Skip

Photoshop + Thumbnails = Boobs
July 24, 2003 9:26 PM   Subscribe

Someone needs Photoshop classes. Cat Schwartz, TechTV vixen, posted some pictures of herself on her blog. Due to an obscure bug in Photoshop, she also inadvertently posted pictures of herself nude. Oopos. Warning: Minor nudity enclosed.
posted by manero (89 comments total)

 
I had no idea this bug existed. It sort of reminds me of people that pass Word documents around without knowing the similar "features" of the program.

The next time you get an important document (letter, contract, etc) as a word doc, be sure to go into the file properties and examine the revision history. I'm constantly surprised at how even tech-savvy professionals don't know about this and I can see the five drafts of what I'm reading, sometimes even with revision comments from other authors.

Also, how the hell did that guy blow those thumbnails up without making them look horrible?
posted by mathowie at 9:49 PM on July 24, 2003


HAHAHahahahaqhahahahaha Ahem...

This reminds me of how you can open a word doc saved using 'quicksave' (the default) in a text editor and see portions of previous revisions. I remember finding that out when I got a job rejection letter and opened it up to see other rejected applicants and their reasons for being rejected.

(on preview: yeah, what Mat said)
posted by kfury at 9:50 PM on July 24, 2003


Mathowie: The lesson is that when you crop a file the file maintains the original in full resolution unless you save it correctly.

The hilarious thing is that Cat will almost certainly find out about this, and quick. Talk about learning the hard way. I'm definitely watching TechTV tomorrow.
posted by BartFargo at 9:51 PM on July 24, 2003


I think she already knows. From her page on TechTV.com:

The worst technology horror story I have to tell:
Sending an IM to the wrong window. That was embarrassing. Also, I was talking bad about my ex when my cellphone accidentally called him in my purse. Yeah, he heard the whole darn conversation. Oh yeah, beware of the preview window in Photoshop.
posted by Monk at 9:56 PM on July 24, 2003


She already found out about it. Looks like she is handling it far better than most people would've.
posted by riffola at 9:56 PM on July 24, 2003


Suggestion that Cat ask Star Wars Kid out on a date in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...
posted by WolfDaddy at 10:00 PM on July 24, 2003


The lesson is that when you crop a file the file maintains the original in full resolution unless you save it correctly.

How do you extract the image though, is it stuck in file headers or something? This is the first I've ever heard of it (and even files like jpg carry all this information?).
posted by mathowie at 10:04 PM on July 24, 2003


Well the original posts have kinda been removed from the main page, but the archive lives on, it appears to me she removed the second post because it looks like she was smoking pot...
posted by X-00 at 10:05 PM on July 24, 2003


It's not saving the full resolution image. It's just keeping the 128x128 preview image. The clarity is doubtless thanks to bicubic interpolation. It's noticably fuzzier than the original, but the interpolation just takes out the jaggies.
posted by kfury at 10:07 PM on July 24, 2003


Matt, Image bloat: The unseen burden of the Internet.
posted by riffola at 10:07 PM on July 24, 2003


This has nothing to do with image bloat. the link above refers to people not compressing as tightly as they should. This is about hidden previews, and why you should always use Save for web when you're going to be using it on the web, both to handle bloat and to handle extraneous metadata like thumbnails and custom document icons.
posted by kfury at 10:11 PM on July 24, 2003


No, those are enlarged thumbnails, not hidden full resolution images. Did you see how big the eyes crop was? A full resolution picture would be 3 megapixels or more. I don't know how they were enlarged so nicely, but even so, you can tell they've been enlarged. They were probably captured with a simple screen cap of the Photoshop open file dialog box.
posted by Nothing at 10:12 PM on July 24, 2003


You can turn off previews by going to Edit > Preferences > File Handling. Image Previews should be the first option. Set it to either "Ask When Saving" or "Never Save".
posted by riffola at 10:15 PM on July 24, 2003


Also, what a situation. Can you imagine? Especially with the way guys flock around geek women on the internet.
posted by Nothing at 10:15 PM on July 24, 2003


does paint shop pro do this as well?
posted by quonsar at 10:24 PM on July 24, 2003


On the subject of Word documents: Word documents also have the great feature of including "file slack." When you save a Word document, it can sometimes catch remnants of other programs running on your system and tack that info onto the end of the file. If you can figure out a method of extracting the file slack, you can sometimes catch e-mails, IM conversations and other good stuff.
posted by fatbobsmith at 10:35 PM on July 24, 2003


All seems like good publicity to me.
posted by Blue Stone at 10:39 PM on July 24, 2003


Meanwhile, back at Adobe headquarters, a deviously cunning sex-deprived programmer reaps the sweet, sweet rewards.
posted by Dillonlikescookies at 11:12 PM on July 24, 2003


"Finally!" he cries, as he curls up next to his C++ Compiling for Dummies handbook "My work is now complete."
posted by damclean2 at 11:28 PM on July 24, 2003


Wow, this is a pretty serious bug... what if the police or some journalist releases a picture of someone and they've cropped out some innocent person who they want to protect. What constitutes a "major change" in the image? Would blurring out someones face not change the preview? Bad bad Adobe.
posted by bobo123 at 11:40 PM on July 24, 2003


You know you people are talking tech and, y'know, there's BOOBIES to ogle. From someone that's on TV!!!! And she's smoking.

Just sayin'.
posted by WolfDaddy at 12:03 AM on July 25, 2003


Boobies yes. Worth looking at? no, not really.
posted by delmoi at 12:06 AM on July 25, 2003


kfury, the image was saved for web... as a .jpg, which is what makes this so unexpected, and potentially scary.

I can see the image preview in the linked .jpg, but I haven't been able to reproduce the same preview effect in test images I've cropped and resaved with the same name. I suspect that flattening the image before saving would take care of the problem, but so far I can't test the theory.
posted by taz at 12:24 AM on July 25, 2003


Um. To be clear, test images I've created in photoshop then saved with a name like x.jpg, then cropped and resaved as "x.jpg".
posted by taz at 12:26 AM on July 25, 2003


"x.jpg" taz?

Do you mean xxx.jpg? Hmmm?
posted by Blue Stone at 12:39 AM on July 25, 2003


If i try to reproduce this "bug" it doesn't seem to work... Does this work with a .psd file or a .jpg? Something seems fishy...
posted by mildred-pitt at 12:58 AM on July 25, 2003


Wow that's an astonishing amount of morons that read her blog and post in her comments.

quonsar - t r a c y tested this bug in PSP and so far it seems not to exist in it.
posted by zarah at 1:19 AM on July 25, 2003


manero -- good post... more of this, less of bush would do mefi a lot of good.
posted by ruwan at 1:22 AM on July 25, 2003


bush? did i see the right pictures?
posted by klaatu at 1:55 AM on July 25, 2003


Actualy, the best way to create pics for the internet is to use the "Save for web" option in photoshop. It'll strip out everything, and also give you nice previews of diffrent compression levels as well as gif/png optimization.
posted by delmoi at 2:11 AM on July 25, 2003


I don't know if I really wanted to see that pair
posted by elpapacito at 3:24 AM on July 25, 2003


elpapacito, did you actually mean to post that comment, or is this the result of some strange bug in your system wherein information that was clearly meant to be deleted is actually submitted?

So... if anybody actually manages to reproduce this effect, let us know. I've tried at least a dozen ways of doing this, and my preview image always shows the cropped result. (and my image thumbnail preference is set to "always save".)
posted by taz at 3:49 AM on July 25, 2003


Awesome. Now does anybody know where to find naked pictures of the Thunderbirds?
posted by dgaicun at 3:55 AM on July 25, 2003


I can see the full thumbnail if I save the picture through "Save target as," but I get the cropped thumbnail if I just save the picture off the page.
posted by sageleaf at 4:01 AM on July 25, 2003


But I can't seem to reproduce the effect with other pictures, in either PS 6 or 7.
posted by sageleaf at 4:14 AM on July 25, 2003


So... if anybody actually manages to reproduce this effect, let us know.
Voila!
posted by dg at 4:26 AM on July 25, 2003


Great dg! What did you do, exactly?

Also, do you think there could be different results in different platforms? I'm using pc/windows.
posted by taz at 4:36 AM on July 25, 2003


Oh, I guess you want to know how I did it?

PhotoShop 6.0 on Win XP Pro. Grabbed screen capture, created new document with same size as screen, pasted screen capture, saved to desktop as .jpg file, cropped picture, saved again, and there you have it. Only one problem - I couldn't reproduce it when I went to double-check to document the process after posting the above (I know, I should have done that first). Most weird and now I will not be able to sleep until I can reproduce the effect :-(
posted by dg at 4:41 AM on July 25, 2003


yes... the same process definitely doesn't do it for me (I'm also using 6.0). So - don't sleep until you can reproduce the effect!
posted by taz at 5:00 AM on July 25, 2003


There goes my weekend :-(
posted by dg at 5:06 AM on July 25, 2003


It's a Mac thing. You wouldn't understand.

Spoken as a PC user hoping to find naked ladies everywhere on the Internet but can't reproduce this behavior on a PC. Looks like I won't be spending the weekend downloading images off that Flying Nun fansite after all.
posted by yerfatma at 5:22 AM on July 25, 2003


She has pretty breasts, but those eyes of hers are to die for.
posted by alumshubby at 5:39 AM on July 25, 2003


That's a lot of effort to see some raccoon-eyed chick sitting naked and huffing butts. Make me think of when I dated that girl I met in rehab...
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:42 AM on July 25, 2003


Well, I think her boobs are very, very nice.

The clarity is doubtless thanks to bicubic interpolation

Thank you bicubic interpolation!!!
posted by vito90 at 5:55 AM on July 25, 2003


I've been using photoshop for years and years, and I didn't know about this bug either. I can't seem to reproduce it on the PC...weird.
posted by dejah420 at 6:14 AM on July 25, 2003


Now does anybody know where to find naked pictures of the Thunderbirds?

Okay!

Or did you mean this?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:37 AM on July 25, 2003


kfury, the image was saved for web... as a .jpg, which is what makes this so unexpected, and potentially scary.

I doubt that, taz. "Save to Web..." exists to export only image data. No previews, no extras, except perhaps metadata to the file.

This sounds exactly like someone simply using the standard Save... command in Photoshop. And this is not a new issue.

Lots of hi-res source images are sold as JPEG and so Photoshop is designed to treat them as with as much care as it would PSD files, unless you specifically tell it not to—which is why the "Save for Web..." option is there.
posted by teradome at 7:00 AM on July 25, 2003


Man, there are a bunch of sourpusses around here. You're complaining about the quality of free boobies. Free boobies! I'd really like to see the high level of perfection of all the breasts you've previously interacted with, that you are now so picky. Jeez. (Plus, I think she's cute.)
posted by hilatron at 7:25 AM on July 25, 2003


I think it's interesting, in her blog entry, that she seems more ashamed that she smokes than that the nude images got out. And I suspect that if nude images of the guys who sneered got out on the internet, they'd be pretty horrified (and horrifying).

(PS: get a realistic image of what a beautiful woman looks like. It has nothing to do with the siliconed women in your jerk magazines.)
posted by crunchland at 7:29 AM on July 25, 2003


I was able to reproduce the effect in photoshop 6.0 on win2k. I just did Save Picture As... to the original file (the big one, behind the link) then went into Photoshop and did Open... Select the pic, and the preview shows the original, uncropped version.

Also, what crunchland said. Real women are beautiful.
posted by jpoulos at 7:36 AM on July 25, 2003


Metafilter: That's a lot of effort to see some raccoon-eyed chick sitting naked and huffing butts.
posted by i_cola at 7:37 AM on July 25, 2003


This year's DEF CON will be a whole lot more er intriguing if she shows up with a film crew again.
posted by bkdelong at 7:39 AM on July 25, 2003


And you really have to wonder how this mcbiggins guy stumbled onto this discovery.
posted by crunchland at 7:48 AM on July 25, 2003


I'd hit . . . oh wait . . .
posted by tr33hggr at 7:50 AM on July 25, 2003


fap fap fap fap... ah...
posted by Frasermoo at 8:10 AM on July 25, 2003


1) it was a mistake... you all lucked out... BIG time. ;-)

Beautiful, gracefull and a sense of humour!
posted by signal at 8:24 AM on July 25, 2003


Personally, I think she is stunning. (If this was Fark, there'd be 328 "I'd hit it" posts.) FWIW, I was able to reproduce this 'feature' on a Mac using Photoshop 7 by DLing the original files. As a aside, perhaps someone could create a bot to roam the net looking for image files that contain similar gems.
posted by nofi at 8:34 AM on July 25, 2003


delmoi, el papacito--
Howsabout you show us *your* tits, gorgeous?
posted by cowboy_sally at 8:44 AM on July 25, 2003


If this was Fark, there'd be 328 "I'd hit it" posts.

That's probably a conservative estimate... I can only speak for myself but I think we did 'luck out BIG time' :-)
posted by clevershark at 9:10 AM on July 25, 2003


Now I require topless photos of Leo and Patrick! Bring them to me, my pretties!
posted by frenetic at 9:13 AM on July 25, 2003


this SO stinks of self promotion and mass gullibility.
so, just to clarify this for my extremely rigid, unbeleiving mind (i said rigid mind, damn you!): the .jpg header format accomodates the storing of image thumbs within the file format itself? can anybody answer that question definitively? if so, what ELSE does the .jpg format accomodate?
posted by quonsar at 9:18 AM on July 25, 2003


Ten bucks says she did it on purpose.
posted by angry modem at 9:18 AM on July 25, 2003


oh, hi quonsar.
posted by angry modem at 9:20 AM on July 25, 2003


if so, what ELSE does the .jpg format accomodate?

Apparently, boobs.
posted by eyeballkid at 9:24 AM on July 25, 2003


i wish someone would take the question seriously, because the first half-dozen comments here, which either poo-pooed the story, or opined that this was too sleazy for mefi, were arbitrarily wiped out by matt, who replaced them with his own totally accepting comment which appears as the first comment in this thread now. i have NEVER heard anything of the sort, my observation of paint shop pro (a totally different piece of software, yes) is that it generates its previews on the fly and i wonder why would paintshop STORE a preview thumb? in the file itself? as it stands, i think this is bullshit. if i am wrong, i simply want to know!
posted by quonsar at 9:30 AM on July 25, 2003


quonsar, as per the JPEG File Interchange Format info @ w3.org, the ability to store thumbnails was added in, and has been around since at least 1992.
posted by riffola at 9:41 AM on July 25, 2003


Most recent digicams put thumbnails in JPEG files - the technology is called EXIF - and in addition to thumbnails it includes all the info on the picture's technical details as well as timestamps. ACDSee also does (or can) do this as well.

I use EXIF thumbnails for putting digital photos up on the web - it saves me making a seperate thumbnail file. My PHP code just scans the EXIF info for the thumbnail and spits it out to the browser. If a file doesn't have a thumbnail I just add one with ACDSee - which can also automatically re-write the thumbnail when you rotate a picture, for example. Or, say, when you crop out boobs.
posted by Fat Elvis at 9:45 AM on July 25, 2003


quonsar: look up info in exif headers.
posted by Hackworth at 9:46 AM on July 25, 2003


uh, yeah.
posted by Hackworth at 9:47 AM on July 25, 2003


if so, what ELSE does the .jpg format accomodate?
The following:
Three six-packs of beer, a whoopie cushion, Newton's Principia in spoken word format, a family of political refugees from Tadjikistan and a copy of the -possibly apocryphal- Protocols of the elders of MeFi, a book purporting to uncover the secret of a leftist cabal intent on imposing world communist domination through control of the web.
posted by talos at 9:49 AM on July 25, 2003


Fat Elvis, could you share the code?
posted by riffola at 9:51 AM on July 25, 2003


The clarity is doubtless thanks to bicubic interpolation.

Wouldn't that be biboobic interpolation?
posted by kirkaracha at 10:06 AM on July 25, 2003


what ELSE does the .jpg format accomodate?

I believe there is a header flag for "application-specific data," which would be basically anything an application wants to include. I know that by default Photoshop embeds ColorSync profiles in JPEGs when using "Save As" (it doesn't when using "Save For Web," which is one reason "Save For Web" images are much smaller).

A good file format is extensible by design. The way you do it is, you specify the file format as a series of "chunks." Each chunk begins with a signature that indicates the type of data in the chunk, followed by a length field that tells how long the chunk is. That way, programs that don't recognize a particular type of data can easily skip to chunks they do understand. Obviously, image data is only one type of chunk that can be stored in a JPEG.
posted by kindall at 10:15 AM on July 25, 2003


thank you all for the information. i humbly admit to my wrongness, and wish to assure to that my mind has returned to the flaccid state you all know and love. and now, to the boobies!
posted by quonsar at 10:23 AM on July 25, 2003


Technology continues to make it easier for the modern nerd to harvest unearned fruits.

*Lovingly pats CRT*
posted by squirrel at 10:33 AM on July 25, 2003


well, maybe she's not so gracious after all.

If nothing else, she knows how to keep the ball rolling.
posted by crunchland at 11:17 AM on July 25, 2003


Actualy, the best way to create pics for the internet is to use the "Save for web" option in photoshop

In my opinion, the best way to create pics for the internet is not to use Photoshop. I've used Macromedia Fireworks for years and (unless I need to do Photoshop-specific things) will never go back.
posted by jragon at 12:13 PM on July 25, 2003


Considering:

1) Popular Co-host of a wholesome tech show on Tech TV.

2) Works for a company and has major visibility of someone who is supposedly "Tech Savy"

I wonder how her employers feel about all this?
posted by punkrockrat at 12:19 PM on July 25, 2003


This isn't "tech-savvy" though, more like never used all the features of Photoshop. Considering there are literally hundreds of them, I'm not surprised that someone looking for this could find it.

The employer will probably welcome any increase in ratings on the program, as TechTV is pretty low rated, even among its target audience.
posted by calwatch at 12:38 PM on July 25, 2003


I'd hit it!

that being said, the main attraction is not her boobrs (although nice).. it's those beautiful eyes.

*fap fap fap fap*
posted by shadow45 at 2:02 PM on July 25, 2003


After reading some of the bullshit remarks by people on her messageboard, I have a new (lower) opinion of the common goodwill of mankind.

Assholes, don't upset her over a mistake. Could have been your shitty 80s MP3 list or your twig and berries.. be grateful it was a nice looking woman- who apparently smokes some sort of Bidi or leaf-rolled cigarette.

And whoever said it was pot is just trying to start shit :)
posted by shadow45 at 2:10 PM on July 25, 2003


yes, there are some indian chocolate flavored cigarettes that look like that.
posted by centrs at 5:06 PM on July 25, 2003


I'm with crunchland and jpolous in admiring her looks generally, as opposed to the airbrushed, silicon pumped bimbos who are passed off to the world as good looking women nowadays.
posted by dg at 6:03 PM on July 25, 2003


hmm...her site's down. traffic, or malcontention?
posted by taumeson at 6:38 PM on July 25, 2003


Yeah, I'm with you guys. I dig the eyes, too. My favorite of the pictures from the link, of all things, is the first one. With the eyes, the cute freckles, and that little hint of a smile. I love a good face. (Resisting the "fap fap fap" joke that seems so obvious...)

I just downloaded one of the pictures, and tried the Photoshop preview thing myself. Man, that's freaky.
posted by nath at 7:09 PM on July 25, 2003


dgaicun: Awesome. Now does anybody know where to find naked pictures of the Thunderbirds?

You mean like full-wooden-body photos, or closeups of [Gerry Anderson or a production assistant's] naughty bits?
posted by britain at 8:24 PM on July 25, 2003


punkrockrat - "Call for Help" may very well be a "wholesome" show, but TechTV also runs shows like Unscrewed and Wired for Sex. I don't think Cat has anything to worry about, employment-wise.
posted by Guy Smiley at 8:49 PM on July 25, 2003


I'd hit it!
posted by mary8nne at 10:31 PM on July 27, 2003


pshop'd.
posted by kfury at 6:16 AM on July 29, 2003


« Older Buy your copy of   |   Kolyma: The Land of Gold and Death Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post