I'm not one to write political articles, and I promise you this one isn't meant to be pro-Trump or anti-Trump. However, as photographers, we've been told that a photo is worth a thousand words. What if the words these photos replace tell a very different story?
I woke up this morning seeing a popular photography term trending on Twitter: EXIF. This acronym stands for "exchangeable image file format," and it is used to give standard terminology and reporting on digital files produced by digital cameras. Photographers are familiar with this data because it can tell us what aperture an image was shot at, the camera's shutter speed, the camera and lens model used for a particular photograph, and what time the images were taken. This was a strange term to see trending on a worldwide platform like Twitter, so you know I had to click on it.
What I found was two images released by the White House showing Donald Trump signing papers in the Walter Reed Hospital. The two images were released yesterday, and there was a lot of controversy around whether or not the hospitalized president was actually getting work done or if he and his staff had staged a fake photoshoot. With so much misinformation surrounding whether or not the sitting president is falling sick with COVID-19 or if his case is rather mild, images of him working and looking in good spirits are some of the few bits of information the outside public has on his potentially dire situation.
The bombshell that this new tweet exposes is that the two images were taken only 10 minutes apart. With Trump sitting in two different locations and in two completely different outfits, we have to ask ourselves how probable it would be for the president to appear in such radically different situations in such a short period of time? Below is the screen capture of the viral images showing the two timestamps from the EXIF data.
As you can see in the two red boxes I highlight, the EXIF says one image was taken at 5:25:59 PM, while the other was taken just 10 minutes later at 5:35:40 PM on October 3.
There are a few other interesting things the EXIF data from these images, as the two images below show. The first one is that the images are credited to White House photographer Joyce N. Boghosian. You can also see that the images were taken on a Sony ILCE-9 camera, which is also known as the Sony A9 mirrorless camera. The lens used for both images is the Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses (shot wide open at ISO 3,200 for all you photo geeks reading).
When I saw these images, I had a little laugh to myself and thought: "yep, the White House seems to have been caught staging some photos of the president doing work while diagnosed with Coronavirus." I also thought that maybe this would be an interesting article for Fstoppers readers. And in writing this article, that's when a few strange things started popping up.The first thing I wanted to do was create my own screen captures of the EXIF data so that I wouldn't have to use someone else's images in a fair use situation but also to double-check the authenticity of the images spewing around the internet. I tried to find the original published image, which is cited as coming from the White House, but I couldn't find it on Twitter. "No worries," I thought. This image is posted everywhere on the internet.
After saving a few different copies of the two images, I noticed that none of them actually had any EXIF data attached to them. Many websites and social media platforms strip EXIF data in an effort to make files smaller, so that was expected. What I didn't expect was for every single image I threw into Photoshop to all have this data missing. Where could I find the original image used to create the viral set of bombshell EXIF images? How could I reproduce these myself? Maybe the Joyce N. Boghosian, the White House photographer who took these images, would have them on her account. No such luck there either. This is a bit strange.
I decided to look a bit more into Joyce N. Boghosian to see if there were other clues. One string of tweets was showed Joyce taking the image of the event and people were complaining about her not wearing a mask while taking these photographs. I noticed that the woman in this photo wasn't using a Sony camera at all but instead had a Canon and Leica. It seemed strange that a press photographer would have more than one or two brands of cameras on them at any one time, and surely, they wouldn't use both Sony and Canon cameras with the same type of 70-200mm lens. And if this was a photo of Joyce as she took the shots of the stage, well, she didn't shoot them on Sony cameras at all. In trying to find out more about Joyce, I discovered that the photo above wasn't of Joyce photographing Trump at all but rather a tighter crop from her time working with President George Bush. So that was a bit of a dead-end too.
I finally found what I think are the original versions of the two images through the Associated Press. When thrown into Photoshop, I still cannot see all the data shown by the images posted on Twitter. I can confirm that the EXIF data in the file does show the same timestamps under the "Orgin" tab. However, there doesn't seem to be any copyright information or metadata tags at all. I'm not sure what to make of this; does my version of Photoshop not show the full EXIF data? Maybe some of the data was stripped from the smaller version of the image I downloaded from the Associated Press's website? Maybe Apple is a better operating system than Windows?
So, where does this all leave us? For me, I like to know the truth. As I've seen in our Coronavirus Journal, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. It seems the media outlets on both sides of the political spectrum like to edit and chop words to fit their own narrative. This is probably nothing new and has been happening ever since the beginning of the printing press. What is new is social media and the ability for every single person to have a voice and spread this so-called "news." Finding the truth in all of this noise has never been harder, and with the current pandemic still at hand, more and more people are getting on edge trying to understand what is actually happening in the world. Unfortunately, many have simply given up.
The other night, I watched a documentary on Netflix that has been recommended to me by many different people. The Social Dilemma is a documentary on how social media has quickly changed from being strictly a social platform to being a powerful system designed to enslave the human mind. The 90-minute documentary explores the creators of some of the largest social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, and Google. Without spoiling some of the topics they discuss, a few programmers believe that these relatively new platforms are simply too powerful to prevent the spread of misinformation. On one hand, having a limited number of powerful news agencies that are trusted with sharing the truth to the world is problematic; on the other hand, having billions of people replace that paradigm without any real sense of accountability is equally terrifying.
How does this all relate back to the EXIF data tweet I read about this morning? I want to give the whistleblowers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to when these two images were taken. Being the skeptic that I am, I also wanted to research it a little before coming up with my own conclusion. I do find the two images strange, and the White House has been cloaking the president's current COVID situation in a sea of non-transparency. As another image has shown, even the items on the desk seem to point in the direction of the images being staged. Some might ask if someone simply could have made up fake EXIF data and pushed them online to a mob of people foaming at the mouth to discredit the president? That doesn't seem to be the case since the times match from images anyone can download off the AP's website. Regardless of when the EXIF data tells us the images were taken, we are still left not completely knowing the context of what's happening in these photos themselves. I think the truth lies somewhere between a photograph and a thousand words.
I'm hoping Joyce Boghosian will speak up and give some insight into the EXIF data exposed in these tweets. Was her camera's internal clock set correctly? What happened in between those 10 minutes? As a photojournalist who has been documenting the daily activities of several presidents for decades now, I hope we can trust her to give us the truth. Whatever happens, this story could turn out to be one of the last big public relations disasters of the president during his term or it could be the opening saga in another four years of his presidency. Hopefully, the truth will come out from those actually present in the room when these images were taken.
The Trump apologists love articles like this. Lol look at the comment count. Good article by Patrick but just a shame about the inevitable downward spiral when you have an article with the word 'Trump' in it.
Digital photographs are not permissable evidence in even civil claims for accidents in the UK, Polaroids are allowed. So either the digital pictures have incorrect information attached to them or the subject of the pictures is 'superman' in disguise.
Guess which is the most likely.
I know you want the views, but with such poor quality click-bait. - Sad!
Unsubscribed
Wow, as soon as the 'T' word is mentioned there is a barrage of keyboard bashing... shame the actual photography articles cant generate as much traffic.
Many of the photography articles are product/brand focused. Nikon users don't care what new lenses are coming out for Canon or the awesome specs of a just-released Sony full-frame. They just don't.
Articles of interest to all photographers I think are lost among posts consisting of youtube videos. Were FStoppers to focus on original content over sponsored and redirects I believe engagement would rise.
Thank you for this article, I think you showed great photographic detective work. It may not completely prove the events were staged, but it's enough to give a person pause about trusting the situation. Unfortunately, I also believe it gives one pause about trusting the photographer who's in on it.
I'm sorry you've had to be in such situations. That's got to be difficult to go through the conversation only to have some people do other things.
This comment is not to support or trash Trump. It is simply to state that this article is poor reporting at best even to the untrained eye, you can tell that his dramatic outfits change is him simply putting on the jacket that is thrown over the chair in the other photo, secondly anyone who has worked in an office where you have meetings in meeting rooms knows that you will take the items from the meeting back to your desk where you will put them down and go back to working on whatever it was meeting was about. As for the timeline 10 minutes does not seem suspicious at all if the first photo was taken at the beginning of the meeting 10 minutes for a quick briefing is not unreasonable and the second shot when he gets back to his desk. Another thing that you should recognize is that the metadata box is placed in just a way to sharpen the squareness of the chair, by the way the chair looks to be the only blue chair in a conference room full of black chairs, Tucson this up if you have use a little common sense you could have saved yourself for looking foolish and wasting more space on the internet
While you're explanation is possible, it's slim to no chance. Try to use less pur-down words in your commentary
Is this a new impeachable offense?
I'm sure those suffering from TDS would love that.
Nothing is staged, only the ones who hate Trump will says that
The picture with him wearing a jacket is the same clothing and setup as a video he shot from the hospital. The picture without his jacket is probably set in the conference room in the Presidential Suite at the hospital. Could it be possible that while the photographer was taking pictures minutes before they moved to the other room for the video? Certainly. The Suite was recently modernised and it includes a sitting room, kitchen, conference room, and hospital bedroom, as well as an office for the White House Chief of Staff. Here is a screenshot from the video. No manipulation. Nothing to see here. Unless you are really looking to cause a controversy where there is none.
Ten-minute difference between two photos taken with the same camera. The DST means nothing here.
https://thebiggboss14.com/
I think it's worth pointing out that the specific news source mentioned in this article is Associated Press.
https://yehrishtakyakehlatahy.net/
I'd give the first image a 2 - it has a somewhat nicely framed leading line up to the main subject but there's a few distracting elements and the sharpness is questionable. For the second image, I'd say a 1. The lighting isn't good and they've cut off parts of the table and the flag - snapshot.
Fantastic... Finally found someone on this post that knows something about photography.
Not wondering if this was staged at all, all I'm wondering now: who in the room got the pen afterwards? :P
You don't need EXIF data or any kind of super-sleuthing to know that these pics were staged. Trump is, above all else, a performer. As he returned to the White House, he walked through the front door twice to be sure the photographers inside got a good shot of him. Now more than ever, he needs a good appearance.
...
Would be great to hear from the photographer. One thing is certain, shooting the Leica was definitely staged! /jk Fun article!
This kind of thing is nothing new for American presidents.
FDR hid his paralysis from the public for years. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/how-fdr-hid-his-par...
Woodrow Wilson hid the fact that he was laid up with a stroke for 17 months.
https://youtu.be/EtbcmZgA1is
Grover Cleveland pretended to be going on a fishing trip when he was having cancer surgery.
I'm sure there are plenty of other examples these are just 3 that spring to mind.
Thanks Patrick, enjoyed the article (and all the tutorials I've purchased over the years). Like you, I am a curious person who likes to seek the truth in things, and that can lead us down rabbit holes of all kinds of interesting things. This didn't come across as you trying to prove a point or make a political statement at all to me. Curiosity and asking questions are good traits to have.
Like you, I am a curious person who likes to seek the truth in things. So I am wondering why is it you never posted more than 3 comments after all the tutorials you purchased from Fstoppers over the years?
Like it is your business. You sound a little bit on the other side from what you pretend supporting.
It's an article about lying with over 200 comments. And the only thing you have to say is, "Like it is your business". You sound like a grumpy old man who can't accept reality.
So stop lying. And how old would that make me?
So you make it your business to tell me it isn't my business. You sound confused.
Really......You guys bring politics to Fstoppers........Really??? There is enough BS coming from both sides and you post this. REALLY...what a huge disappointment.
Calm down. It's not your Fstoppers and you have the ability to choose for yourself whether or not you click on the article and then read it. Free advice: Next time you see a potentially politically laced article; just keep scrolling bro and your mind will be at ease.
Fstoppers provides a ton of content. Only a very small percentage might be considered to have a whisper of political attachment. So, take your outrage elsewhere and remember you possess the ability to not click an article that may outrage you.
You hope Trump wins? Why? Are you basing your vote on policy, or what?
Right he will win again, and those who hates him, are going to a rude wakening. 4 more years
If it quacks like a duck 20,000+ times over 4 years, it is probably a duck.
hahaha.... so happy to see the Liberal buffoons on FStoppers going full TDS
I know, right! :D
get ready for the dustbin of history. So-called photographer ha ha Ha. Please stay in Minsk.
Don't call your fellow photographers buffoons. This is a professional site, not Twitter.
I don’t understand this article. If the EXIF data was altered, what does that mean in terms of the photo? What do you mean when you say the photo was “staged?” What do the two photos with the arrows mean? Why aren’t you able to express yourself clearly?
Not the first time EXIF have given up fakers. The revelation here is that EXIF data can expose even those at the top. That he is lying to America is nothing new, he has shattered records in that respect.
Great advice. Now I know where the term "Fake News" comes from.