Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

Real or Fake Image?


Note: This thread is 3797 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted
6 minutes ago, 9wood said:

Study this photo and tell me whether it's been photo-shopped or not.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/15/66/fa/1566faf6b06b4b709e4debbda696baa0.jpg

 

Real. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-best-photos-of-2012-2012-12?op=1 Just do a reverse image search.

:callaway: Big Bertha Alpha 815 DBD  :bridgestone: TD-03 Putter   
:tmade: 300 Tour 3W                 :true_linkswear: Motion Shoes
:titleist: 585H Hybrid                       
:tmade: TP MC irons                 
:ping: Glide 54             
:ping: Glide 58
:cleveland: 588 RTX 62

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
1 hour ago, markie said:

It was obviously photoshopped. no further comments.

Except that it's real.

 

:callaway: Big Bertha Alpha 815 DBD  :bridgestone: TD-03 Putter   
:tmade: 300 Tour 3W                 :true_linkswear: Motion Shoes
:titleist: 585H Hybrid                       
:tmade: TP MC irons                 
:ping: Glide 54             
:ping: Glide 58
:cleveland: 588 RTX 62

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
2 hours ago, markie said:

It was obviously photoshopped. no further comments.

As @SavvySwede pointed out, it is real (and credited to an Associated Press photographer). 

It's a perspective issue that throws you off. You actually have an elevated view of the green, but the green is slanting away from the camera making it appear as though the camera angle is nearly level with the green. the beach is also much closer than it appears, since there is a steep drop off immediately behind the green (evidenced by the very tips of a tree just barely visible beyond the green), which serves to make the waves look even bigger than they really are since they look much further away than they really are.

That said, those waves are still pretty decently sized. They're just not as massive as the perspective makes them out to be.

getImage.gif?ID=100001176

The photo was likely taken on this hole from a distance (off to the left from the perspective of this photograph) using some sort of telephoto lens, which would create a small enough field of view to cut out any other references to help put the size of the waves into better perspective.

14984.jpg

A different angle of the same hole shows how you might become easily confused if a wave tall enough to cover that rock (behind the pin furthest out into the water) was present. The wave would appear massive, as it does in the original photo, due to a combination of the perspective and limited field of view. Still a large wave, but not quite the tsunami that the original photo appears to depict.

The key takeaway here is that the photo appears to be taken looking horizontally at the wave. From this perceived perspective the wave appears to be massive. The truth is you are looking down from an elevated perspective towards the wave, which is also closer to the camera than it appears to be.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Awesome pic. Brilliant photography too

What's in the bag

  • Taylor Made r5 dual Draw 9.5* (stiff)
  • Cobra Baffler 4H (stiff)
  • Taylor Made RAC OS 6-9,P,S (regular)
  • Golden Bear LD5.0 60* (regular)
  • Aidia Z-009 Putter
  • Inesis Tour 900 golf ball
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
10 hours ago, markie said:

It was obviously photoshopped. no further comments.

A telephoto lens compresses perspective and can create some dramatic images.  In this photo, it appears that there is a steep rise between each cross street, but in reality the hill is quite gentle.  My telephoto lens compresses the distances to make it appear more dramatic than it really is.

i-W4gc88B-L.jpg

Rick

"He who has the fastest cart will never have a bad lie."

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Photography is one of my hobbies. It's amazing what you can do with SLR cameras. That's why I don't like taking pictures with my iPhone. 

Don

:titleist: 910 D2, 8.5˚, Adila RIP 60 S-Flex
:titleist: 980F 15˚
:yonex: EZone Blades (3-PW) Dynamic Gold S-200
:vokey:   Vokey wedges, 52˚; 56˚; and 60˚
:scotty_cameron:  2014 Scotty Cameron Select Newport 2

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

Photo shopped!

Pixelation of background differs from foreground, clearly visible under magnification.

Copy the image, zoom to 400%. A prominent halo is revealed between the wave layer / Tiger's upper torso, the power line and pole.

The foreground does not have this halo effect as it is one layer.

Editor failed to flatten the image properly... much like the forged PDF of a certain birth certificate... :-O

Craig

:wilsonstaff: - FG Tour F5
:wilsonstaff: - Fybrid 3W 15*, FY 19.5*, 4H 24*
:wilsonstaff: - FG 51 Tour Blade 4-9
:wilson: - Harmonized 50, 55, 60
Old Master - TZ Putter


Posted
1 hour ago, CR McDivot said:

Photo shopped!

Pixelation of background differs from foreground, clearly visible under magnification.

Copy the image, zoom to 400%. A prominent halo is revealed between the wave layer / Tiger's upper torso, the power line and pole.

The foreground does not have this halo effect as it is one layer.

Editor failed to flatten the image properly... much like the forged PDF of a certain birth certificate... :-O

Here are more photos taken that day, some very dramatic and the waves were rather big on the day. http://m.smh.com.au/photogallery/sport/golf/tiger-woods-huge-waves-and-pebble-beach-20120209-1rnc8.html

Digitally enhancing a photo with whatever technique in photoshop doesnt make it fake imo.

They might have played around with it a bit in terms of colour balance etc, but its highly unlikely that they stuck some fake waves in there or made it bigger somewhat. 

It's just the angle the photo was taken at as another poster mentioned.


Posted

With different lenses, one can also create illusions. This is an example of a 300mm long lens, where the photographer has made the moon appear larger.

article-2465781-18D1865000000578-873_964

Ogio Grom | Callaway X Hot Pro | Callaway X-Utility 3i | Mizuno MX-700 23º | Titleist Vokey SM 52.08, 58.12 | Mizuno MX-700 15º | Titleist 910 D2 9,5º | Scotty Cameron Newport 2 | Titleist Pro V1x and Taylormade Penta | Leupold GX-1

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
8 hours ago, CR McDivot said:

Photo shopped!

Pixelation of background differs from foreground, clearly visible under magnification.

Copy the image, zoom to 400%. A prominent halo is revealed between the wave layer / Tiger's upper torso, the power line and pole.

The foreground does not have this halo effect as it is one layer.

Editor failed to flatten the image properly... much like the forged PDF of a certain birth certificate... :-O

 

Could have also been photoshopped just for cosmetic reasons rather than content?

:ping:  :tmade:  :callaway:   :gamegolf:  :titleist:

TM White Smoke Big Fontana; Pro-V1
TM Rac 60 TT WS, MD2 56
Ping i20 irons U-4, CFS300
Callaway XR16 9 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S
Callaway XR16 3W 15 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S, X2Hot Pro 20 degrees S

"I'm hitting the woods just great, but I'm having a terrible time getting out of them." ~Harry Toscano

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
9 hours ago, CR McDivot said:

Photo shopped!

It wasn't.

Not to "fake it" in any way. I'm sure it underwent some post-processing. I doubt it's the RAW converted or JPEG straight from the camera hardware.

Erik J. Barzeski —  I knock a ball. It goes in a gopher hole. 🏌🏼‍♂️
Director of Instruction Golf Evolution • Owner, The Sand Trap .com • AuthorLowest Score Wins
Golf Digest "Best Young Teachers in America" 2016-17 & "Best in State" 2017-20 • WNY Section PGA Teacher of the Year 2019 :edel: :true_linkswear:

Check Out: New Topics | TST Blog | Golf Terms | Instructional Content | Analyzr | LSW | Instructional Droplets

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted

OK, perhaps "fake" is an overstatement.

Enhanced, post processed, manipulated, photo-shopped - obviously!

On 12/23/2015 at 7:47 PM, 9wood said:

Study this photo and tell me whether it's been photo-shopped or not.

 

Craig

:wilsonstaff: - FG Tour F5
:wilsonstaff: - Fybrid 3W 15*, FY 19.5*, 4H 24*
:wilsonstaff: - FG 51 Tour Blade 4-9
:wilson: - Harmonized 50, 55, 60
Old Master - TZ Putter


Posted
6 hours ago, Zeph said:

With different lenses, one can also create illusions. This is an example of a 300mm long lens, where the photographer has made the moon appear larger.

article-2465781-18D1865000000578-873_964

This image appears to have been done optically.

No halo between foreground and moon when zoomed.

This is not to say that a true digital image geek with more sophisticated software could not produce an almost undetectable trick.

Simply that the image questioned by the OP has easily confirmed aberrations that point to manipulation.

Craig

:wilsonstaff: - FG Tour F5
:wilsonstaff: - Fybrid 3W 15*, FY 19.5*, 4H 24*
:wilsonstaff: - FG 51 Tour Blade 4-9
:wilson: - Harmonized 50, 55, 60
Old Master - TZ Putter


Posted
24 minutes ago, CR McDivot said:

This image appears to have been done optically.

No halo between foreground and moon when zoomed.

This is not to say that a true digital image geek with more sophisticated software could not produce an almost undetectable trick.

Simply that the image questioned by the OP has easily confirmed aberrations that point to manipulation.

Thinking about this a little more, JPG format adds little "features" as the one you described. They do a 2D FFT (or cosine transform) on the image and run a Huffman encoder which eliminates a good chunk of the data. This encoding is what helps make the image format more compact, but adds little features like the ones you described to the image.

 

Quote

JPEG compression

JPEG uses a lossy form of compression based on the discrete cosine transform (DCT). This mathematical operation converts each frame/field of the video source from the spatial (2D) domain into the frequency domain (a.k.a. transform domain.) A perceptual model based loosely on the human psychovisual system discards high-frequency information, i.e. sharp transitions in intensity, and color hue. In the transform domain, the process of reducing information is called quantization. In simpler terms, quantization is a method for optimally reducing a large number scale (with different occurrences of each number) into a smaller one, and the transform-domain is a convenient representation of the image because the high-frequency coefficients, which contribute less to the overall picture than other coefficients, are characteristically small-values with high compressibility. The quantized coefficients are then sequenced and losslessly packed into the output bitstream. Nearly all software implementations of JPEG permit user control over the compression-ratio (as well as other optional parameters), allowing the user to trade off picture-quality for smaller file size. In embedded applications (such as miniDV, which uses a similar DCT-compression scheme), the parameters are pre-selected and fixed for the application.

The compression method is usually lossy, meaning that some original image information is lost and cannot be restored, possibly affecting image quality. There is an optional lossless mode defined in the JPEG standard. However, this mode is not widely supported in products.

There is also an interlaced progressive JPEG format, in which data is compressed in multiple passes of progressively higher detail. This is ideal for large images that will be displayed while downloading over a slow connection, allowing a reasonable preview after receiving only a portion of the data. However, support for progressive JPEGs is not universal. When progressive JPEGs are received by programs that do not support them (such as versions of Internet Explorer before Windows 7)[13] the software displays the image only after it has been completely downloaded.

There are also many medical imaging and traffic systems that create and process 12-bit JPEG images, normally grayscale images. The 12-bit JPEG format has been part of the JPEG specification for some time, but this format is not as widely supported.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG

:ping:  :tmade:  :callaway:   :gamegolf:  :titleist:

TM White Smoke Big Fontana; Pro-V1
TM Rac 60 TT WS, MD2 56
Ping i20 irons U-4, CFS300
Callaway XR16 9 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S
Callaway XR16 3W 15 degree Fujikura Speeder 565 S, X2Hot Pro 20 degrees S

"I'm hitting the woods just great, but I'm having a terrible time getting out of them." ~Harry Toscano

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
1 hour ago, CR McDivot said:

OK, perhaps "fake" is an overstatement.

Enhanced, post processed, manipulated, photo-shopped - obviously!

 

The spirit of the ops question was clearly "were these giant waves really behind tiger on this green?" and it's been clearly shown that they were.

Pointing out enhancements is just nitpicking.  "Oh, you removed the red eye?  Then your picture is a fake!" :P

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
12 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Thinking about this a little more, JPG format adds little "features" as the one you described. They do a 2D FFT (or cosine transform) on the image and run a Huffman encoder which eliminates a good chunk of the data. This encoding is what helps make the image format more compact, but adds little features like the ones you described to the image.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG

Exposing Digital Forgeries Through Chromatic Aberration

Quote

ABSTRACT
Virtually all optical imaging systems introduce a variety of aberrations into an image. Chromatic aberration, for example, results from the failure of an optical system to perfectly focus light of different wavelengths. Lateral chromatic aberration
manifests itself, to a first-order approximation, as an expansion/contraction of color channels with respect to one another. When tampering with an image, this aberration is often disturbed and fails to be consistent across the image. We describe a computational technique for automatically estimating lateral chromatic aberration and show its efficacy in detecting digital tampering.

Compression will introduce artifacts, it is the inconsistency that indicates tampering.

Craig

:wilsonstaff: - FG Tour F5
:wilsonstaff: - Fybrid 3W 15*, FY 19.5*, 4H 24*
:wilsonstaff: - FG 51 Tour Blade 4-9
:wilson: - Harmonized 50, 55, 60
Old Master - TZ Putter


Note: This thread is 3797 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • Day 610 - 2026-06-03 Got some work in between lessons today. Rare late day, teaching until 7:30pm.
    • Let's continue on… Cool. The thing is, nobody's claiming par is "reliable" and par's inclusion piggy-backs in the course rating, which is awfully close to par and, thus, brings par in to make it make sense. Once again, for those in the back… (CR - Par) just makes it really easy to know what kind of score you need to shoot to best, match, or play worse than your handicap index. Yes, when par is different, the players from the higher par tees get an extra stroke (72 vs. 71, the 72s get an extra stroke. That makes sense and is a small complication (more info at https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Committee%20Content/USGA/LG_R6d.htm). However, most of the time, this adjustment will not be needed, as many courses play to the same par for the same genders from all sets of tees. And, the rare times it is needed, par (measured in whole numbers, integers) and strokes (also whole numbers/integers) map easily and the idea is easily grasped. Dean seems to be unaware of the fact that most every golfer carries something orders of magnitude more powerful than the highest end desktop computers available the last time he consulted with the USGA in their pockets. While it is quaint that his club puts printouts by the first tee… get with the times, Dean. Look up your handicap index and course handicap in the GHIN app and get on with it. It's a better system than the one that didn't account — at all — for a difference in the playing conditions (via an algorithm, not a judgment). Dean's assertions about the "less precise system because of par" continues to make absolutely zero sense. Right, it still changed tee to tee. Now it just changes differently… and in a way that more accurately reflects the score you need to shoot to play to your handicap. Previously, a 1.1 index would get 1 stroke on a 66.7/122 par-72 course. Now they give four strokes back to the course and must shoot 68 to play to their handicap. This makes way more sense. The 18-shot difference is a pretty extreme example. Maybe a long course that also offers a par-three set of tees could play that long, but… man, that's not going to be super common. Sensationalistic much, Dean? Also, once those unhappy (complete assumption) golfers realize a) what the change shows them (playing to net par = playing to your index) and b) realizes that their differential is going to be the same… I think they'll get over their initial questions. No. And yet… if he shoots the same scores, he'll get the same handicap index he has now. But he'll know on each course what score he needs to shoot to "play to his handicap." Sheesh, Dean. This stuff isn't that hard to figure out. Enough with the sensationalistic stuff. I don't find it "unacceptable" at all. Then again, I'm not nearly 80 and seemingly incapable of doing basic math these days. No. This literally makes no sense, as that part of the differential calculation and the course handicap calculation remains identical. Good! No. Categorically wrong. They should have been adjusting their handicaps all along. Previously it was by subtracting the course ratings. Which… is still basically what's done, with the addition of the course rating being "baked in" to the course handicap calculation. Dean is wrong here, or doing some math heretofore unknown by the world. When par is the same, what determines the difference in handicaps? The course rating, which Dean loves! Sheesh! You had to things when players were in situations like this before, too. This is getting exhausting. He keeps using words like "less precise" and "unfair" but does not seem to understand what they mean. This is like the Princess Bride meme: "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." The caps reduce upward movement. Committees have reign to reduce a player's handicap, and there's still an automatic Exceptional Score Reduction. I'm going through these more quickly now because… well, it's silly how badly Dean misses the mark with this blog post. Dean is literally confusing the upward movement (with the soft and hard caps) here with the exceptional score reduction which is used when lowering handicaps due to an exceptionally good score. The creators of the WHS are handicap experts. They know more about the current state of handicaps/handicapping than the Pope Emeritus. It's been shown to have almost no effect across all handicaps. Yes, some 36s under the old system are now 35s under the new system. Yawn. He should have stopped there. It's easier to apply and makes more sense. This makes no sense. It's "not complex" but players will have to guess? And, for men or women, the stroke index of each hole doesn't change because they play a different set of tees. They get a different number of strokes, but it's always been true that when you get 14 strokes you apply a stroke to stroke index holes 1-14, and when you get 11, to just holes with a SI of 1-11. Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. Dean's just out here continuing to make shit up about "the inaccuracy of par" and ignoring that with Par (an integer) came the Course Rating, which he agrees is precise and accurate. No. No, this is inaccurate. Also, as noted, you can randomly assign stroke indexes, and so long as all the low numbers or all the high numbers are not clumped together at the beginning or ends of the 18 holes, matches generally work out the same. This is inaccurate. It is an algorithm that looks at scores. That's it. Also, this is better than a system like the prior one where no such thing existed at all. Wildly inaccurate and off-base. Did they do actual testing? No need. They have millions and millions of rounds and ran many, many, many simulations. That's testing. Dean seems to continue to be unaware of the fact that computers are more powerful now than they were in 2002. But, he's nearly 80, so we can understand if not going so far as to give him a pass on how much he gets wrong. Cool. Noted. For the most part that was because many countries haven't been able to rate enough of their courses. :sigh:
    • Day 3 (3 Jun 26) - More work on keeping arms connected today - hard foam balls with 7i and 5w…..
    • Day 274 6-3 flow drill getting chest through, arms in front. Arms get a little pinned to the side, not as much in front as I want them when I add speed. 
    • Shot 48 yesterday.  For me bogey golf is good.  I was 10 over through 7 and figured with a Par 3 and 4 coming on all I needed was birdie / par to get my 45. I had a great tee shot on #8 and sunk  a 5 footer for birdie, game was coming together, now just needed par on #9. Had a great tee drive and the green was within range for a hoped GIR or nGIR.  But I pulled the shot left into tall weeds and needed to take a drop.  So much for par, but a bogey for 46 is still good for me. I hit my lob wedge to get over a small tree and saw the ball riding nicely  on line to the pin when my club hit the ball a 2nd time on my follow through causing the ball to change directions and ended up @ pin high but along the same tall weeds I just took an unplayable out of.  had no room for a backswing, Just hacked at it and it shot across the green to the rough on the far side.  Needed a chip & 1 putt got a triple bogey. you can see the hole fall apart in the screenshot below.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.