You should read this!

[MichaelHarris]

Listen I don't really care either way about this baby crap. What I do care about is lying and deception, I hate that shit. Right now there are low post people running around here posting images of this Palin person showing she was pregnant. I'm a photographer, I know what EXIF data is. EXIF data is the information stored in a digital image that shows exposure, DATE, time, what kind of camera, stuff like that. In every one of these photos I've "examined" the data was either stripped out or wrong. By wrong I mean someone says, "Look at this photo from 2008 showing her all fat and stuff" and the image has a date from a couple of years ago. Why are there people coming here lying? Just download a free EXIF analyzer program and just start checking the images, the one post where someone says his wife took a shot is an example, the data was removed, tampered with. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6859476

Don't let them tell you it's film either because at some point the film was scanned and then it would still show date, time, and scanner type/brand.

[leftofcool]

1. You and a billion other people know what EXIF data is.............your point?

[Fleshdancer]

2. I thought the point was obvious

The link in the OP includes a photo that was stripped of its data. :shrug:

[MichaelHarris]

6. my point is

obvious, people are coming here posting photos in which the EXIF data has been removed. I've posted tens of thousands of photos and I've never removed that data. Why is it being removed by the newbies coming here? When you post an image do you take the time to remove that data?

[leftofcool]

9. Depends on what I want to do with the photo

[MichaelHarris]

10. OK

[druidity33]

15. as a semi-pro

photographer... never, ever, ever do i remove or change EXIF data.

I have a bootleg copy of an image editing program which shall not be named... and people can tell it's a bootleg if they know where to look, but i've never bothered to hide that.

I agree. Absolutely NO REASON to hide those figures unless someone is HIDING SOMETHING.

:shrug:

[SoCalDem]

16. what do they look like?? are they coded into the photo itself?

:shrug:

[MichaelHarris]

25. Here is a very good

program http://www.opanda.com/en/iexif/ It shows a lot of info. Play around with it with some of your shots and you'll see tons of stuff.

[druidity33]

27. text data

It's embedded data. Basically a string of text lines that tell you things like what the exposure was, what the shutter speed was, ISO, White Balance, etc. It's really just a way for photographers to see what went right (or wrong) with the shot. Obviously, the date the shot was taken is part of that data. But if the date is set wrong on your camera, the EXIF data will look fine... ie. no manipulation. It's easy to fake dates with a camera... just change the date in camera. It's only if you alter it after the shot was taken will someone be able to tell.


:shrug:

[MichaelHarris]

28. I can't find one

online photo of this woman that hasn't been cleaned of the EXIF data. You can't possible establish a timeline of the images because no dates exist. I didn't care about this story but I have to admit this is weird.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

31. What's your point in being deliberately obtuse?

[MichaelHarris]

33. I think

he hates research, or he is a very secretive human being.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

35. She was VERY disruptive during the primaries...

[MichaelHarris]

37. I don't know her

but she seemed miffed by the EXIF question.

[Matariki]

56. And questions about Palin's post water-break plane ride.

:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

3. good catch

I believe everything and I believe nothing when it comes to an event like this.

I accept that everything presented may be true, but I accept that it may be part of a clever attempt at misdirection or deceit.

There are a lot of people here the past two days intent on stopping any inquiry of this story. Some are simply well meaning fools, but some are here to try to stop the story because they're agents of the GOP.

[Matariki]

57. Yep. Lots of people with a couple of posts in the past couple days

like they only came here over the question of Palin's pregnancy.

[SoCalDem]

4. I wish you would post the correct dates for us all

The photos I grabbed were tagged by either Yahoo or Google or the person posting them,. but I don;t have an exit thingie so I have no proof positive of dates..

It would do us all a favor if you could do that :) and repost them with that data :)

[MichaelHarris]

7. that's the weird thing

there is no data, it's been removed. Someone just posted another photo showing her sort of fat-looking but the data has also been removed. Firefox has a EXIF plugin that's the easiest to use.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3905

[SoCalDem]

8. Can you tell on this one?

But maybe it's gone because I did a save as..and I did crop it

I was afraid (with good reason) that they would remove or alter these pics

It was purported to have been taken in Feb of 08 in Wasilla

The lack of foliage on the trees and the lightweight coats convinced me that it was a warmish sunny day in Feb

[MichaelHarris]

11. working on it

having a spot of trouble downloading it. As soon as I can run it through my program I'll post the results.

[MichaelHarris]

12. well

Unable to extract some or all of the Exif data. That could be the website it's posted on stripped it. That doesn't happen often but it does happen. Is there an original posted somewhere?

[SoCalDem]

14. Found it.. BUT it's from the state site which was "cleaned" the other day

[MichaelHarris]

17. I just went through

about 200 Google images of this women with the search string being Sarah Palin pregnant and not only did I NOT find a photo showing her pregnant all of the photos I found associated with that time frame had all the EXIF info missing. Maybe the EXIF viewer is goofed up but this is weird. I'm one of those don't care guys when it comes to this story but I'm starting to care.

[SoCalDem]

19. That's what piqued MY interest at first too

WHY did the state of Alaska pull down their site and remove, scrub, whatever ALL the pictures and events calendars for the governor..]What are they hiding..?

Seems like a small local thing that nobody cared much about was about to go global on them, and they had to cover their tracks.. (no pun intended)

That site had mostly links that went nowhere, after being fully functional the day before..

[SoCalDem]

21. Many pics came from here..but this site was "killed" too

http://gov.state.ak.us/archive-54464.html

[MichaelHarris]

24. I just ran every photo of her

I could find through 4 different EXIF programs. On every single one of them the data was scrubbed off. Maybe the websites where they are posted do it but I just don't know.

[SoCalDem]

26. Here's a test for you.. try Frank Murkowski

see if the data is there for him..

[MichaelHarris]

18. The program says

Handling APPx (0xe0) block.
Handling APPx (0xec) block.
Handling APPx (0xee) block.
End of APPx data blocks reached.
Status = 0

Unable to extract some or all of the Exif data.

I'll keep digging

[Wilber_Stool]

54. Just checked it with

my new FireFox plugin and it said the alternate text was missing.

[crispini]

5. You should post this in GD: P

Lots of debunking via questionable photos.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks a photo proves anything, anyway.... just wear a baby "bump," easy enough to do.

[MichaelHarris]

13. It's a good story

for some I guess, I'm just finding it weird that every photo dealing with this woman has the info missing. I went to all the sites where my work is and all my EXIF data shows up.

[Fumesucker]

20. I run any image I post to the net through Paintshop Pro and compress it..

I just looked on my HD and every image I've done that to has no EXIF data..

The EXIF is definitely there on my original images, but not on the ones I have compressed.

This could be an innocent explanation for missing EXIF data.

[MichaelHarris]

30. that has to be it

I know in Photoshop you can save for web and it strips a lot of FXIF data out

[MichaelHarris]

34. I wonder if

batch jobs can be set to strip the info out to make a smaller online file? I do know in PhotoShop CS2 and 3 if you save for web then a lot of that info is removed.

[Fumesucker]

42. I have CS2 but almost never use it..

I learned Paintshop first and find it considerably easier to use.. CS2 is like using a howitzer to kill a fly for most of what I do.

It's very rare when I don't manipulate an image somehow before I use it, crop, change contrast, brightness, sharpen, denoise, compress.

Paintshop has an interactive JPEG compression feature that I use constantly for my web images.

[MichaelHarris]

47. I don't do much

manipulation, especially for my news photos. I can't, that's a hugh no-no. In fact I actually have to add information to the EXIF data for the news agencies. My fine art stuff gets very little manipulation also just cuz I'm all old skool :) You won't see too many unicorns in my landscapes

[Fumesucker]

48. I sell a lot of stuff on ebay and craigslist..

That's where most of my images end up.

I'm going for maximum impact in a very limited environment, particularly so on craigslist.

Speed of download is important in both of those places, people won't wait for large image files to download and there are more people still on dialup than most realize. I try to keep my image files under 100k and preferably under 50k and that requires heavy compression, that's why I really like the interactive JPEG compression in Paintshop, I can see what the compression is doing to my images before I commit to saving them.

[doublethink]

22. Hey Michael I seem to have found the original source .....

to a couple of the pictures in question ..... they were downloaded tonight (well yesterday actually)

here's two links http://www.flickr.com/photos/30076181@N02/2814199887/meta/in/photostream

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30076181@N02/2814979078/meta/in/photostream

The info on the page say they were both taken on March 19 2005 ....... according to the EXIF data ....... but it seems the
original poster is claiming they were taken in the spring of 2008. ????? If ya click on each picture they get larger ... can
you run these through your program and see whats up? Peace ... think I'm ready for a nap ...... will check back in here in a
few hours to see if ya had a chance to check them out.

ps: if the camera wasn't properly set when bought by the consumer ..... (date etc...) could that throw the EXIF date off? Or
is the EXIF calender, timer pre-programed into the camera beforehand so it can't be messed with except when doctoring info
with each image after downloading? Curious.

[SoCalDem]

23. BI-ZARRRRRRRRO.. 2005?? makes NO sense at all

11:29 at NIGHT?? unlikely
unless the camera date was never set..
mine is not ..I don't know how to do it :rofl:

[doublethink]

29. Totally bizzzzzzzzz arro !!! Strange Woman that Palin ..

the more I dwell into all this crap .. and not just this story but her whole freaking closet (skeletons galore) ..... anyway in this picture the guy who posted it claims to be the one gentleman to the far left ..... says it is 'himself' in the caption ..... so this is the closet to the 'source' I came across .... here's that link. Okay time for my nap ... my eyeballs are hurting really bad now !!! Kick these links to anyone in here who knows about these camera EXIF thingys ........ :boring: zzzzzzzzzzzzz :)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30076181@N02/2814979078/in/photostream/

[MichaelHarris]

32. that is one of the

photos someone here is trying to pass off as a recent shot right now. According to your link it was shot in 2005 and not 2008

[NashVegas]

38. That Camera Wasn't Yet On the Market In March 2005

[Kitty Herder]

39. So the date on the camera must have been set wrong?

[MichaelHarris]

43. release was

September 2005, so it just gets weirder. Demo?

[NashVegas]

53. Could Be.

It's been taken off the market, could be a close-out.

[doublethink]

44. Interesting ....... I did find out that the reporter in this picture ....

didn't start working for that station till Oct 2005 so that would make sense. Her name is Andrea Gusty KTVA.

[MichaelHarris]

46. ya know

do you think her hands are on her tummy in that photo? Lets say it is from 2008. I've seen photos claiming to be just a few days on either side of the date this photo was supposed to be taken and she's nowhere near that big.

[doublethink]

50. I've seen those other photos too ...... soooooo

by saying ...... "do I think her hands are on her tummy in that photo" are you asking me if her 'tummy' might be photo-shopped in? Could be but then it would have had to had been photo-shopped into this following one too ..... which looks too real to me ....



I looked up the plaque name on the wall over the shoulder of the guy on the left ... "Rep J Harris" .... and he's been in office since 1998 ... so that didn't help authenticate anything ...... I also made a close up of Sarah Palins face in this picture to a similar pose from another authentic still from the same stated time period this pic was taken earlier this year ..... her neck line in the above picture looks kinda younger ... but that could of just been the lighting. Her eye glasses were similar ..... but not identical, in the other picture her hair was slightly frosted .... but that can be something changed from week to week.

Another possibility which I've found very little information on is that get this ..... which may be the bizzarist theory .... is that 'towns people' up there in Sarah's neighborhood in late 2005 could of swore that she was ...... 'pregnant again' for a few months ???? And that somehow she lost that baby. Sorry got no links on that one ..... just at the 'here-say' stage and really didn't seem pursuing .... All these 2005 dates coming up around this camera and these photos ..... ???? Think I'll go back to pursuing the Troopergate story for awhile .... :)

[shellgame26]

58. EXACTLY

[NashVegas]

36. Michael, What Programs You Use Can Affect That

Until 4 months ago, I was using a Photoshop 3.0 on a 10.2.8 Mac (classic environment).

After converting RAW in other progs, the version of PS I was using stripped all EXIF.

This is an AP photo published on the Oregon Live blog:



http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/03/governor_is_7_months_pregnant.html

AP. And no exif.

Palin is a big red cape designed to make the sexist contingent of Democrats that showed itself to Democratic women this spring, rear its big fat head once again for Republican women - and everyone else - and there's nothing more uniquely feminine to attack about a woman than pregnancy.

[MichaelHarris]

40. I shoot RAW

exclusivly and then convert based on where the image is going. I checked my TIFFs and JPGs that were converted from RAW and they still contain all the EXIF data. The one way I know of is "saving for web" in Photoshop. This new program I found is supoosed to remove it called Opanda but I've never tried it.

I know one poster to this thread said they remove it from time to time but I never do, I really don't have a reason to. For me it's valuable information because I sometimes like to go back and see what lens I used for something. The guys over at Photo.net look at online EXIF data all the time so maybe they know of a better program. I guess I could be going about it all wrong but I haven't found a photo of her yet with EXIF data. I'll question those PNET guys because they know all about that stuff, much better than I do.

[NashVegas]

41. I Understand

You save all that info because you're a pro.

The old version of Photoshop I had didn't save exif at all (it couldn't open RAW anyway). I don't think it's a matter of shooting RAW v .jpg as much as image editing and what program you use.

[MichaelHarris]

45. Good point

I will shoot a few jpgs and tiffs. I use D300s and they can shoot tiffs and jpgs. I'll upload them to my computer and see what info comes with it. I also have older versions of Photoshop so I can mess with that also. I just know I have to be wrong because I'm seeing so many online images without EXIF.

[NashVegas]

51. Is That

Sarcasm?

I just know I have to be wrong because I'm seeing so many online images without EXIF.

Amazon user-submissions for this model:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B0007GIXS8/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_all

[MichaelHarris]

52. Oh no

not at all, I very well could be wrong. I'm checking with some buddies that know a lot more than I do.

[Joanne98]

60. If the PNET guys know something, make sure you come back and tell us, ok?

[nc4bo]

49. Thanks for the advice - didn't know there was a program to do that.

I found one and appreciate your post.

[SoCalDem]

55. Mike PLEASE check this new pic.. It's a goodie

[Fumesucker]

59. Nope, nothing on that one either . n/t