Photoshop Question

Flying Pig · April 03, 2009, 05:15:46 PM

Is there a way to tell if a photo is photoshopped or not? Aside from someone doing a poor job?

ricks · April 03, 2009, 06:16:30 PM

You would need to have an image with good dpi then zoom in to the likely phtoshopped area. You may see discoloration or variance in shading. Many times the image will not stand up to the close examination.

Another method is to open the document in adobe illustrator and determine if the image has any layers. This would be a good indicator of a photoshopped document.

openmind · April 03, 2009, 11:10:13 PM

Quote from: Flying Pig on April 03, 2009, 05:15:46 PM
Is there a way to tell if a photo is photoshopped or not? Aside from someone doing a poor job?

Even experts on Image Manipulation will be hard pressed to state with absolute certainty that a particular image WAS or WAS NOT manipulated digitally. Unless, as you say, someone did a very poor job.

Statistical analysis of the image, along with a knowledge of the camera that took the original picture can get you an answer that is 'pretty sure' but to be certain is very difficult. Some of these analyses go so far as to consider the noise patterns in the output of the CCD sensor in the camera, so that gives you an idea of the level of analysis that might be required. Even these techniques can fail if the image has been resized, shifted from one format to another, put into a lossy format, etc.

Is this something of legal significance or are you just trying to see if an image has been altered for less serious purposes?

If you don't need the determination to stand up in Court, then, as suggested earlier, there are some methods for detecting digital manipulation of images done by less than a consummate professional.

Let us know if we can assist you.

openmind

flyguync · April 03, 2009, 11:37:44 PM

An example would be on page 28 of the new Volunteer magazine.

Flying Pig · April 04, 2009, 02:44:53 AM

Nothing legal. Just a photo a friend and I were discussing. The photo in the Volunteer? Please dont tell me the one with the National Commander with the shuttle behind her was shopped?

??

a2capt · April 04, 2009, 04:22:27 AM

Or how about the cover of the 2008 report to congress.

Really, whoever the heck is at NHQ, needs to quit doing this.

It's unethical journalism. I know, the congressional report cover isn't really journalism, but come on. Just quit it. Put away the mouse, go find another job.

As for ways to tell, sure. Open the file with a text editor. .. and / or look for EXIF data from a camera, Photoshop will usually not save all that when a revision is made. No EXIF data, the file is not from a camera. Which places it in an ambiguous origin.

♠SARKID♠ · April 04, 2009, 04:49:34 AM

Quote from: flyguync on April 03, 2009, 11:37:44 PM
An example would be on page 28 of the new Volunteer magazine.

Ida know, that just looks like some shoddy photography to me.

jimmydeanno · April 04, 2009, 02:07:32 PM

I agree. It is a night time shot so the iso is cranked way up, making it grainy. There was probably a substantial amount cropped off, then resized made it even grainier. Then because of the darkness in the photo, they probably cranked the brightness and contrast.

So they probably used photoshop to do the post processing, but if you mean was Gen. Courter added to the photo - nah, I don't think so.

CadetProgramGuy · April 04, 2009, 05:42:49 PM

Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 04, 2009, 02:07:32 PM
I agree. It is a night time shot so the iso is cranked way up, making it grainy. There was probably a substantial amount cropped off, then resized made it even grainier. Then because of the darkness in the photo, they probably cranked the brightness and contrast.

So they probably used photoshop to do the post processing, but if you mean was Gen. Courter added to the photo - nah, I don't think so.

Oh i do, the light contrast from the General to the water doesn't add up.

jimmydeanno · April 04, 2009, 06:00:09 PM

I think they used a flash, which wouldn't have filled the background, keeping it almost completely black. Changing the brightness and contrast would make the water barely visible while washing out the good general. Sometimes, pictures just don't work out the way you would like them to.

If they had shot in RAW format instead of JPEG they could have probably saved it better, but as they say, "Them's the dice."

JoeTomasone · April 05, 2009, 02:18:01 AM

The General seems to be too evenly lit for a shoe-mounted flash to have been used. And somehow, I don't see a monolight being dragged out there.

I also think there's something off about the focal length needed to get the shuttle that large in the frame but yet still have that depth of focus... But maybe they had a place to shoot from that I don't know about.

Whatever... If it's a PS job, it's a good one, for once.

BuckeyeDEJ · April 05, 2009, 02:19:45 AM

Quote from: openmind on April 03, 2009, 11:10:13 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on April 03, 2009, 05:15:46 PM
Is there a way to tell if a photo is photoshopped or not? Aside from someone doing a poor job?

Even experts on Image Manipulation will be hard pressed to state with absolute certainty that a particular image WAS or WAS NOT manipulated digitally. Unless, as you say, someone did a very poor job.

Or you know for a fact that the action in the photo is impossible.

Someone could do one hellacious job in Photoshop and you'd never know unless you knew for a fact reality was bent.

The Los Angeles Times fired a photog a couple of years ago for doctoring a news photo from Afghanistan that was clearly a hybrid of two photos in his raw take. If you hadn't seen the originals, you wouldn't have known.

A Reuters photog was recently canned after adding extra smoke to a photo of a bombing in the Middle East. It was clearly a fake. As a result, Reuters won't let its shooters touch any image, outside of cropping.

Supposedly, you aren't supposed to believe anything you read and only half of what you hear. Add to that: You can't always believe everything you see, especially when you're dealing with an image that has come from a top illustrator.

Gunner C · April 05, 2009, 04:45:10 AM

Quote from: jimmydeanno on April 04, 2009, 02:07:32 PM
I agree. It is a night time shot so the iso is cranked way up, making it grainy. There was probably a substantial amount cropped off, then resized made it even grainier. Then because of the darkness in the photo, they probably cranked the brightness and contrast.

So they probably used photoshop to do the post processing, but if you mean was Gen. Courter added to the photo - nah, I don't think so.

My question is why the heck isn't she watching the launch? Does anyone go to a shuttle launch to get their picture taken with the shuttle over your shoulder? I don't think it's shopped, but to me it's just weird in the extreme. I think a much better shot would be of her watching the launch with the glow of the boosters reflecting off her face.

To me it looks like she's more interested in publicity than cheering on a space launch. I've met her and she's not like that at all. It just doesn't add up.

NIN · April 05, 2009, 01:08:55 PM

Well, it only takes a second to turn around, face your PA dude, snap a picture and go back to watching it....

openmind · April 05, 2009, 05:36:55 PM

Quote from: Gunner C on April 05, 2009, 04:45:10 AM
My question is why the heck isn't she watching the launch? Does anyone go to a shuttle launch to get their picture taken with the shuttle over your shoulder? I don't think it's shopped, but to me it's just weird in the extreme. I think a much better shot would be of her watching the launch with the glow of the boosters reflecting off her face.

To me it looks like she's more interested in publicity than cheering on a space launch. I've met her and she's not like that at all. It just doesn't add up.

Well, why does the President use a separate pen to write each letter of his name when he signs Bills into Law? PR stunt. They then give those pens out to the Bill's sponsors, favored constituents, etc. so they can feel all warm that they have a pen used to sign a US law by the President.

But, looked at in any normal regard, the practice is silly. The President should use a pen until the ink runs out, like anyone else. Heck, some of us still use fountain pens and REFILL them when they run out.

Same for turning (I'm sure just long enough for a couple of snaps of the camera) away from an awe-inspiring sight like a night Shuttle launch to have a prearranged and calculated picture taken. Just a PR stunt.

Which seems odd, given the recent conversations on CAPTalk about CAP NHQs lack of vision on PR issues...

openmind

gistek · April 06, 2009, 05:17:52 PM

I don't have the photo in front of me, and I'm too lazy to go across the room and get it, but is it possible there's a photographic background available for shots of this type?

My daughter had pictures taken at a studio and one of the backgrounds was a garden with a woods behind it. It's absolutely beautiful and many people have asked me exactly where that park is. They're quite surprised to learn that it's one of the walls inside a photographer's studio.