the image file "0628CLIMATE.jpg" when opened in Photoshop is an RGB image and is has IDENTICAL, even levels of all RGB values for the gray EXACTLY like AP's color version. PROOF, again that the AP supplied version is a color-tinted enhancement of an initial zero-saturation RGB image. Very helpful. Much appreciated.
This is technically not a "smokestack", more of a "steamstack". Note the very white color of the emissions at the neck of the stack. This picture was taken in the winter when the steam would have been most noticeable. From the Westar Energy website:
Scrubber Project Facts:
* Investment of $460 million dollars
* Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions reduced by 95+%
* Co-benefit mercury emissions reduced by 25+%
* Co-benefit particulate matter reduced by 20+%
* ~1,343 tons of structural steel
* ~475 tons of grating, handrails, platforms, etc.
* 10,497 cubic yards of concrete used.
* 850 contractors on site at one time.
* More than 2,800,000 total man-hours worked to date.
How is it, then, that when we take this AP image: http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2009/06/28/alg_... apply a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer and setting Master Saturation to -100 and Master Lightness to +10, we get the same image and same tonality as the Durango Herald B&W version of the photo?
Shall we believe that we have found another colorized version of the B&W, or is it more likely that the Durango Herald did a very simple B&W conversion on the photo they ran?
Seriously, the contortions required to support your theory make it increasingly unlikely.
For another example, take the color AP photo I linked to; make the B&W conversion layer invisible and add a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer as follows:
Master Lightness: +10
Cyans Saturation: -100 (gets rid of the scraps of blue sky — there's the dishonesty in the photo)
OK, now see how close we've come to the AP photo you cite in the story? Add a some levels / curves adjustments, maybe a little burning, and there you go.
That's a lot more straightforward and believable than suggesting someone went to the effort of colorizing a B&W image — especially when AP has the color photo readily available. (In fact, the photo run by the NY Daily News is itself cropped from the original AP photo.) Why would understaffed journalists go to the all the unnecessary effort to color a B&W photo when the same result can be achieved in minutes from an existing color photo?
Also, using all-caps to shout "PROOF" and "EXACTLY", etc, is the equivalent of shouting. "Proof by vigorous assertion" is not a valid logical method.
So my teapot can kill me? Lions and tigers and bears, oh my! And the sauna! Om dear, the very device that Danes, Swedea and Norwegians and Greenlanders and ICelanders credit for their good health and longevity can kill them! Somebody better get amemo to Barry while he's still there to keep out of the saunas!
DiHydrogen Monoxide = H2O dipstick
i want to thank you and the others for taking the time to debate this.
as a non pro photographer and tecnology handicaped
i, as most of us i am sure,need to make our decisions based on the
available data we recieve from news and articles such as this.
you all have made compelling cases now i need to try and keep my own bias
aside and decide.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR ADDING ONE MORE THING
TO MY ALREADY OVERLOADED BRAIN CELLS.
I'd agree with ANONYMOUS TOO that this is a late day photo that has had some work done to it to make it look more sinister. What really makes me mad is that the eco-fascists re-purpose innocent photos like this (simple steam emissions) or that of polar bears simply swimming or frolicking in the sea as how the earth is dying at the hand of man. The propaganda arm of the eco-fascist movement is pretty sharp and a force to fear wehn the truth is at stake.
What we're arguing about here is not a matter of IF but HOW. The HOW may be as you say, but the IF is still fact. The color of this image was definitely doctored. I don't care if they did it by painting as I said or having the saturation removed as you say, or if it was even done with crayons. It's fine for an illustration, but completely unethical for a news photograph.
Ummmm I am pretty sure that was sarcasm Thorien was using there Gorio….
How is lightening the photo evidence that it was darkened?
Also, you missed a spot:
http://deus-ex-machinima.net/dr/bs.jpg
I am pretty sure you're right.
Heheheheheheh……
I appreciate your willingness to admit that; devotion to the truth must be the rock upon which we stand.
Probably the best thing would be to update the article to reflect our understanding of the type of manipulation that was likely done to the photograph.
The (mis-)use of photographs (and video) to influence attitudes is a serious issue that is worthy of exposure [that was uncalled-for -- ed], and I encourage you to keep at it.
You said it, G! I happen to enjoy photographing industrial scenes (as well as nature and wildlife), and I've found myself frequently re-thinking shots because of how I feared the photo would be twisted and manipulated into something else. The thought of having my work used to attack the very values that make my life and work possible makes me quite furious, too.
"1) Add a “Hue/Sat” adjustment layer directly above the original jpeg.
2) Drop the saturation percentage for both the Yellows and Reds Edit category down to zero.
Note how the image is now a perfectly even balance of the Red Green and Blue."
Actually, 1.4% of the pixels do not have an even balance of Red, Green and Blue when you do that.
If perform the same method on the following picture, only 0.08% of the pixels have an even balance. That makes it 17.5 times more likely to be an original greyscale right?
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1525/Pre...
Excuse me, only 0.08% of the pixels DO NOT have an even balance
Maybe this will help. Not only did I desaturate the red and yellow channels 100% once, I did it twice. Then I changed all of the pixels that are not the same value to red. Note there is one in the bright area.
http://deus-ex-machinima.net/dr/dif_pics.jpg
PS, if you want to see if a picture is colorized, it's best to make a color layer mask of the photo over a 50% grey background. Just saying….
They could send a bunch of overpaid actors in space shuttles to blow it up…I know it can be done cuz I saw it on T.V…….
so, hows that obama thing working for ya
dihydrogen monoxide gas!!!!! Oh no!!!!!!!
I'm a professional photographer who takes nature photos as a hobby, and I've taken similar late-evening cloud photos in real life. That doesn't mean the AP doesn't manipulate photos, just that sometimes nature is pretty surreal without needing to resort to Photoshop. That photo of doctored smoke rising over a Palestinian city has made people skitchy. I'm willing to give the AP a pass this time.
Anonymous, I agree with you. Your tests absolutely are causing me to rethink one conclusion I was making (the image being a grayscale image with painted orange). Seriously, man. I appreciate it and I respect you're Photoshop knowledge. I say this, because you got me to see that there's a very real (and more logical, and quicker to produce, possibility) of how the smokestack body got to pure grayscale as a result of pulling back of cooler hues throughout the image to get to a pure orange photograph. I agree completely. Clearly, it does still remain evident that the AP made some type of dishonest manipulation that resulted in the complete removal of color saturation in the body of the smokestack (this also includes any orange which would still be there in slight amounts). The proof (still proof, despite not using all caps : ) ) that does remain is the smokestack lack of color is exactly the same as the grayscale RGB Durango Herald image. My point in saying exact is that some folks were implying that a pure digital RGB grayscale value is possible in nature and it is not. Matching a grayscale RGB version with no hue value whatsoever in the AP piece is still damning evidence (and proof) that the image was manipulated unnaturally.
Anonymous Too, the post has been updated. Thanks again for your input.
Really? A modification of hue/sat falls under the category of a doctored photo now?
That's REALLY grasping at straws. I'd rank this article under the header of creating news out of nothing. Far worse a sin than changing the hue/sat in a photo to boost the colours a bit.
This screen cap contains more photos of the same scene. Do you still want to maintain the photo was "doctored" and colorized in some global warming conspiracy effort?
http://members.cox.net/donkiyoti/Picture%2015.jpg
I could be paddling a rowboat down Market Street in San Francisco after the poles have melted, and there will still be conservative fanatics who deny that humans are responsible for Global Warming or that it is even real. I invite you to my web-pages devoted to raising awareness on this urgent issue: http://pltcldscsn.blogspot.com/2009/12/conservati...
To be clear up front, I don't in any way agree with with doctoring photos (especially journalistic photos.) I also don't know this photographer so I have no way of know his or her intention. All I am saying is that I've taken a lot of photos at this time of day and once the sun starts setting below the horizon, the light acts much more like a spotlight. The fact is you can see the light hitting the sides of the clouds, smoke, smokestack that is facing the direction of the light. The grey area's fall behind the surfaces being lit and it does not look out of character when compared to photos i've taken and seen. NOW… I wouldn't be surprised if the shot was given more contrast and hightened saturation but I don't believe the color was added to a B+W original.
dunno
It's obviously taken at sunset. You can see how low the Sun is by the way the light is coming in from the side. Sunsets register orange- problem solved. No need to over-complicate things. Looks like water vapor. Everything is not a conspiracy- choose battles that matter.
Pretty interesting article. Couldn’t of written any better. Reading this post reminds me of my old friend. He always kept talking about this. I will send this post to him. Pretty sure he will have a good chuckle. Thanks for sharing!
You must be logged in to post a comment.