Guess what. Having a copy, even a legal copy, doesn’t make you an expert. It doesn’t mean you can accurately pick out hoax photos. Especially outrageous photos you get in email or on the web. Those things have often been saved and resaved so many times, of course they have poor resolution and “artifacts”. JPEG is lossy. Everytime you save it, the image loses a bit of info. Maybe the orginal was way too dark and someone played with the levels, making it look “doctored”. There are several other reasons images are pristine besides someone making a hoax.
Really, I’m not ranting, I’m just a little annoyed that everytime some body links to some nutcase picture, someone labels it “obviously Photoshopped.” Sometimes they’re right. Often they’re not.
Quit saying things are obviously Photoshopped unless you’ve got better evidence than “artifacts.” Show me two different pictures that have both elements so that it’s clear they were spliced. Show me an original without the modifications. Show me something more substantial that “obvious blur” or even “obvious clone”. Those can cast doubt; but they aren’t proof.
OK Pal, I said the dog with a face full, indeed, head full of porquepine quills was photoshopped. Not only could I not spell porquepine, I was wrong about the photoshop .
There, are you happy now?!?!
I work with Photoshop nearly every day and I can’t tell if it’s been doctored or not. Well, that depends on how good the artist is. If you’re good, it’s impossible to tell besides something that is physically impossible.
On the flip side of that . . . photos of models, objects, places have certainly (I’d say about 98% of them) been “touched-up” in some way. Airbrushing flaws*, correcting color, adjusting light, removing undesireables, etc. are all normal for nearly every single print photo you see (except for ones you take and do not touch-up yourself). It’s the business, those people/places/things do not look like that normally.
But I agree, I don’t think people should jump to conclusions about whether or not it has been doctored. Even the professionals can’t tell if the job is done well. It’s not that big of a deal to me. I reserve judgement until there’s proof it was/wasn’t doctored.
acne, cellulite, tattoos, fly-away hair, a “weird” pose, freckles, too-small/large boobs, saddlebags, not the “right” wrinkle in the clothes, etc. - yes, almost every single model you see has at least one of these.
If it’s an “obvious clone,” (Like this one,) then you can say why it’s obvious. If you can point out instances where the same pattern of pixels repeats, then it’s usually certain proof – unless you’re talking about the wallpaper in the background, or something. Apart from crude C&P’s, it’s one of the few reliable ways of determining whether an image is real or not.
But yeah, “That edge looks jagged/too sharp/too blurry” kind of stuff is just silly. You’ll find that kind of stuff straight off your camera’s memory card, if it saves images as jpgs.
Not correct. Every time you apply Jpeg compression, you lose a lot. But saving Jpeg attachments (or any other files) directly doesn’t do anything. It should retain everything, including metadata. Yes, you’re right to point out that Jpeg images aren’t at all suitable for close examination of detail, because they are already highly-compressed and often of a very low resolution. But avoid adding false statements to your objection.
And I will be sure to credit you if I ever use it. Probably the next time I talk about a picture being Photoshopped or not will be sometime in 2009. OK with you if we wait that long?
I didn’t make a false statement. When I refer to save, I mean save, not copy or duplicate or save attachment. I mean open, make adjustments - whether to adjust color, crop or touch-up - and save. This applies compression again.
Exactly what I came in to say. I had that exact picture in mind, too (I think I pointed out the cloning in the thread about the picture a while ago).
Just because a picture is unbelievable doesn’t make it automatically Photoshopped. On the other hand, don’t instantly discount those saying it is Photoshopped if they can prove that it is without having original photos etc.
RAW data is essentially straight off the CCD sensor, and often doesn’t look anything like an image due to how the data comes out of the CCD in a stream, rather than a 4x6" image.
I’m not a serious photoshop user – can you (or someone) point out the instances of cloning/pixel repetition in this photo? i can tell it’s photoshopped just based on the eyelases tear ducts. The right eye is actually a left eye, and vice versa. Other than that, it seens extremely well done to me, but like I said, I don’t really know what I’m talking about.
The most evident example is that a crease on the left eyelid appears in the middle of the forehead. Comparing the two, it’s clear that the eyelid just cloned that region of the forehead.
