raccoon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-24-07 09:28 AM
Original message |
Is there an objective test to determine if a picture has been photoshopped? |
Demit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-24-07 09:31 AM
Response to Original message |
1. not at 72dpi. you need access to the original hi-res file to study the pixels. |
|
Otherwise it's a subjective judgment of shadow placement, unnatural hard edges, things like that.
|
TechBear_Seattle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-24-07 09:34 AM
Response to Original message |
2. You just have to look at it |
|
Almost always, a doctored photo will have irregularities in the background, things like telephone lines that do not line up right or areas where the color is off from the rest of the background. An added element might have shadows and reflections that doesn't line up with the shadows and reflections from other objects, or it might be more in or out of focus compared to other objects at the same distance. And so on.
If the person who altered the photo was sloppy, it will be obvious. Otherwise, you may need to expand the photo to several times it's normal size and inspect it very closely.
|
Tandalayo_Scheisskopf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-24-07 09:35 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Pixel Deformations are one way. |
|
Look for an "unnatural" line of deformed and jagged pixels around the photo element. Another way is shadows that do not quite match other shadows in a picture.
|
mike_c
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-24-07 09:35 AM
Response to Original message |
4. no-- not if the job was done well-- and I assume you mean... |
|
...a test to determine whether an image was significantly altered, since MOST published images are photoshopped or manipulated through an equivalent program.
A digital image is nothing but an array of numbers representing colors and values. Manipulating the image is simply a matter of changing some of the numbers. Unless you have access to the original image, or unless the manipulation was poorly done, there is no objective way to tell.
|
Lerkfish
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-24-07 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. correct. A well-done job is indistinguishable, because pixel images |
|
are essentially single layer dots on a flat canvas. Anyone can rearrange dots. All it takes is knowhow and enough patience.
|
Richard D
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-24-07 09:41 AM
Response to Original message |
|
. . . photos are no longer considered evidence in a court setting.
|
Lerkfish
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-24-07 09:42 AM
Response to Original message |
7. can you link the item in question? |
|
that would be easier. however, unless the manipulation is glaringly obvious, its a matter of opinion. I work in photoshop every day, and I have been sometimes fooled, going from a web image.
|
raccoon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-24-07 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. There's no particular item, thanks. I was just thinking how pictures could/can |
|
be doctored to deceive people. One poster said that photos aren't used as evidence in court any more.
|
Recursion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-24-07 10:01 AM
Response to Original message |
9. Yes: does it exist? If so, it has. |
|
I assume by "photoshopped" you mean digitally altered in some way. If that's what you mean, then every picture you can view with a computer is digitally altered, because the compression and rendering process itself is an example of digital alteration and processing.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 09:29 PM
Response to Original message |