Real or Fake Image?

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, CR McDivot said:

OK, perhaps "fake" is an overstatement.

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

 

You will virtually never see a professional (or a decent amateur) photograph which hasn't been processed.  Most photographers shoot raw, and the raw file isn't even a photo, it's just what the term says, raw data captured by the camera sensor.  The raw file doesn't even contain any of the camera settings used in capturing the image except for basic exposure and white balance.  

Unprocessed, the converted raw image is flat and uninspiring.  When you shoot directly in jpeg, the camera does the processing, but most photography hobbyists prefer to have a higher level of control over the finished product, so they shoot raw and process the "negative" on a computer.  So saying that something has been tweaked in Photoshop or Lightroom is not the condemnation that you would try to pass off.  

That said, there are many levels of post processing, and some will definitely distort reality.  I have on a few rare occasions added something to an image that wasn't in the original scene, or I will even more likely remove a distracting element that was unavoidable when taking the shot.  When I do that I don't try to pass it off as a pure photograph, but I don't have any feelings of guilt over it either.  

Photography is a mixture of science and art.  Photojournalism should always be the pure image, with nothing more than basic developing done to the raw data.  As art, photography has many more possibilities, and there is a great deal of personal freedom and interpretation between the raw image and the most extreme artistic manipulation.  

[bubble]

On 23 décembre 2015 at 3:47 AM, 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

hard to say and easy to think so.

cameras and video already have filters and process. the image is enhanced even before it goes through post production processes.

[CR McDivot]

21 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

16 minutes ago, Fourputt said:

 

...Photography is a mixture of science and art.  Photojournalism should always be the pure image, with nothing more than basic developing done to the raw data.  As art, photography has many more possibilities, and there is a great deal of personal freedom and interpretation between the raw image and the most extreme artistic manipulation.  

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

Digital imagery, like all photography, is both art and science.

Were the waves there? Yep. Science / Fact

Was the image enhanced? Yep. Science / Fact

Was the image manipulated, enhanced, shopped for the sake of art?

Looks like it to me for reasons already stated.

YMMV

Only the author, or the RAW image can tell for sure.

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, CR McDivot said:

Exposing Digital Forgeries Through Chromatic Aberration

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

There is no chromatic aberration as described in the paper you attached in the image of Tiger and the waves.

I only see the compression artifacts surrounding Tiger's head (also, the flag, the other person's head, the balls, the bushes, etc.)

 

[iacas]

3 hours ago, CR McDivot said:

OK, perhaps "fake" is an overstatement.

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

Nowhere near as much as you keep saying.

[CR McDivot]

Without access to the RAW and the EXIF of the intermediate and final original published image we are all working off of at least 3rd (more likely 5th or more) generation.

The experienced eye can only make assumptions based on this limited data.

My assumption is based on evidence of a difference in the chromatic aberrations between the wave (background layer) and the green, Tiger, hazard markers, other players (foreground layer). 

Quote

Lateral aberration, on the other hand, can be modeled as an expansion/contraction of the color channels with respect to one another. When tampering with an image, these aberrations are often disturbed and fail to be consistent across the image.

This lack of consistency tends to persist through multiple generations if not corrected (flattened - all pixels combined into one layer of consistent size and pallet - such as is an original non post processed digital image).

As I have stated, barring access to the original digital image all one can do is assume.

I stand by my assumption (educated guess).

YMMV

[Pretzel]

Wow, I've seen double posts before but a triple post is new to me.

[CR McDivot]

37 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

Wow, I've seen double posts before but a triple post is new to me.

Yeah, for some reason one push of the "Submit Reply" stuttered.

Sorry!

[iacas]

45 minutes ago, CR McDivot said:

Without access to the RAW and the EXIF of the intermediate and final original published image we are all working off of at least 3rd (more likely 5th or more) generation.

The experienced eye can only make assumptions based on this limited data.

My assumption is based on evidence of a difference in the chromatic aberrations between the wave (background layer) and the green, Tiger, hazard markers, other players (foreground layer). 

This lack of consistency tends to persist through multiple generations if not corrected (flattened - all pixels combined into one layer of consistent size and pallet - such as is an original non post processed digital image).

As I have stated, barring access to the original digital image all one can do is assume.

I stand by my assumption (educated guess).

I think you're completely off base, and that the image is not heavily altered. I think it was enhanced for contrast and the normal types of things (cropped, highlights and shadows, etc.), but nothing else. I don't think there were layers, I don't think the image was composed from multiple images, etc.

It's an AP photo. They aren't in the habit of doing all that you suggest was necessary.

[CR McDivot]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

I think you're completely off base, and that the image is not heavily altered. I think it was enhanced for contrast and the normal types of things (cropped, highlights and shadows, etc.), but nothing else. I don't think there were layers, I don't think the image was composed from multiple images, etc.

It's an AP photo. They aren't in the habit of doing all that you suggest was necessary.

As stated YMMV

As for AP - stuff happens, but at least in the case below they did right...

AP-severs-ties-with-photographer-who-altered-work

[CR McDivot]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

I think you're completely off base, and that the image is not heavily altered. I think it was enhanced for contrast and the normal types of things (cropped, highlights and shadows, etc.), but nothing else. I don't think there were layers, I don't think the image was composed from multiple images, etc.

It's an AP photo. They aren't in the habit of doing all that you suggest was necessary.

As stated YMMV

As for AP - stuff happens, but at least in the case below they did right...

AP-severs-ties-with-photographer-who-altered-work

[iacas]

20 minutes ago, CR McDivot said:

As stated YMMV

As for AP - stuff happens, but at least in the case below they did right...

AP-severs-ties-with-photographer-who-altered-work

That stands out because it is rare.

I think you're wrong. There's nothing unusual about that photo.

[JonMA1]

There is a difference in the "artifacts" of the waves vs the foreground. But that doesn't mean it's fake - as in the size of waves were modified.

This looks to be an image from a professional photographer. The raw image was likely over-processed with an unsharp mask (which is to say the sharpness of the "edges" were enhanced while any parts of the image that were soft would remain soft - and this could include individual pixels). The foreground would naturally be sharper because there is less or no movement compared to that of a wave - not to mention the depth of field and atmospheric perspective of it being so far in the background.

Combine that with the resolution being knocked way down, compressed and possibly processed even further for the web. All of that will screw up the pixels in any image.

That doesn't mean the photo isn't faked, only that most of us wouldn't be able tell by just by looking at the pixels of an internet jpg.

 

 

(Or I could just be full of crap.)

[Lihu]

3 hours ago, CR McDivot said:

Without access to the RAW and the EXIF of the intermediate and final original published image we are all working off of at least 3rd (more likely 5th or more) generation.

The experienced eye can only make assumptions based on this limited data.

My assumption is based on evidence of a difference in the chromatic aberrations between the wave (background layer) and the green, Tiger, hazard markers, other players (foreground layer). 

This lack of consistency tends to persist through multiple generations if not corrected (flattened - all pixels combined into one layer of consistent size and pallet - such as is an original non post processed digital image).

As I have stated, barring access to the original digital image all one can do is assume.

I stand by my assumption (educated guess).

YMMV

True that we can't absolutely confirm things, but the aberrations you are referring to in this image are very much like the ones caused by the transitions in JPEG compression. It's kind of got that distinct "overshoot" region.  The lighting and color look pretty consistent, and our collective eyes are pretty good at detecting minor variations.

As you stated there is no absolute way of proving anything, but it's not really obvious as you first posted.

[newtogolf]

The image is definitely edited but we'll never know how much, it's all just speculation.

The lack of EXIF data likely means one of three things

1. It's at least a 3rd or 4th generation edit and the EXIF data was lost during the conversion or save process
2. The photographer has personal information in the EXIF and did not release the image with EXIF data (which is not uncommon for free lance photographers and amateurs)
3. AP purchased the image and didn't want to reveal their source.

[CR McDivot]

Food for Thought or Big Fish Bait...

Big Mac Strikes Chevy

FotoForensics Analysis

Tiger Wave

FotoForensics Analysis

Links to FotoForensics site -

Big Mac Strikes Chevy Forensics

Tiger Wave Forensics

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, CR McDivot said:

FotoForensics Analysis

That doesn't appear to demonstrate anything except to illustrate how JPEG compression works around high-contrast areas.

You have yet to demonstrate in any real way how the image is fake.

[iacas]

FWIW, this image isn't "Photoshopped" beyond the typical means.