View Full Version : Photo manipulation
On the left is the original photo. On the right is how it appears in Surefire's Combat Tactics magazine. Surefire seems to have edited out the AAC products before publishing it in the magazine they make a huge ad buy for.
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/911/adphotoshoppedxl2.jpg
Seems like we have seen other photos that are not as they appear:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/OJ_Simpson_Newsweek_TIME.png
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/latimes1+2+3.jpg
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/kerryfonda1+2+3.jpg
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/reuters1+3.jpg
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/7562/tikrithaloavatarsmallqi1.jpg
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/sarahpalin1.jpg
Wow, removing the teeth?? That's a new one. I guess finding a picture where the silencer was not present and the flash suppressor was a little less obvious was too difficult :rolleyes:
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/reuters1+3.jpg
I remember when this one was published, the author must be insane if thought he would fool anybody.
VooDoo6Actual
10-31-08, 09:33
good post.
Beware of the manipluations from the writers as well..
Fraud, Obfuscations and Prevarications abound...
And of course this is not possible:
http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o189/hs338lapua/surefire.jpg
Can you explain why this isn't possible? Just curious. And BTW I love Surefire lights, but when I went to purchase a suppressor I bought one of your M4-2000 cans last week before I came back over.
Can you explain why this isn't possible? Just curious. And BTW I love Surefire lights, but when I went to purchase a suppressor I bought one of your M4-2000 cans last week before I came back over.
The gas tube wouldn't last.
Yeah, and the rifle will crap out from being dirty. 50 mags in a row is laughable. A gun magazine should never have reprinted such BS without fact checking.
Yeah, and the rifle will crap out from being dirty. 50 mags in a row is laughable. A gun magazine should never have reprinted such BS without fact checking.
A carbine will blow its barrel in about 20 magazines of continuous full auto fire.
Yeah, and usually the rifle stops working before that. I have not had much luck with more than 12-13 30-round mag-dumps in a row.
Can you explain why this isn't possible?
Colt has done the "fire as many rounds as you can in a row until the gun fails" test on M4 carbines, and they rarely last past about 600 rounds. The barrel becomes so hot and the steel softens to the point that the barrel actually begins to "droop" at the step/cut on the barrel forward of the FSB. This causes the barrel to become obstructed and the gun explodes.
I would imagine that the weight of a can on the end would make this happen even sooner.
Yes, and not just the weight, but the can holds some heat in also. It also raises the cyclic rate.
Yeah, and usually the rifle stops working before that. I have not had much luck with more than 12-13 30-round mag-dumps in a row.
This was the same point that was found to blow on the M4. About 14 to 15 mags thus we have the SOCOM weight barrel now.
20 is the max cuttoff IIRC.
Depends on how fast your magazine changer is.
Interesting. Thanks for the info. My next question is why someone didn't contact Surefire and call bullshit.
VooDoo6Actual
10-31-08, 22:10
Iraqgunz writes:
"My next question is why someone didn't contact Surefire and call bullshit."
Why didn't someone call Bravo Sierra on STRIDER Knives and their Special Operations Combat Vet BS for so long ?
http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies366.htm
Answer:
Because it takes time to catch up, they know they most likely NOT get sued/litigated against and the Advertising/Magazines/Publications KNOW what sells and they know how to OBFUSCATE/PREVARICATE to generate sales etc. and make LOTS of MONEY.
The industry is NOT REGULATED, self policed with NO CONSCIENCE...
FRAUD is RAMPANT in the Mags etc.
Caveat Emptor...
Hop,
Funny you mention Strider. The instructor who taught my SPR Course knows this individual and the subject happened to come up during training. FWIW- he told that he is LEGIT and is a personal friend of his. When I asked why he didn't just clear the air and defend himself he said why should he? Long story short there was some back and forth between us and he was able to make a good case on many points.
Back to the subject at hand. Other suppressor manufacturers I suppose could come out and call a collective BS and then obtain a suppressor in an attempt to replicate their claim. If I was independently wealthy I would do it.
Iraqgunz writes:
"My next question is why someone didn't contact Surefire and call bullshit."
Why didn't someone call Bravo Sierra on STRIDER Knives and their Special Operations Combat Vet BS for so long ?
http://www.pownetwork.org/phonies/phonies366.htm
Answer:
Because it takes time to catch up, they know they most likely get sued/litigated against and the Advertising/Magazines/Publications KNOW what sells and they know how to OBFUSCATE/PREVARICATE to generate sales etc. and make LOTS of MONEY.
FRAUD is RAMPANT in the Mags etc.
Caveat Emptor...
On this test we got 580 rounds before the flash hider failed.
http://www.silencertests.com/albums/Surefire/IMG_8011e.jpg
fire to destruction test of M16A2 rifle & M4A1 carbine barrels (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA317929&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
excerpted from the above linked report:
-rifle barrel went 491 rounds before rupture
-carbine #1 went 540 rounds (they didn't have more ammo loaded); barrel was damaged, but not ruptured.
-carbine #2 went 596 rounds before barrel rupture.
I don't know about that 50 mag back-to-back test...:confused:
What a bunch of ****ing slime balls. I have not ben a huge fan of the product for some time, especialy their cans for some time now. I was around when DHS (BC in particular) got the Surefires for testing. They should not be allowed to be called a suppressor. It may meter as quieter, but it sounds a lot louder and it echos off the canyon walls something fierce. The Tac Inn TAC-16 is a significant amount quieter. And the AAC one officer had was a LOT quieter. For half the money.
What they did here is just shitty and wrong. But it figures.
The spot welds are one reason why it is not as strong as it could be:
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7315/corecutawayslz6.jpg
I like how for the "barrel" they photoshopped in, someone just took the flash hider in the foreground and stretched it out. :D
The spot welds are one reason why it is not as strong as it could be:
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7315/corecutawayslz6.jpg
Where's the bottom of your baffle stack Robert?
Robert- I was more questioning why you left out the lower portion of your suppressor from the pic- the portion that if next to the SF, would stir up quite a few questions:
http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o189/hs338lapua/aac_fully_welded_cores.jpg
And what questions would they stir up?
I don't know Robert. You were the one who removed the portion of your photo that shows an identical blast chamber to that of the SF can you show...
We'd have seen them side by side and seen how identical they were...
We just felt that the idea was to show the difference in assembly and weld quality and that would just be a distraction from the message.
Kind of like your suppressor would be a distraction in that ad that appeared in the magazine? No difference in my mind.
ETA: Just trying to point out it's no big deal to try and remove a distraction from a picture that you are using for a certain reason. It's unfair to compare what was done for that surefire picture to these other hackjobs done for obviously WRONG political reasons, outright lying in most cases. Shame on you for posting that Gemtech pic ;)
Kind of like your suppressor would be a distraction in that ad that appeared in the magazine? No difference in my mind.
They removed accessories from a weapon in a live-action photo used to illustrate a story which was not marked as an advertisement. Ours was an ad and so we have implied creative control. Besides, it was just cropping. They could have cropped out the fronts of the rifles and I would not have said a thing.
I don't like that they modified the picture, but it's to be assumed that SUREFIRE's Combat Tactics is a cover to cover advertisement for Surefire. Let's not kid ourselves.
...it's to be assumed that SUREFIRE's Combat Tactics is a cover to cover advertisement for Surefire. Let's not kid ourselves.
Right.
While leafing through the magazine in a store, I noticed that "entire contents copyright SureFire" or some such statement was on the contents page.
I wouldn't expect to see an AAC can in Surefire's marketing materials.
Right.
While leafing through the magazine in a store, I noticed that "entire contents copyright SureFire" or some such statement was on the contents page.
I wouldn't expect to see an AAC can in Surefire's marketing materials.
They are free to take or find photos that do not include competitor products. It was a pre-existing photo though.
Oh so you look at it like you "marked" your territory? That once your suppressor was on those rifles and in the picture, the picture is yours and can't be touched or used by a competitor?
It is more of an ethics issue. If you take a class in photo editing (I mean to be an Editor for a publication) they will spend some time on it.
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/sarahpalin1.jpg
ETHICS?
Wow.
Quit posting those other stupid pictures. Those pictures were done to make fun of people or exaggerate. SF did not do that to you and your product.
Get over it.
I am sorry that you don't see the ethical issue with what Surefire did, but many others do. We just have different standards.
Yes we definitely do. Others do too.
I'm at a loss to understand the problem here.
Assuming arguendo that SureFire had acquired legal rights to use that photo in its publication, then they can do anything they want to the photo unless the change violates the terms of their license with the original's copyright holder.
The Surefire magalog is an advertising tool, and the fact that many people actually pay for it is just icing on the cake for the company. It's one big advertisement and they can't possibly be expected to publish competitor's products in it.
Glock does the same thing, and S&W will have their first magalog at SHOT Show in January. Hell, a picture I took (and own) was used twice in the Glock Annual without payment or even attribution. Gun companies are just all evil. :p
olds442tyguy
11-22-08, 20:38
Hop,
Funny you mention Strider. The instructor who taught my SPR Course knows this individual and the subject happened to come up during training. FWIW- he told that he is LEGIT and is a personal friend of his. When I asked why he didn't just clear the air and defend himself he said why should he? Long story short there was some back and forth between us and he was able to make a good case on many points.
I lol'd. His whole ordeal started when a guy he did time with called him on his antics after seeing pictures of him online. Were it not for people in the knife world who actually know him from the slammer, no one would know who old Mickey Ray Burger really is.
He did try to defend himself, and one of his long time friends (a police officer who claims to have known him for 20 years) even came to his aide saying "he may be a felon, but he's the only felon I'd ever trust around my kids".
Our conversation was centered more on Duane Dwyer, aka Dwayne Dwyer, aka, etc...We both had our views and that was that. We didn't even get into the whole thing with Mick.
I lol'd. His whole ordeal started when a guy he did time with called him on his antics after seeing pictures of him online. Were it not for people in the knife world who actually know him from the slammer, no one would know who old Mickey Ray Burger really is.
He did try to defend himself, and one of his long time friends (a police officer who claims to have known him for 20 years) even came to his aide saying "he may be a felon, but he's the only felon I'd ever trust around my kids".
olds442tyguy
11-23-08, 15:02
Our conversation was centered more on Duane Dwyer, aka Dwayne Dwyer, aka, etc...We both had our views and that was that. We didn't even get into the whole thing with Mick.
My bad. I've never heard a bad thing about Dwayne.
Go to POWNETWORK.org and type in his name. It will be very interesting to read. As others have mentioned why would someone like Dwayne hang out with someone like Mick Strider aka Burger.
My bad. I've never heard a bad thing about Dwayne.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.