 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / October 2005Need Help to detect image manipulation
I am looking for ways to detect if digital images have been altered “photoshopped”. If anyone could direct me to a program or method to determine this it would be much appreciated. >I am looking for ways to detect if digital images have been altered > “photoshopped”. If anyone could direct me to a program or method to > determine this it would be much appreciated. No software. You need a trained eye > I am looking for ways to detect if digital images have been altered > "photoshopped". If anyone could direct me to a program or method to > determine this it would be much appreciated. It depends in large part on how good the person is who is doing the Photoshop work. Photoshop leaves its mark on the exif data, which is pretty easy to edit back to make it look like it has not be edited. If you really got into it there is a lot of detail as to how a jpeg file is stored, it would be somewhat difficult for just anybody to exactly copy how a given camera saved the jpeg file. Raw files would be much harder to fake then jpeg, but not impossible. Of course almost any photo this is posted on the internet has been edited by resizing if nothing else. What is the source of the photos that you are worried about, if you don't mind me asking? Scott it has to do with an internet purchase, where the picture of an item we purchased did not truly represent the piece. To say the least the photo was flattering the condition of the item. Was curious to see if the original photo had been more than resized or color enhanced. Thanks again for your all input. > it has to do with an internet purchase, where the picture of an item we > purchased did not truly represent the piece. To say the least the photo was > flattering the condition of the item. Was curious to see if the original > photo had been more than resized or color enhanced. Thanks again for your > all input. The problem then is that the photo was edited but it would be very hard to tell just how much it was edited. Scott > it has to do with an internet purchase, where the picture of an item we > purchased did not truly represent the piece. To say the least the photo > was > flattering the condition of the item. Was curious to see if the original > photo had been more than resized or color enhanced. Thanks again for your > all input. Never, Never judge a product by the photo. Most sites tell you that the product may not exactly match the photo. The food you order at Denny's never looks like the photo in the menu. almost all product shots are manipulated. >> it has to do with an internet purchase, where the picture of an item we >> purchased did not truly represent the piece. To say the least the photo [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >almost all product shots are manipulated. Exactly. The tenent of advertising photography is to flatter the product as much as is possible. This might just be the lighting, or the selection of lens to visually distort length, etc. I may also go into image manipulation. In the days before digital, it was common to "pump up" colors with Flexichrome dyes. Once one got into "airbrushing" it was more graphic art, than photography. As one who has spent half a lifetime photographing computer boxes, to make them look sexy, or tiny resort rooms to make them look spacious and bright, its far more than a color/contrast tweak. Hunt > it has to do with an internet purchase, where the picture of an item we > purchased did not truly represent the piece. To say the least the photo was > flattering the condition of the item. Was curious to see if the original > photo had been more than resized or color enhanced. Thanks again for your > all input. The easiest way to produce a misleading photo for an advertisement, is to photograph something that isn't the item being offered for sale. No techy tricks, just plain old subterfuge and deceit - or laziness, by 'borrowing' a picture of 'something similar' from 'somewhere else'.  Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.