Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 1, 2004, 12:00 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
digcamfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,422
Default Digital Photo Manipulation

Hi all,

Here is an interesting article on the subject

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...23_paul01.html

Any thoughts?
digcamfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 1, 2004, 12:38 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

My thoughts are that as long as there is a way for some people to deceive others, there are those that will do it. I have seen many photos that raise an eyebrow, some obviously fake, others very real looking to my untrained eye. There is no doubt in my mind that one can fake a picture that wouldn't be detectable to others which will make photographic evidence questionable, at best. Without a negative, or maybe a RAW file (not sure on this one), the question of altering the image will alway be there.

I don't think we're talking about color/tonal and other photo enhancements to produce a better photo, but rather photos that are deliberately altered with the intent to deceive. I know my email box receives altered photos, mainly meant for humor relief, but it's amazing the number of gullible people that think the photo is real. (Bush reading the book upside down is a classic that comes to mind)
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 12:47 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

There is no reality, it is all a fiction
Well except for reality tv shows, and they are not worth the time.


That was a fake?????
Quote:
(Bush reading the book upside down is a classic that comes to mind)
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 1:45 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Alan T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Chester, UK
Posts: 2,980
Default Image doesn't even need to be manipulated

Here is a link to a UK "Guardian" article last week, mostly about the Kerry-Fonda fake picture. A little further down the article, they discuss an image of the supermodel Kate Moss that *appeared* to show her attached to someone other than the expected person. It wasn't manipulated, but the viewpoint made it misleading. My point is that we should always have been a bit sceptical about photographic evidence. See....http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediagua...153684,00.html
Alan T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 2:49 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 48
Default

I think the article has it a bit off. There was a fake Kerry Fonda picture, but there also was a genuine one where they were sitting near each other.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/kerry2.asp <-Apologies for the pop-ups.

I just found it ironic that one fake photo can make legitimate photos officially fake to some which muddies the issue even further.

You have to take a lot on faith these days. :?
Effen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 7:36 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seattle Times
As someone who spent much of my frustrated youth trying to convince Kansas cousins that professional wrestling was faked, ...
Anyone think the probem is fake photos?

There always have been (and always will be) liars, showmen, con artists, pranksters, preachers, ... who will use whatever technique they can to distort people's view of reality. Blaming the techniques used by those folks misses the whole point.

There have always been people who want to believe that by shaving their heads, wearing paisley parkas, and selling bananas at airports they will get a new swimming pool. And they don't all live in Kansas
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 8:09 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
ohenry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,676
Default

Wrestling is fake????? MANNNNNNNNN!!!!!!! I'm bummed now!
ohenry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 9:17 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillDrew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seattle Times
As someone who spent much of my frustrated youth trying to convince Kansas cousins that professional wrestling was faked, ...
Anyone think the probem is fake photos?

There always have been (and always will be) liars, showmen, con artists, pranksters, preachers, ... who will use whatever technique they can to distort people's view of reality. Blaming the techniques used by those folks misses the whole point.

There have always been people who want to believe that by shaving their heads, wearing paisley parkas, and selling bananas at airports they will get a new swimming pool. And they don't all live in Kansas
I think the problem is that for a long time, there was atleast some recording technology which was extremely difficult to fake. At first, photos, but as technique to fool photos came motion pictures. Too many photos to fake. As techniques to fool movies came, there was video. Video for a long time was extremely hard to fake or manipulate directly.

Perhaps they could always be faked at any given time. But the number of people able to produce a good fake were few. And the number of fakes they might be able to make were few. That's different now. A large number of fakes can be generated since everything is moving to digital by a growing number of people.

Also with digital, you leave no physical evidence. A lot of fakes used to be able to be traced down because there was something physical to persue. There are numerous aspects of a film based photo that would have to be faked (the paper, the chemicals, the aging effects, fingerprints, and the image itself). All those aspects could be faked, but it would take chemical which need to be purchased, etc. With digital, you only have the image to go by.
Effen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1, 2004, 11:19 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

I didn't read the article, I have to admit. It's late here, and I gotta get to bed.

but this discussion reminded me of when National Geographic was caught about 10 years back having manipulated the cover picture of a man (with a camel?) standing in front of a great pyramid, with another structure in the background.

Someone knowledgeable about such things pointed out that the picture was impossible, the two structures couldnít have been taken in the same shot at the angles they were at relative to each other. They had moved the great pyramid to the left to make it fit the cover. The final uproar seemed to boil down the fact that they hadnít stated that the picture was edited. People expected that it was ďrealĒ unless stated otherwise.

Then with in the last year I read a rather long analysis of an article about mayfly larvae (sp?) and how kingfishers would pick them off the surface of the water as they transitioned between larvae (sp?) and fly. I canít vouch for the reasons they showed that the mayflyís were fake. But I did understand the photographic reason it was fake (shutter speed too low to stop a kingfisher mid dive at 30 MPH.)

National Geographic claims they studied the picture and believes itís real. Of course, itís their reputation so they could be just burying it.

There will always be fake photos (and they will only get better), and there will always be people who get fooled and canít admit it.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:47 PM.