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
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.  

  • Upvote 1

Rick

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

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
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.


Posted
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.

  • Upvote 1

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:

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.)

tiger_waves.jpg.711e2fb79c7170c61f11de52

 

: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
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.

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

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

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

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

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
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!

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


  • Administrator
Posted
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.

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
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

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
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

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


  • Administrator
Posted
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.

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

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.)

Jon

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
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.

: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

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.

Joe Paradiso

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

  • Administrator
Posted
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.

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

  • Administrator
Posted

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

30107_403310207170_837152170_4162178_8243663_n.jpg

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

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.