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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopped?
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopped?
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopped?
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopped?
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopped?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopped?
| 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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopped?
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopped?
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Photoshopped?
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Photoshopped a guy out of wheelchair? | PeterN[_4_] | Digital Photography | 21 | March 31st 14 01:55 AM |
Photoshopped a guy out of wheelchair? | Mort[_3_] | Digital Photography | 1 | March 20th 14 02:48 AM |
Was this photoshopped | PeterN[_3_] | Digital Photography | 15 | June 15th 13 03:28 AM |
GWB, Photoshopped | Lee K | Digital Photography | 12 | September 15th 06 01:22 AM |
Photoshopped Picture of A Photo Shop | GTO | Digital Photography | 1 | April 12th 05 04:45 AM |