# Minor rant: So you've got Photoshop, eh? **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 14, 2005, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648 "2005-12-14T22:07:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/1 "2005-12-14T22:07:43Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/2 "2005-12-14T22:11:54Z")
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](http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/porcupinedog.asp) . There, are you happy now?!?! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![PinkMarabou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ec9cab/32.png) [@PinkMarabou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PinkMarabou)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/3 "2005-12-14T22:52:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/4 "2005-12-14T23:11:12Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > 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.” I call that “Revtim’s Law”: Any non-totally mundane picture in a thread will garner at least one “obviously Photoshopped” response. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/5 "2005-12-14T23:12:20Z")
And I am shamelessly and pathetically trying to gain internet immortality by persuading others to call it that as well. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/6 "2005-12-14T23:37:25Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > Show me something more substantial that “obvious blur” or even “obvious clone”. Those can cast doubt; but they aren’t proof. If it’s an “obvious clone,” [(Like this one,)](http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/googly.asp#photo) 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. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2005, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/7 "2005-12-14T23:50:34Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ol\_Gaffer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Ol\_Gaffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ol_Gaffer)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/8 "2005-12-15T00:35:52Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > And I am shamelessly and pathetically trying to gain internet immortality by persuading others to call it that as well. You noted your law in this [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=343025) that I started and I have noted its veracity in every pic thread since! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/9 "2005-12-15T01:00:50Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > And I am shamelessly and pathetically trying to gain internet immortality by persuading others to call it that as well. 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? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/10 "2005-12-15T04:56:11Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > 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. … But avoid adding false statements to your objection. 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. ---
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/11 "2005-12-15T05:21:44Z")
Can I get non JPG or non compressed info from my Fuji F-10 camera? What BMP? RAW? TIFF? GIFF? Takes a special camera? $1000 and up? What is straight pixel info? How do I tap in to it? ---
**Author:** ![Fern\_Forest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/71c47a/32.png) [@Fern\_Forest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fern_Forest)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/12 "2005-12-15T05:38:18Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > I call that “Revtim’s Law”: Any non-totally mundane picture in a thread will garner at least one “obviously Photoshopped” response. We have too many laws. We need more assertions, conjectures and declarations to balance things out. ---
**Author:** ![Seven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Seven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Seven)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/13 "2005-12-15T06:37:07Z")
Man, this thread is so obviously Photoshopped. ---
**Author:** ![TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tellmei_mnotcrazy/32/3419_2.png) [@TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TellMeI_mNotCrazy)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/14 "2005-12-15T06:44:03Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > If it’s an “obvious clone,” [(Like this one,)](http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/googly.asp#photo) 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![gotpasswords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c57346/32.png) [@gotpasswords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gotpasswords)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/15 "2005-12-15T06:59:28Z")
> [@GusNSpot](#): > > Can I get non JPG or non compressed info from my Fuji F-10 camera? > > Takes a special camera? $1000 and up? > > What is straight pixel info? How do I tap in to it? Sorry. Just regular JPEG for this one. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Br\_er\_Lapin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e79b87/32.png) [@Br\_er\_Lapin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Br_er_Lapin)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/16 "2005-12-15T08:17:07Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > If it’s an “obvious clone,” [(Like this one,)](http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/googly.asp#photo) 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tellmei_mnotcrazy/32/3419_2.png) [@TellMeI\_mNotCrazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TellMeI_mNotCrazy)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/17 "2005-12-15T08:18:21Z")
> [@Bre'r Lappin](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Br\_er\_Lapin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e79b87/32.png) [@Br\_er\_Lapin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Br_er_Lapin)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/18 "2005-12-15T08:18:47Z")
:rolleyes: Please pretend I didn’t completely mangle the English language in the above post. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/19 "2005-12-15T14:04:06Z")
> [@Ol'Gaffer](#): > > You noted your law in this [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=343025) that I started and I have noted its veracity in every pic thread since! I suspect it’s a law in the physics sense, much like the laws of thermodynamics. In this universe, it MUST happen! ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2005, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648/20 "2005-12-15T14:05:27Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > 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? 😉 Hey, I’m shooting for immortality here, three years or so is nothing! [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/minor-rant-so-youve-got-photoshop-eh/335648.md?page=2)