If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
How to determine if a digital photograph has been manipulated
On 2016-10-22 18:11:44 +0000, John McWilliams said:
On 10/22/16 PDT 9:56 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-22 16:41:50 +0000, android said: In article 2016102209384396576-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-22 16:32:10 +0000, android said: In article 2016102206152888260-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: Here is the side-by-side comparison, and that tells the manipulation story. Nothing was added or removed, there were some selective color, NR, & exposure adjustments, and a crop to make stuff fit, all done in Lightroom CC. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_285.jpg And a keystone adjustment that makes the folks in the window look even more overweight... All done in fun. ...but not really a keystone adjustment, it was a horizontal perspective adjustment, just to see what was possible. That would be keystone sideways. Whatever... ;-) Keystone usually implies a vertical perspective issue. Regardless, the adjustment makes the women look a bit off. Hell! The women looked a bit off without having their photo taken. After all I wasn't going for a flattering portrait. They were downtown having whatever passed for fun, but still a bit off, perhaps a bit lit up. You will note the guy sitting on their right hasn't exactly engaged them in pub conversation. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
How to determine if a digital photograph has been manipulated
On 10/22/2016 12:35 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-22 16:15:33 +0000, PeterN said: On 10/22/2016 9:15 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-21 20:19:43 +0000, Bill W said: On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:38:13 -0700, Savageduck wrote: So, since we are on the subject of manipulation, try this for size. I will post a side-by-side comparison with the unaltered original once there are a few comments. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/DNC_8018.jpg I guess nobody else cared to play. :-( It looks like something was removed in the upper half of the lower left window. Also, those smiling girls in the lower right window are obviously fake. No one ever smiles at me when I'm taking photos. They tend to look more like they want to kill me... The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit. That should get you plenty of smiles. The girls, ...er ladies were there sipping their beverages enjoying the passing parade. I was also wondering what all those reflections were in the upper windows, until I realized the lower windows were opened upwards behind them. But that made me wonder why those reflections are missing behind the Coddington sign. Was something done there, too? Just some saturation tweaks. The reflections are present behind the bee. Here is the side-by-side comparison, and that tells the manipulation story. Nothing was added or removed, there were some selective color, NR, & exposure adjustments, and a crop to make stuff fit, all done in Lightroom CC. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_285.jpg IIRC a very similar image was posted in the SI. . The "Frog & Peach" in San Luis Obispo is one of those places where I can depend on getting interesting shots. The example above was shot in 2011. So you might be thinking of this shot in 2012. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/DNC_5320_AH1.jpg ...or this pair shot in 2013(Note the sign change). https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/_DNC5820-EE.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/_DNC5821-Edit.jpg Could be. I noticed that somebody swapped a fat tire for a Guinness, without the reflections. -- PeterN |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
How to determine if a digital photograph has been manipulated
On 2016-10-22 20:28:31 +0000, PeterN said:
On 10/22/2016 12:35 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-22 16:15:33 +0000, PeterN said: On 10/22/2016 9:15 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-21 20:19:43 +0000, Bill W said: On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:38:13 -0700, Savageduck wrote: So, since we are on the subject of manipulation, try this for size. I will post a side-by-side comparison with the unaltered original once there are a few comments. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/DNC_8018.jpg I guess nobody else cared to play. :-( It looks like something was removed in the upper half of the lower left window. Also, those smiling girls in the lower right window are obviously fake. No one ever smiles at me when I'm taking photos. They tend to look more like they want to kill me... The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit. That should get you plenty of smiles. The girls, ...er ladies were there sipping their beverages enjoying the passing parade. I was also wondering what all those reflections were in the upper windows, until I realized the lower windows were opened upwards behind them. But that made me wonder why those reflections are missing behind the Coddington sign. Was something done there, too? Just some saturation tweaks. The reflections are present behind the bee. Here is the side-by-side comparison, and that tells the manipulation story. Nothing was added or removed, there were some selective color, NR, & exposure adjustments, and a crop to make stuff fit, all done in Lightroom CC. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_285.jpg IIRC a very similar image was posted in the SI. . The "Frog & Peach" in San Luis Obispo is one of those places where I can depend on getting interesting shots. The example above was shot in 2011. So you might be thinking of this shot in 2012. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/DNC_5320_AH1.jpg ...or this pair shot in 2013(Note the sign change). https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/_DNC5820-EE.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/_DNC5821-Edit.jpg Could be. I noticed that somebody swapped a fat tire for a Guinness, without the reflections. Actually it was a compete rearrangement, with the "Fat Tire" and "Guinness" swap between 2011 and 2012. Then in 2013 the "Coddington Hemp Ale" was replaced with a "Chainbreaker White IPA". -- Regards, Savageduck |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
How to determine if a digital photograph has been manipulated
On 10/22/16 PDT 11:32 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-22 18:11:44 +0000, John McWilliams said: On 10/22/16 PDT 9:56 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-22 16:41:50 +0000, android said: In article 2016102209384396576-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-22 16:32:10 +0000, android said: In article 2016102206152888260-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: Here is the side-by-side comparison, and that tells the manipulation story. Nothing was added or removed, there were some selective color, NR, & exposure adjustments, and a crop to make stuff fit, all done in Lightroom CC. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_285.jpg And a keystone adjustment that makes the folks in the window look even more overweight... All done in fun. ...but not really a keystone adjustment, it was a horizontal perspective adjustment, just to see what was possible. That would be keystone sideways. Whatever... ;-) Keystone usually implies a vertical perspective issue. Regardless, the adjustment makes the women look a bit off. Hell! The women looked a bit off without having their photo taken. After all I wasn't going for a flattering portrait. Heh. They were downtown having whatever passed for fun, but still a bit off, perhaps a bit lit up. You will note the guy sitting on their right hasn't exactly engaged them in pub conversation. Yes, I think you've nailed it! But in a slightly serious vein, the perspective (keystone?) adjustment doesn't seem to work as well on human forms as architectural ones. (But quite slight) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
How to determine if a digital photograph has been manipulated
On 2016-10-22 22:19:00 +0000, John McWilliams said:
On 10/22/16 PDT 11:32 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-22 18:11:44 +0000, John McWilliams said: On 10/22/16 PDT 9:56 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-22 16:41:50 +0000, android said: In article 2016102209384396576-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-22 16:32:10 +0000, android said: In article 2016102206152888260-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: Here is the side-by-side comparison, and that tells the manipulation story. Nothing was added or removed, there were some selective color, NR, & exposure adjustments, and a crop to make stuff fit, all done in Lightroom CC. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_285.jpg And a keystone adjustment that makes the folks in the window look even more overweight... All done in fun. ...but not really a keystone adjustment, it was a horizontal perspective adjustment, just to see what was possible. That would be keystone sideways. Whatever... ;-) Keystone usually implies a vertical perspective issue. Regardless, the adjustment makes the women look a bit off. Hell! The women looked a bit off without having their photo taken. After all I wasn't going for a flattering portrait. Heh. They were downtown having whatever passed for fun, but still a bit off, perhaps a bit lit up. You will note the guy sitting on their right hasn't exactly engaged them in pub conversation. Yes, I think you've nailed it! But in a slightly serious vein, the perspective (keystone?) adjustment doesn't seem to work as well on human forms as architectural ones. (But quite slight) How many flat and parallel surfaces do you have? Most of mine are curved, and those curves are stretchy. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
How to determine if a digital photograph has been manipulated
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:15:28 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit. Hmmm. My understanding is that clown suits are temporarily problematic. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
How to determine if a digital photograph has been manipulated
On 2016-10-23 01:07:08 +0000, Bill W said:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:15:28 -0700, Savageduck wrote: The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit. Hmmm. My understanding is that clown suits are temporarily problematic. ;-) ....but just think of all the shots you can get of folks running from you, and of cops running towards you. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
How to determine if a digital photograph has been manipulated
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 18:37:19 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2016-10-23 01:07:08 +0000, Bill W said: On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:15:28 -0700, Savageduck wrote: The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit. Hmmm. My understanding is that clown suits are temporarily problematic. ;-) ...but just think of all the shots you can get of folks running from you, and of cops running towards you. What shutter speed will capture bullets mid-flight? Here, I shrunk the people in your photo: https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/91481y I wanted to see if I could do it. I used DXO Viewpoint first, but that wasn't enough. I went to PS, then to Transform-Scale, and selected and transformed each of the two r/s windows separately. It came out okay, but I think someone who knows what he's doing could do a pretty good job with this technique. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
How to determine if a digital photograph has been manipulated
On 2016-10-23 02:27:26 +0000, Bill W said:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 18:37:19 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-23 01:07:08 +0000, Bill W said: On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:15:28 -0700, Savageduck wrote: The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit. Hmmm. My understanding is that clown suits are temporarily problematic. ;-) ...but just think of all the shots you can get of folks running from you, and of cops running towards you. What shutter speed will capture bullets mid-flight? Here, I shrunk the people in your photo: https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/91481y I wanted to see if I could do it. I used DXO Viewpoint first, but that wasn't enough. I went to PS, then to Transform-Scale, and selected and transformed each of the two r/s windows separately. It came out okay, but I think someone who knows what he's doing could do a pretty good job with this technique. Yup! You compressed the sides a bit which did squeeze them down a tad, but also did a number on the window. Rather than work off my reworked shot, here is the original RAW (as DNG) for you to play with. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/DNC_8018.dng I also have 3 or 4 other shots taken at the same time with less extreme angles and slightly different action from the ladies. The guy remains deadpan throughout his ordeal. I will post some of those later to show some of the sequence. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
How to determine if a digital photograph has been manipulated
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 19:45:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2016-10-23 02:27:26 +0000, Bill W said: On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 18:37:19 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2016-10-23 01:07:08 +0000, Bill W said: On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:15:28 -0700, Savageduck wrote: The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit. Hmmm. My understanding is that clown suits are temporarily problematic. ;-) ...but just think of all the shots you can get of folks running from you, and of cops running towards you. What shutter speed will capture bullets mid-flight? Here, I shrunk the people in your photo: https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/91481y I wanted to see if I could do it. I used DXO Viewpoint first, but that wasn't enough. I went to PS, then to Transform-Scale, and selected and transformed each of the two r/s windows separately. It came out okay, but I think someone who knows what he's doing could do a pretty good job with this technique. Yup! You compressed the sides a bit which did squeeze them down a tad, but also did a number on the window. Yeah, as I posted that, I looked across the room at the other display with the photo, and saw what a mess the perspective had become. It makes me a little dizzy to look at it. Rather than work off my reworked shot, here is the original RAW (as DNG) for you to play with. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/DNC_8018.dng I'll have to give it a try. I haven't done anything with photography lately. How can there be so many distractions when you're retired? I also have 3 or 4 other shots taken at the same time with less extreme angles and slightly different action from the ladies. The guy remains deadpan throughout his ordeal. I will post some of those later to show some of the sequence. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Corel Manipulated Photography and Digital Art Competition JanuaryWinner | Wayne J. Cosshall | Digital Photography | 0 | February 27th 07 10:11 AM |
Corel Manipulated Photography and Digital Art Competition JanuaryWinner | Wayne J. Cosshall | Digital ZLR Cameras | 0 | February 27th 07 10:11 AM |
Corel Manipulated Photography and Digital Art Competition JanuaryWinner | Wayne J. Cosshall | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 27th 07 10:11 AM |
How to Determine The Useful Longest Exposure Time Of A Digital Camera/Back | Einst Stein | Digital Photography | 8 | May 2nd 06 05:09 AM |
Digital images of Mars - Are these manipulated? | Invisible | Digital Photography | 13 | April 30th 05 12:56 AM |