Photoshopped?

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

An article that may be of interest:

https://www.quora.com/From-a-technic...y-non-obvious-
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.

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

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.

rOn Tue, 03 Nov 2015 21:26:40 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

- that all links that are clicked are not "linkbait".

Ermm - not all links that are clicked are "linkbait"?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

An article that may be of interest:

https://www.quora.com/From-a-technic...e-any-non-obvi
ous-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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 22:57:01 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:47:28 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

rOn Tue, 03 Nov 2015 21:26:40 -0500, Tony Cooper
wrote:

- that all links that are clicked are not "linkbait".

Ermm - not all links that are clicked are "linkbait"?

It reads the same either way.

It doesn't mean the same.

First one means that any link which is clicked is not linkbait.

The second one means that any link which is clinked may or may not be
linkbait.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Tony Cooper:
- that all links that are clicked are not "linkbait".

Eric Stevens:
Ermm - not all links that are clicked are "linkbait"?

Moving OT, and not intending to denigrate Mr. Cooper in any way, I'm
glad that Mr. Stevens brought that up. The former phrasing is becoming
more common, it seems, but it grates on me. I don't think that the
phrase "all links that are clicked are not 'linkbait'" in any way
expresses what the speaker meant. It's a clumsy phrase, and if means
anything at all, it means "no links are clickbait" i.e., there is no
such thing as clickbait. The meaning of Mr. Stevens' phrase is "some
links may just be clickbait, but not all of them are [and the one that
I am presenting is not]." And I /think/ that's what Mr. Cooper meant to
convey.

So what does this mean? That Mr. Stevens and I are pedants and
grammatical prescriptivists? Not at all. It just means that
non-standard, clumsy, or inelegant speech and writing are an impediment
to conveying meaning.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

| Sometimes, though, I write on the fly and see later that what I have
| written is does not clearly convey my intent.
|

Not to worry. They both approve of "ermm",
which is an inappropriate indicator of casualness,
feigning sloppy speech for no reason. That's
far more annoying than inefficient phrasing.

And what about the 10/1 ratio of irrelevant
to relevant posts? So far I see 14 posts, none
of them really addressing the topic. I'd rather
someone say something interesting badly than
to say irrelevant things well.

So, uhhh.. Hmmmm... What was it talking
about you were?

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Sometimes, though, I write on the fly and see later that what I have
written is does not clearly convey my intent.

imagine that.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Sometimes, though, I write on the fly and see later that what I have
written is does not clearly convey my intent.

imagine that.

That happens in my writing far less than it happens in your writing.

i did not comment on the frequency.

When it does, as in this example, I have no problem in returning and
owning up to it as I did in this example.

You never do own up to your mistakes. You just do the weasel dance.

wrong. i do own up to my mistakes, but it takes more than you simply
saying it's wrong.

usually, you twist it into something not said and argue against that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im9XuJJXylw

that's your theme song.

On 11/4/2015 10:59 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Sometimes, though, I write on the fly and see later that what I have
written is does not clearly convey my intent.

imagine that.


When we point out that you said something silly, we are just picking on
words.

I wonder why my three week old request or clarification has been ignored.


--
PeterN