 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I can tell because of some of the pixels.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=5-ways-to-spot-a-fake&sc=rss
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=5-ways-to-spot-a-fake&sc=rss
Just having highlights from different directions is not proof of
anything. At most the photo just deserves more scrutiny.
There are natural explanations why different objects (such as eyes,
glasses or people) may have highlights from different directions, even
in sun-lit outdoor scenes. For instance, light may be reflected from
walls (which more often than not are white) and other structures, and
under proper conditions (such as properly placed shadows which cover
the Sun for some objects) it may make some object look like it's
lighted from a completely different direction than the rest. Also,
specular highlights in eyeglasses and such objects, especially in
indoor photographs, may get highlights from different light sources
and be shadowed from others. Thus two pairs of eyeglasses may have
wildly different highlights, yet it can all be perfectly natural.
(This is especially true if the glasses are even slightly oriented
differently, which may be difficult to see from the photograph.)
As for president Bush's hand-written note, snopes.com disagrees:
http://www.snopes.com/photos/politics/bushnote.asp
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> As for president Bush's hand-written note, snopes.com disagrees:
"""
the contrast of the notepad was adjusted to improve its readability.
"""
I don't think Snopes was addressing "was the image manipulated after it
was taken." I think Snopes was addressing "did the president actually
write that on the note."
Goes back to the earlier discussion of how much manipulation makes a
photo "unreal".
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Goes back to the earlier discussion of how much manipulation makes a
> photo "unreal".
IMO it makes it unreal when it adds something relevant which was not
there or removes something which was.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Goes back to the earlier discussion of how much manipulation makes a
>> photo "unreal".
>
> IMO it makes it unreal when it adds something relevant which was not
> there or removes something which was.
I agree. That's why I thought compositing several exposures of the same
scene wasn't making it "unreal".
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I agree. That's why I thought compositing several exposures of the same
> scene wasn't making it "unreal".
IMO it's a border case because even though you are photographing the
same subject, you are taking photographs of it at different periods of
time. Chances are that something is going to change between photos, and
thus the composite photo will not be an exact replica of "what was there",
but a composition of how it changed.
Of course the shorter the period between photographs (eg. 1ms), the better.
The longer, the worse.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
