[Update 2, 10:15 AM: The volume of angry email I woke up to this morning has astonished me. People, think about this: I pointed out a blooper [read the earlier post here] & was threatened with legal action for doing so. Now the basis for that threat is totally blown away by W’s own sister publication. What would you do? This isn’t about a hip, it isn’t about retouching (I do not object to retouching at all – I do it very frequently), and it isn’t about Demi Moore. It’s about my reputation – and the rights of all bloggers to express themselves without being bullied with threats to their livelihood. Please consider this before writing to tell me how stupid/obsessed/vicious I am.]

[Update 1, 8:45 AM: fixed cover image now available on W Korea's web site.]

Right when you thought (hoped) this whole thing was over, something comes along that, as the Jerky Boys would say, puts a whole different paint job on things. I was back in Maine for Christmas (and of course, holding my breath for an apology and retraction from Demi Moore and her legal team), just hanging out with my Mom and her cat – and in came a cameraphone tip from halfway ’round the world. [Thanks, Joe!]

The January 2010 issue of W Korea just hit the newsstands (with the ironic subtitle “Women in Full”). Unsurprisingly, they decided to use the excellent Mert & Marcus shot of Demi Moore. But very surprisingly, they installed a new hip on Demi. So: even W‘s sister publication thought the image looked weird enough to fix.

W Magazine Korea, January 2010

This raises a few serious questions for Martin Singer, his client, and W: did W‘s Korean team add in a fake hip because they just kinda thought it looked awkward? (Y’know, like I did, before you attacked, discredited, and threatened to sue me?) Or did they merely reveal a hip that was already there, but that Singer, et alia litigiously denied had been accidentally obliterated?

If it’s the former: are Singer, Moore et alia now going to pursue legal action against W Korea? By retouching the image’s supposedly “genuine representation” of her “absolutely not retouched” hip, did W Korea imply the same things Singer claims I did (but which, of course, I didn’t)?

If it’s the latter: who was aware of this? If Mr. Singer and Ms. Moore were aware, this raises some rather serious legal questions. Regardless of it being the dumbest argument ever, some very serious core principles are in play.

Anyway, to my eyes, the W Korea image looks great – it’s a beautiful cover, and anatomically correct! If I’d seen this image in W‘s December advance, I never would have said a thing – except, perhaps, “nice work!” (And, had I not been threatened with a lawsuit, I surely would never have noticed the deformed thumb.)

My attempts to secure comment from the W Korea editorial team were (of course) unsuccessful.

# # #
Be cool; add me

On Tuesday night, I received an aggressive and threatening letter from Martin Singer, Demi Moore’s attorney. It is marked “Confidential Legal Notice – Publication or Dissemination is Prohibited”. However, since Mr. Singer and I have no confidentiality agreement, and it provides essential context to the matter at hand, I have decided to publish it.

I’ll start by expressing how bizarre it feels to be immersed in a controversy that should be no controversy at all. The question of whether a celebrity photo was clumsily retouched is not one I am particularly proud of spending my mental cycles on.

When I originally pointed out (in a friendly, lighthearted way) a simple retouching blooper, I had no inkling of the total shitstorm that would follow. It gained momentum quickly, and I commented to several media outlets on the matter, always sure to frame it fairly: I have no problem with digital retouching (do it all the time), no problem with Demi Moore (she’s a beautiful woman), think the image is a great shot (kudos, Mert and Marcus) – I simply thought the missing hip-chunk was funny. I thought we could all laugh about it for the day (maybe tack it up on a retoucher’s wall of shame) and move on to the far more important things. We are all human; we all make mistakes (me, more than my fair share.)

But as the story gained traction, Ms. Moore published what she claimed was the original, while describing my initial commentary as “bullshit”. Several media outlets backtracked, folding like the lawn chairs so many of them are. Some went so far as to say she had “proven her point” and that I had some apologizing to do. Well, I take no pride in arguing over something so totally vacuous, but I do take great pride in my reputation, my integrity, my visual and creative acumen, and my credibility as a journalistic source. In fact, as Mr. Singer and his client are undoubtedly well aware, I have invested an entire lifetime building them, and my career and livelihood depend on them. And believe it or not, in the eyes of many (especially in a place like Hollywood) something as dumb as this can deal a serious and embarrassing blow.

So I knew sitting idly by while my veracity was attacked was not an option, especially in light of the huge reach of Ms. Moore’s words and my sincere belief that I was right. So after sleeping on it, I put my money where my mouth was and offered $5,000 to a charity of her choosing if she proved it really was the original. Unsurprisingly, my offer fell on deaf ears. In the following weeks it quieted down, and I thought (and hoped) it was over – until I received Mr. Singer’s letter.

I spent several days considering how to respond. On one hand, I do not want a fight over something so pointless; but on the other, my personal reputation is under attack.

Mr. Singer: I did not insinuate that your client was untruthful or hypocritical. I did not imply or infer that the photo was manipulated at her behest. I simply said that the photo had very obvious signs of clumsy retouching, most particularly what appeared to me (and thousands of others) to be a missing chunk of hip.

And I absolutely stand by my statements.

I also have a very hard time understanding what is “defamatory” about describing an image as retouched. Digital retouching is an important part of modern publishing and photography workflow – especially in commercial and editorial fashion photography. I doubt a single image has graced a major magazine cover in the past decade without being altered in some way. Ms. Moore’s implication that her image went straight from camera to cover is incredible, whether she believes it or not. Simply put, this never happens.

In the statements solicited by Mr. Singer, W‘s Dennis Freedman says “no one at the magazine did any retouching of the image.” Fashion photographers Mert and Marcus say there was “ABSOLUTELY no retouching on her hips or waist or legs.” This brings Nick Paumgarten’s 2004 New Yorker article to mind, wherein Mert and Marcus’ digital artistry is discussed extensively. In describing Mert and Marcus’ work, Mr. Freedman himself said:

there is an artificiality about it that can be upsetting.”

Upsetting?? Frankly, I love it! But regardless, their recent statements fail the straight face test. Even without serious digital forensics, zooming in on Ms. Moore’s “original” image reveals either a major physical deformity in her left thumb – or the painfully obvious artifacts of clumsy retouching:

And digging a bit deeper, if we compare Ms. Moore’s “original” with the final W cover photo, we see unequivocal signs of digital retouching (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Below, I layered the two images atop one other and animated three small sections to accentuate the changes. The loops are very short, so you may have to replay them a couple of times.

One, pay special attention to the area of her hip inside the “R” and against her left hand:

Two, the contours of her right thigh and hand are changed:

Three, the waist and upper chest are tweaked:

And these animations merely represent the changes between Demi’s “original” and the final cover; they say nothing about whatever retouching occurred upstream of the two public images, and the public consensus seems to be that they were significant. Regardless, there can be no doubt as to whether the cover image was retouched.

Mr. Singer describes his client’s appearance of great importance to her career and livelihood. I absolutely understand and respect that, and never said a single negative word in that regard. This was not about her; it was about noticing a mistake. In fact, as this story was exploding and W sat silent, I spoke out in Ms. Moore’s defense several times, even expressing exasperation that she had been forced to explain the mistakes of others. Those remarks are widely available throughout the public record.

I would also like to reiterate that, while my livelihood is not dependent on my appearance (thank God!), it is dependent on my personal reputation and my perception within the media, technology, and entertainment industries as someone of integrity, reliability, and candor. Thus, Mr. Singer, I urge you to seriously consider the damage your client’s public statements have had on me, as well as the serious discrediting effects of the public statements made by those acting at your and your client’s behest. Your collective implications – and actual allegations – that I have been dishonest, deceptive, or defamatory are themselves seriously damaging. This is most particularly true because your allegations are fully and absolutely unsupported by the facts.

Finally, Mr. Singer: your demand that I retract my statements is a demand that I do further unwarranted and costly damage to a reputation you have already deliberately tarnished. Demanding an apology adds insult to this injury. Obviously, neither of these will be forthcoming.

On the contrary, I demand a complete retraction of all statements made or solicited by you, your client(s), and W that denied this retouching, and served to deliberately impugn my credibility and that of countless others who made similarly fair and accurate observations. I further demand a sincere and prominent public apology.

In closing, what might be most surprising about this is that Ms. Moore has clearly embraced the incredible power of the web. As she surely knows, what makes the web beautiful is its rich diversity of opinions and ideas; free expression is in its DNA. But by asking her attorney to intimidate, bully, and silence critics and fans who are guilty of nothing more than speaking unpleasant truths, she is enabling conduct that strikes at the very heart of free expression.

So let’s get this behind us and talk about something that actually matters.

# # #
Be cool; add me

On August 29, I decided to go shoot some breaking-news images of the Station Fire, a massive wildfire conflagration which continues to burn as I write this in early October. I spent a significant amount of that day inside the forest shooting. The forest was closed to the public and I was admitted as media – told I was “on my own” which was just fine with me. Late in the afternoon, as I was making my way back out, I came across a rather eerie looking scene at a turnout a few miles from the forest boundary. It just looked and felt weird – the fire hoses sitting there in a box (apparently staging by the firefighters), the gnarly blackened trees, etc. So I pulled in and took a couple photos of the site.

Over the next week, that area burned over again once or possibly twice. [Can anyone confirm how many times?]

On September 4, authorities said they believed the fire was arson and cordoned off a small area inside the forest from which they believed the fire was set.

Later that evening, I noticed on LAist‘s fire map that editor Zach Behrens dropped a pin indicating the site’s location within the forest. I got a feeling about it and started digging around to see if – against infinitesimally small odds, considering the size of the forest and the fire – that was where I took the pictures of the weird spot.

And sure as shit, it was. I verified the area with Google Street View, with the LA Times’ map, and even by watching some video KABC was running of the cordoned off area. I was now absolutely sure my pictures were of that spot. So I quickly removed the low resolution image I had posted on flickR – on the off-chance that I had evidence that might be useful to the police, and went to bed. Perhaps naively, I thought the shots might be helpful in the investigation considering the amount of time (nearly a week), additional burning (one or two major burners), that had elapsed between when my photos were taken and authorities’ ultimate arrival on the scene.

Several things came together the following day, Saturday (9/5) – I simultaneously contacted the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and a photo editor at AP (AP ran several of my Station Fire photos the prior weekend). My initial attempts to contact LASD were unsuccessful both due (one assumes) to their volume of work (busy and unanswered phone lines) and because, honestly, they don’t have this whole “interwebs” thing figured out. Several e-mails were either returned to me undeliverable (such as one I sent on Saturday to their lead arson investigator, Heidi Clark) or flagged by their spam filters.

Late Saturday, I had a conundrum. On one hand, there was the news value of the images; on the other, I did not want to potentially screw up an investigation. Having not heard from LASD, I decided to provide AP with a single low resolution version of one of the images. AP decided to include that image in the editorial package they moved on Saturday night.

Very late on Saturday night, I finally got in touch with an investigator at LASD. She was very kind and professional and asked me to send the images to her e-mail, which I did. To be more specific, I uploaded medium-resolution versions to my web site and provided her with bit.ly links both for ease and also so I could tell if anyone looked at them. She did look, and she e-mailed me back, indicating that she would be forwarding them to two of her investigators.

No one else would click the link for several days, and no one would call me for several days.

The following Tuesday, I received an e-mail from one of those she had forwarded them to. He asked me when they were taken (even though I had – in the e-mail he was responding to – been specific about when and where they were taken). I again encouraged all three of them to look at them and tell me if they might be useful, and if so, I would provide him with the original, full-res ones and keep them offline for the time being so as not to screw anything up for them. And on the flip side, I asked – if they weren’t interesting, let me know that, too – so I could put them online or otherwise release them. His reply: “Well be in touch feel free to rlse em”.

I let it sit. Thursday evening, I received a call from his colleague – the other person who had been included on that e-mail thread. At this point – now almost a week later – I still hadn’t provided the high-resolution images to anyone.

He was a nice, professional guy and basically just had my name and number and the vague sense he should talk to me. I told him the story and asked if he had seen the images. He said he had not, he just had a printed-out e-mail in his hand that someone gave him. I asked him if he could get to a computer to look at them, and he said no, he was working out of his car and didn’t have access to a computer. I invited him over to my house to see them on my computer. He said he might be able to come over tomorrow (Friday) but cautioned me that he was “a detective, not an arson investigator .. [and they] might help one of the arson guys, I know they sifted through stuff… but it’s not gonna mean a hill of beans to me… we all specialize in a different area; it might be helpful, I don’t know. Can I get ‘em on a CD? Then I can put that in the file, so the stuff is all there for the next guy to pick up and take on… I could show ‘em, but it might take some time…”

Since I was leaving for Europe on Saturday, I told him to let me know by early Friday – and he could either come over for a CD and viewing, or I would just mail him a disc. He called me Friday and said he would not make it to Venice and would I kindly mail the disc. And that is what I did, and I’ve heard nothing further.

So, I’m opening the high-resolution images to the public. These are quite detailed images of the area where authorities say the Station Fire was started, exactly as it stood the afternoon of August 29 @ 1745PM PDT. If anyone wants the RAW files, please e-mail me and I will gladly send them along.

They might be worth nothing – in fact, that’s probably the most likely outcome. But hell, who knows – maybe one of you armchair sleuths out there can help solve this terrible crime. I sure hope so.

[A slight tangent: while I was up there I saw a lot of discarded cigarette butts. If any of you have ever thrown a cigarette out of your car window, you are a criminal and a sloth. Please never do this again, and vigorously chastise anyone you ever see doing so.]

So, here they are. Just click through to flickR for the full-size. Once there, you’ll need to click “all sizes” and then choose the original size to see them in their full detail.

DTFB6MVT7J5C

On that note, check out Haiko Hebig’s stuff.

The Hollywood sign shot

I was at the newsstand today to check the fresh Newsweek, because they finally ran the story on the John Hancock Tower for which they had licensed a couple of my shots. My shots didn’t make the final cut, so that was a disappointment.

But, knowing that TIME had featured my Hollywood sign shot in their weekly gallery online, I figured – just in case – I’d peek at their print edition. I dropped Newsweek, picked up its shelf-neighbor, TIME – and there was my baby, jumpin’ off the page! I was psyched.

[Apologize for the quality of the scan; the paper is so thin that it is hard to scan it well.]