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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Image manipulation
In the old days, when I took pictures using either 35 or 120 films, I
sent the film to the lab for developing and printing. That was generally the end of the story. If some of the pictures are too dark, or too bright...., the camera store that develops the film perhaps may correct them for me, as the lab equipment can automatically adjust the contrast and brightness of the photos. That is about it. For other special circumstances, I had to ask for special treatment and paid extra for it (go to a photo shop instead of doing it in Walmart). My questions are as follows: - Did Ansel Adams retouch any of his famous photos? - How many percent of regular, amateur photos are retouched today? - How many percent of photos submitted for competition are retouched? - Is there a technology which show whether an image has been manipulated (after it is produced)? I know that this sounds ridiculous, as even in the old days, you can over or under exposed your image in the camera before it is taken. Using fully manual camera means that you can change and modify the settings of the image you are going to take. So, the thinking of retouching may, in fact, be just another extension of modifications that people made before taking the photo in the old days. How do you consider a photo is retouched? If you do not do it yourself, the lab may have done it (using old 35mm film) when they develop for printing, some cameras has built-in technology to manipulate the sensor to overrride for certain things (focusing, exposure). Manual settings, such as time and exposure are, in a way, can be considered as "retouching" scheme. So, my questions above can become fague! With digital world is among us today (Raw, Jpeg, Photoshop, Adobe, etc. ), I start to think that taking photos, and relying only on camera manufacturer's technology is not enough for us anymore. I must admit that I changed contrast and brightness, cropping to a lot of my digital photos, before printing them. However, I usually do not go beyond this, as it starts to take a lot of my time. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Image manipulation
Today, made these interesting comments ...
In the old days, when I took pictures using either 35 or 120 films, I sent the film to the lab for developing and printing. That was generally the end of the story. If some of the pictures are too dark, or too bright...., the camera store that develops the film perhaps may correct them for me, as the lab equipment can automatically adjust the contrast and brightness of the photos. That is about it. For other special circumstances, I had to ask for special treatment and paid extra for it (go to a photo shop instead of doing it in Walmart). My questions are as follows: - Did Ansel Adams retouch any of his famous photos? - How many percent of regular, amateur photos are retouched today? - How many percent of photos submitted for competition are retouched? - Is there a technology which show whether an image has been manipulated (after it is produced)? I cannot answer your questions specifically except to say that professional photographers down through the ages have used film with varying light sensitivity and contrast, today's ASA or ISO, they varied their exposure and used different film depending on lighting conditions, and often took the same photo multiple times using different film. Adams and the other greats also took voluminous notes so they would know what they were shooting, what the lighting conditions were, and the film(s) they used as well as other pertinent info such as lens aperture, shutter speed, etc. Nothing magic about this. These people also manipulated the film during the development process using their notes to guide them as how to push to compensate for low light exposures, compensate for knowingly incorrect contrast, etc. Then, when creating prints from their experienced "best guess" film development, again often with multiples of the same photo, they would experiment with the various types of print paper available, e.g. contrast. And, they did the old fashioned dodging and burning in. Professional portrait photographers and their assistants were experts at retouching, as we all know. Whether Ansel Adams and the other greats for scenery, wild life, architecture, and other non-portraiture did or did not retouch, I do not know. But, I strongly suspect they did in order to get the best possible rendition of their subject and to increase the artistic and dramatic qualities of the final print. As to amateurs, except for those who develop their own film and/or their own prints, I don't see how they could possibly compensate for exposure and lighting conditions nor retouch. Some advanced amateurs, a doctor and friend is one, do get their photos printed from expensive custom labs where the negatives are digitally scanned and he sits with the technician and does the equivalent of RAW manipulation until it looks "right" to him. The technician then makes a number of cropped test prints for him, they meet again, and he commissions the final print. He gets his scenery and wildlife photos printed in the usual 8 x 10 and 11 x 14 sizes but most likes 16 x 20 so he can frame them and put them on the walls of his medical offices. He periodically moves prints in and out to vary them according to what interests him. I know that this sounds ridiculous, as even in the old days, you can over or under exposed your image in the camera before it is taken. Using fully manual camera means that you can change and modify the settings of the image you are going to take. So, the thinking of retouching may, in fact, be just another extension of modifications that people made before taking the photo in the old days. How do you consider a photo is retouched? If you do not do it yourself, the lab may have done it (using old 35mm film) when they develop for printing, some cameras has built-in technology to manipulate the sensor to overrride for certain things (focusing, exposure). Manual settings, such as time and exposure are, in a way, can be considered as "retouching" scheme. So, my questions above can become fague! I don't have first-hand knowledge of these things but I do know there is a growing field of what some people call forensic photo analysts, who specialize in determining the authenticity of photos and attempt to increase the quality in those magic ways you see on TV. A friend spent thousands of dollars on a print showing his father, a WWII Marine, in a photograph where his dad had been misidentified. He was trying to prove it was really his father. I don't know the details, but the forensic photo analyst he hired was able to digitally enhance the photo sufficiently to compare facial features to other photos of his father and make the determination that it was indeed him. With digital world is among us today (Raw, Jpeg, Photoshop, Adobe, etc. ), I start to think that taking photos, and relying only on camera manufacturer's technology is not enough for us anymore. I must admit that I changed contrast and brightness, cropping to a lot of my digital photos, before printing them. However, I usually do not go beyond this, as it starts to take a lot of my time. Whether our modern computer controlled cameras can or cannot produce what we deem good quality obviously depends highly on the quality of the camera, lens used, lighting conditions, camera settings, and the skill of the person behind the viewfinder - you. The final criteria for technical and artistic quality, though, rests with the photographer, although there are both quantitative and qualitative metrics that can be used. But, depending on the subject(s) and individual preferences, one person's "great" photo may be viewed as "poor" by another person or what they think is "bad" may be viewed by another as "good". My view is that photography still is an art form, and not an absolute scientific issue. Now, much of what I've said can easily be refuted by those who are knowledgeable about how photos in contests are judged and to what degree authenticity is checked for. I am aware, though, of methods that contest judges use to ascertain if the entrant altered the basic image with PhotoShop which may be against the rules of a particular contest. -- HP, aka Jerry |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Image manipulation
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Image manipulation
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Image manipulation
I believe if Ansel Adams had a digital camera he would also have a computer
and adobe photo shop at his side. He would also have his Black and White Film camera too. If you imagine......Lewis and Clark and if they had a GPS. Say Columbus.......would he use radar? Better yet......Just imagine if the egyptians had mechanical cranes.......... (better not)....May have been looking at High Rises instead of pyramids... I guess this is the age old dilemma... I am a wood worker......Do I throw away my "power tools".......... John Loomis wrote in message oups.com... In the old days, when I took pictures using either 35 or 120 films, I sent the film to the lab for developing and printing. That was generally the end of the story. If some of the pictures are too dark, or too bright...., the camera store that develops the film perhaps may correct them for me, as the lab equipment can automatically adjust the contrast and brightness of the photos. That is about it. For other special circumstances, I had to ask for special treatment and paid extra for it (go to a photo shop instead of doing it in Walmart). My questions are as follows: - Did Ansel Adams retouch any of his famous photos? - How many percent of regular, amateur photos are retouched today? - How many percent of photos submitted for competition are retouched? - Is there a technology which show whether an image has been manipulated (after it is produced)? I know that this sounds ridiculous, as even in the old days, you can over or under exposed your image in the camera before it is taken. Using fully manual camera means that you can change and modify the settings of the image you are going to take. So, the thinking of retouching may, in fact, be just another extension of modifications that people made before taking the photo in the old days. How do you consider a photo is retouched? If you do not do it yourself, the lab may have done it (using old 35mm film) when they develop for printing, some cameras has built-in technology to manipulate the sensor to overrride for certain things (focusing, exposure). Manual settings, such as time and exposure are, in a way, can be considered as "retouching" scheme. So, my questions above can become fague! With digital world is among us today (Raw, Jpeg, Photoshop, Adobe, etc. ), I start to think that taking photos, and relying only on camera manufacturer's technology is not enough for us anymore. I must admit that I changed contrast and brightness, cropping to a lot of my digital photos, before printing them. However, I usually do not go beyond this, as it starts to take a lot of my time. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Image manipulation
Depends on what you meen by retouched? Removing parts, adding, parts
probably a small percentage. Adjusting exposure, color, white balance, sharpness, noise reduction, probably something much much higher. The fact that in the old days a lot of this didn't happen doesn't mean they wouldn't have liked to do it. I just means that a lot of the stuff couldn't be done in a chemical darkroom or if it could it was too time consuming for most. I think there are a lot of film shots out there that aren't what the photographer really wanted, but they had no choice as there was little they could do about. That is one thing digital has given us the ability to get our shots new ones from digital cameras as well as old film ones scanned it the way we want them now. So "retouching" is done a whole lot more now. =(8) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Image manipulation
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Image manipulation
wrote in message oups.com... ...snipped... - Is there a technology which show whether an image has been manipulated (after it is produced)? Sometimes, you just have to look at the image closely. Those who do extensive photography and digital manipulations in software like PhotoShop would typically know what "things" to look for. However, it's not a 100% failsafe when viewing some images in circulation. One article I've read, dated 12/2005, suggests that you can try looking pixel-by-pixel for sharp lines that result when one image is pasted on top of another. Source: http://www.csoonline.com/read/120105/ht_image.html The article also says that Dartmouth College developed software algorithms sophisticated enough to detect image manipulation. It's been two years since the article was written so, perhaps there are third party software developers using the algorithm in their commercial proggies if, any exist. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Image manipulation
"Wild Cabayo" wrote in message
. .. wrote in message oups.com... ...snipped... - Is there a technology which show whether an image has been manipulated (after it is produced)? Sometimes, you just have to look at the image closely. Those who do extensive photography and digital manipulations in software like PhotoShop would typically know what "things" to look for. However, it's not a 100% failsafe when viewing some images in circulation. One article I've read, dated 12/2005, suggests that you can try looking pixel-by-pixel for sharp lines that result when one image is pasted on top of another. Source: http://www.csoonline.com/read/120105/ht_image.html The article also says that Dartmouth College developed software algorithms sophisticated enough to detect image manipulation. It's been two years since the article was written so, perhaps there are third party software developers using the algorithm in their commercial proggies if, any exist. Those sharp lines only apply to images done by people that don't know what they are doing. I think the best way to find faked images is looking at the lighting and shadows. These are the hardest things to match when taking something from one image and putting in to another. However, most digital fakes are so poorly done there is almost always something that jumps out at you. It may take you a minute to realize what it is, but your mind says wait something isn't right. Then you have to start going through a mental list. Most times it is lighting and shadow problems. Hard edges are only from those that don't know what they are doing. Otherwise a slight feathering of the edge by 1 to 2 pixels takes care of that. =(8) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Image manipulation
"=(8)" wrote in message ... "Wild Cabayo" wrote in message . .. wrote in message oups.com... ...snipped... - Is there a technology which show whether an image has been manipulated (after it is produced)? Sometimes, you just have to look at the image closely. Those who do extensive photography and digital manipulations in software like PhotoShop would typically know what "things" to look for. However, it's not a 100% failsafe when viewing some images in circulation. One article I've read, dated 12/2005, suggests that you can try looking pixel-by-pixel for sharp lines that result when one image is pasted on top of another. Source: http://www.csoonline.com/read/120105/ht_image.html The article also says that Dartmouth College developed software algorithms sophisticated enough to detect image manipulation. It's been two years since the article was written so, perhaps there are third party software developers using the algorithm in their commercial proggies if, any exist. Those sharp lines only apply to images done by people that don't know what they are doing. I think the best way to find faked images is looking at the lighting and shadows. These are the hardest things to match when taking something from one image and putting in to another. However, most digital fakes are so poorly done there is almost always something that jumps out at you. It may take you a minute to realize what it is, but your mind says wait something isn't right. Then you have to start going through a mental list. Most times it is lighting and shadow problems. Hard edges are only from those that don't know what they are doing. Otherwise a slight feathering of the edge by 1 to 2 pixels takes care of that. =(8) That's right too. Those are the "things" I mentioned in my first paragraph but, was too lazy to write it out. Heh. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Image manipulation & editing program | Fred Lebow | Digital Photography | 2 | October 28th 06 10:19 PM |
photo manipulation | NikkoJay via PhotoKB.com | Digital Photography | 7 | October 15th 06 07:48 PM |
Image Filtration Manipulation | Ernie Willson | Digital Photography | 5 | June 26th 06 06:56 AM |
Bracketing vs RAW manipulation | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 16 | March 19th 06 11:10 PM |
How much image manipulation is too much? | Rich | Digital Photography | 26 | March 19th 06 08:52 AM |