The camera never lies
-
Yep. You can do anything with something like Photoshop. Check out this image - specifically the girl on the right. This is basic child's play in PS. Girl not smiling? No problem. I'll change that. Grass in her face? I can remove that. You can basically do anything you want with an image nowadays. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Best mini-putt score = 22
Wow Tom. You did that with just Photoshop??? How did you add the teeth??? Nish :rolleyes: Bow wow wow, Yippee yo yippee yay, My miniputt high, Is now 30 yay.
-
Wow Tom. You did that with just Photoshop??? How did you add the teeth??? Nish :rolleyes: Bow wow wow, Yippee yo yippee yay, My miniputt high, Is now 30 yay.
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: You did that with just Photoshop??? You can also do it with PaintShopPro if you want to spend a lot less money. Most of the plugins work, too. Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: How did you add the teeth??? If you compare the two pics, it's pretty apparent that he copied & scaled the face from another picture. That's why it's titled in a rather odd manner, and the colors are a little darker (all the faces seem darker in the 2nd picture). The grass was removed from the red turtleneck by using the fingerpainting tool I think (zooming in shows a black line that appears to be pulled down from the top bit of the red, and smudging, which is what I usually get with that tool). I would believe that the grass was removed from the front of the jacket using the magic wand selector, and then the clone tool or the pattern tool to remove it, and the tip of the remaining grass faded out to blend with the jacket. Gee, what shall I deconstruct next? :cool:
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
-
Paresh Solanki wrote: So, given this powerful ability to manipulate images, can we really trust any photographs? No we can't at casual observation, and this sucks. But most altered photos seem to have inconsistencies at the artifact/grain level. Actually I think it would be possible to create a tool to determine the probability of a photo to have been doctored up. Interesting idea. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
Even the US CIA can't do right. The fakes of Oswald standing behind a picket fence holding a gun is horribly fake. -:suss:Matt Newman:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
† -
Something I've been discussing with my friends is this old saying in relation to modern graphics technology. You have movies like Monsters Inc. showcasing the cutting edge of graphic power, but basic image manipulation is available to almost anyone with a reasonable PC system with a photo quality printer. Some of the 35mm photo processing shops now offer image manipulation so you can remove that ugly lampost from your photos. I've even removed scratches and tears from some of my dad's old photographs. So, given this powerful ability to manipulate images, can we really trust any photographs? Can they be reliably used as evidence in any situation? Can we even trust historical records? In the movie 'Forrest Gump' Tom Hanks is 'seen' as shaking hands with a number of prominent people. What's to stop people from doing that for reasons other than entertainment? Paresh Solanki 21 Again IMHO..."The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd." Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) - British philosopher
Paresh Solanki wrote: So, given this powerful ability to manipulate images, can we really trust any photographs? No we can't at casual observation, and this sucks. But most altered photos seem to have inconsistencies at the artifact/grain level. Actually I think it would be possible to create a tool to determine the probability of a photo to have been doctored up. Interesting idea. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
-
Even the US CIA can't do right. The fakes of Oswald standing behind a picket fence holding a gun is horribly fake. -:suss:Matt Newman:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
†Matt Newman wrote: Even the US CIA can't do right. The fakes of Oswald standing behind a picket fence holding a gun is horribly fake. :-) The real bad fakes were later when NASA did the Apollo stuff. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
-
Paresh Solanki wrote: So, given this powerful ability to manipulate images, can we really trust any photographs? No we can't at casual observation, and this sucks. But most altered photos seem to have inconsistencies at the artifact/grain level. Actually I think it would be possible to create a tool to determine the probability of a photo to have been doctored up. Interesting idea. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
Colin Davies wrote: Actually I think it would be possible to create a tool to determine the probability of a photo to have been doctored up. Interesting idea. Get right on that, will you? :) But won't JPG'ng pictures highly introduce these artifacts, and obscure the others? Of course, on tv all the time they are able to take a tiny bit of reflection and wizard enhance the hell out of it and produce the complete license plate. Or the real killer, as seen in the dead person's eyes. I want this photoshop plugin, dammit. All my Sharpen settings do it wipe out the picture. :((
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
-
Wow Tom. You did that with just Photoshop??? How did you add the teeth??? Nish :rolleyes: Bow wow wow, Yippee yo yippee yay, My miniputt high, Is now 30 yay.
I was going to impress the hell out of you by cropping her head out and plopping it on yours, but the skin tones are too far apart, and I can't seem to master the art of doing contour shading so I can fade one and darken the other. :(
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
-
Matt Newman wrote: Even the US CIA can't do right. The fakes of Oswald standing behind a picket fence holding a gun is horribly fake. :-) The real bad fakes were later when NASA did the Apollo stuff. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
Colin Davies wrote: The real bad fakes were later when NASA did the Apollo stuff. Yea, and then they screwed up and didn't get rid of OJ Simpson when they flubbed the Mars mission... :)
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
-
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: You did that with just Photoshop??? You can also do it with PaintShopPro if you want to spend a lot less money. Most of the plugins work, too. Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: How did you add the teeth??? If you compare the two pics, it's pretty apparent that he copied & scaled the face from another picture. That's why it's titled in a rather odd manner, and the colors are a little darker (all the faces seem darker in the 2nd picture). The grass was removed from the red turtleneck by using the fingerpainting tool I think (zooming in shows a black line that appears to be pulled down from the top bit of the red, and smudging, which is what I usually get with that tool). I would believe that the grass was removed from the front of the jacket using the magic wand selector, and then the clone tool or the pattern tool to remove it, and the tip of the remaining grass faded out to blend with the jacket. Gee, what shall I deconstruct next? :cool:
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
Wow!!! Thanks. That was informative and impressive too.. Nish Bow wow wow, Yippee yo yippee yay, My miniputt high, Is now 30 yay.
-
I was going to impress the hell out of you by cropping her head out and plopping it on yours, but the skin tones are too far apart, and I can't seem to master the art of doing contour shading so I can fade one and darken the other. :(
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
With your skills, you can always get a job with fakecelebnudepics.com I guess where you'd be copy/pasting britney spears face into an electric blue porn star's body X| Bow wow wow, Yippee yo yippee yay, My miniputt high, Is now 30 yay.
-
Colin Davies wrote: Actually I think it would be possible to create a tool to determine the probability of a photo to have been doctored up. Interesting idea. Get right on that, will you? :) But won't JPG'ng pictures highly introduce these artifacts, and obscure the others? Of course, on tv all the time they are able to take a tiny bit of reflection and wizard enhance the hell out of it and produce the complete license plate. Or the real killer, as seen in the dead person's eyes. I want this photoshop plugin, dammit. All my Sharpen settings do it wipe out the picture. :((
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
The old adage garbage in garbage out applies. And new information is just that: created after the fact. As to the artifacts, the common tool for removing something from an image is the clone brush (rubber stamp). It takes an area and paints it into another. Thus you can only remove things with a fairly chaotic or uniform background with a large sample in the image, like a brick wall, lawn, or car paint job. More complicated removals require actual artistry (fixing borders between to backgrounds, etc). In any case you have to be careful you preserve the grain of the film, etc. Pic-To-Pic additions are the easiest to do, as long as the backgrounds are fairly similar. Grain and lighting can be carried over completly. Digital photographers very commonly take a duck from one frame, a car from another, and the background from the third so that they can reposition them all with ease over the base background. Adding material from scratch is pure art, and you need to replicate the grain on top of the art required. Spotting these additions are typically easiest, since there will be boarder problems, light problems, and brush patterns. JPEG preserves grain really well, unless you have it set at very high compression. At these settings it does indeed blur out the details so that IDing a fake is harder. // Rock
-
Colin Davies wrote: Actually I think it would be possible to create a tool to determine the probability of a photo to have been doctored up. Interesting idea. Get right on that, will you? :) But won't JPG'ng pictures highly introduce these artifacts, and obscure the others? Of course, on tv all the time they are able to take a tiny bit of reflection and wizard enhance the hell out of it and produce the complete license plate. Or the real killer, as seen in the dead person's eyes. I want this photoshop plugin, dammit. All my Sharpen settings do it wipe out the picture. :((
Visual Studio Favorites - improve your development! GUIgui - skin your apps without XP
Todd C. Wilson wrote: But won't JPG'ng pictures highly introduce these artifacts, and obscure the others? I'm really just postulating, But often jpg photos have a difference obsevable under magnification. Also the sharper the Pic, the more detectable it would be. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
-
Paresh Solanki wrote: So, given this powerful ability to manipulate images, can we really trust any photographs? No we can't at casual observation, and this sucks. But most altered photos seem to have inconsistencies at the artifact/grain level. Actually I think it would be possible to create a tool to determine the probability of a photo to have been doctored up. Interesting idea. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
Sounds like a good idea, but how would it work? and would it be much more than just guesswork? Paresh Solanki 21 Again IMHO..."The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd." Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) - British philosopher
-
With your skills, you can always get a job with fakecelebnudepics.com I guess where you'd be copy/pasting britney spears face into an electric blue porn star's body X| Bow wow wow, Yippee yo yippee yay, My miniputt high, Is now 30 yay.
-
peterchen wrote: Britney and udder LOL "udder". I had to look that word up :-) Nish Bow wow wow, Yippee yo yippee yay, My miniputt high, Is now 30 yay.
-
Wow Tom. You did that with just Photoshop??? How did you add the teeth??? Nish :rolleyes: Bow wow wow, Yippee yo yippee yay, My miniputt high, Is now 30 yay.
Actually that's another pic of her - which is why her head is tilted. I'm not very good at all, but this is all very easy once you get the hang of it. I can add things to photos, take things out, clean up dust spots, etc. I had a situation recently where someone missed a family portrait. I took another pic of that person, chaned his clothes to match everone else's in the group pic and placed him such that it looked like he was there the whole time! It's actually fun and you can do some amazing things Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Best mini-putt score = 22
-
Is her head supposed to be tilted like that? -:suss:Matt Newman:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
†It's from another pic of her. With these tools you can mix and match as you desire to get whatever combination you need for the job. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Best mini-putt score = 22
-
Matt Newman wrote: Even the US CIA can't do right. The fakes of Oswald standing behind a picket fence holding a gun is horribly fake. :-) The real bad fakes were later when NASA did the Apollo stuff. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin Logic merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who 28 th Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr# Segmentation violation -- Core dumped
Forgot about those! -:suss:Matt Newman:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
† -
It's from another pic of her. With these tools you can mix and match as you desire to get whatever combination you need for the job. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Best mini-putt score = 22
I thought her head looked a little "out of position". -:suss:Matt Newman:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
† -
I thought her head looked a little "out of position". -:suss:Matt Newman:suss: -Sonork ID: 100.11179:BestSnowman
†Remember two things. 1) It was a quick job - took about 15 minutes My point being that a much better job could be done with more time devoted 2) To anyone not having seen the first picture,they would never notice anything askew. Also, most times the goal of photo manipulation isn't to trick anyone, but to simply correct errors that occurred on the shoot. Cheers, Tom Archer Author, Inside C# Best mini-putt score = 22
