In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

An article that may be of interest:

https://www.quora.com/From-a-technic...here-any-non-o
bvious-tell-tale-signs-that-a-photo-has-been-digitally-manipulated

there are many ways to tell if an image has been manipulated, both
visually and forensically, just as there are many ways to drastically
minimize it being detected.

That's a long sentence that says exactly nothing. You have this
driving need to say something and to argue, but you can't produce a
meaningful observation. Why do you bother to post?

you're on the attack so soon? it's you who is arguing, claiming that
what i wrote says nothing when in fact it says quite a bit.

You are the one who initiated the argument. Your comment is smoke; it
offers nothing.

it's not an argument.

my comment is a statement of fact.

in other words, sloppy work is easy to figure out while quality work is
not.

Who would argue that?

you would, and did.

It's the work that is neither sloppy nor very
good in which we look for signs of Photoshopping.

maybe you only look at mid-level work, but you don't speak for
everyone, despite you thinking that you do.

the best work will be undetectable outside of forensics.

these days, anything can be suspect, including photos signed by the
camera.

Of course, but you ignore the actual question of what the indications
are of a Photoshop-manipulated photo that is not a sloppy job.

i'm not ignoring anything.

there are many ways to tell if an image is faked. that article mentions
a bunch but it is not an exhaustive list.

Who said it was? Certainly it lists more than you have.

you did not ask for a list. you only attacked.

the fact that you think it is a complete list shows just how little you
know about yet another topic.

Where did I say that? I linked to an article and made no comment
whatsoever about the completeness of the list.

you certainly implied it with your responses. now you're trying to
weasel out of it. typical.

You're fabricating again. Lying, in other words.

projection.

a skilled compositor can fool even the sharpest eyes and sometimes even
forensics. it's just the way it is.

This is not "linkbait" despite the fact that it's about fish. It may
get clicks, though.

you're trolling, with further proof you don't understand the terms.

Your comment is the troll. I understand the term, but I also
understand - as you apparently don't - that all links that are clicked
are not "linkbait".

further proof you don't understand the terms and you're once again
fabricating things i've said. you are the very definition of a troll.

There is no proof, and - on the contrary - I understand the term quite
well.

not based on anything you've posted so far, you haven't.

You seem to be proposing, by arguing, that any link clicked was
posted as linkbait.

i never said any such thing nor am i arguing. you are once again lying.