Slashdot Mirror
How Photoshopped Is That Picture?
Freddybear writes "Digital forensics experts at Dartmouth have developed software that can analyze digital photos to rate how drastically they have been altered by digital editing techniques. 'The Dartmouth research, said Seth Matlins, a former talent agent and marketing executive, could be "hugely important" as a tool for objectively measuring the degree to which photos have been altered.'"
It also uses advanced neural-network powered learning algorithms to allow it to also leverage "having seen a a great many shops".
I wonder.... will it be fooled if images are converted to/from lossy formats a few times.....
.nosig
If it did the analysis using just the "after" image (maybe by looking statistically at ithe ndividual pixel level, I dunno I'm not an image expert) that software would be SO useful for Internet dating sites! ;)
Actually I'm wondering if images CAN be analyzed using statistical data from the individual pixel data to determine things like what camera was used to take the picture, maybe what software was used to edit/convert it (using gamma curves?). Then you could see (maybe) who was posting pictures of themselves from long ago (not like I've ever done that!).
What would be even more cool is if the software could "put it back"...re-create the look of the original picture. Obviously that would not be possible for some edits...but maybe for some of the airbrushing and such done on models?
My copy of The Commissar Vanishes. Of course, the author presents original photos of Stalin with Large group, smaller group, all by his lonesome at one point and you can examine the technique used for filling in background. Also, photos where someone was added (Comrade is now in favor, include with Stalin at glorious parade!)
As for Photoshop Disasters, there's a website and the checkout aisle for that sort of mental exercise.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
... because THAT story title quite obviously is not in compliance with Adobe's Permissions and trademark guidelines!
Next time, better talk about images being "GIMPed". Just to be safe and all that ;)
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
What if it was GIMPed or [INSERT EDITOR]ed?
-- Brought to you by Carl's JR
Seriously. There are probably lots of people who would be willing to pay for "certified" un-retouched pics, etc.
So that will just red light every ad ever produced?
If this works, I expect to see image-modification software which can fool these techniques.
By no means would I consider myself a professional re-touch artist, but I am familiar with the techniques and have produced a few works that were high enough quality for advertising and magazines.
I gotta say, the amount of work that goes in to even the meanest image is staggering. An acquaintance of mine does interior photography for commercial real estate and multi-unit dwellings (apartments, condos, etc.) and while his photography is top notch to begin with, his re-touching is on another plane all together.
He was excited when Photoshop got an upgrade in CS5 to handle more layers because he was routinely bumping up against the limit in CS4. Usually, his work flow consisted of him selecting and making a separate layer for every surface that had a different texture or zone of light, then manually adjusting the levels to bring the brightness and contrast to where he wanted. While tedious and mind-numbing, the over all effect is beautiful true High Dynamic Range images.
You mean they're promoting a law that would make Victoria's Secret disclose the endless belly-fold-tucking and (B to D) breast enlargements they love so much? As a doc, looking at those anatomically-impossible bodies it makes me sad, because they change our perception of what should be seen as attractive to a standard that is literally impossible to meet. And at times even I have caught my own perceptions as being skewed, despite knowing full well how it happened.
Ok,
So what happens if your "I don't want to be called a 'shopper" types simply print out their digital modifications on paper, then scan it again?
That would introduce inkjet pattern/toner dither pattern, and balance the colors in the image.
Would that defeat the genuine check?
If not, how would it react to a scan or photograph of a painting, or line drawing?
I must admit I grew up in an environment where I was not that exposed to media, be it TV or magazines.
But once a magazine came my way, my thoughts wondered as to what the beauties in the magazines ate! They looked so beautiful...with no "flaws", (for lack of a better word).
In adulthood, I left my community for the big city, hoping to get a good job and to also see the "beauties" on the streets. I must say I was, and still continue to be disappointed. In the decades I have been in the big city, I have not met a single beauty once! Never!
The ones I see on TV and in the magazines are all "fake!" Needless to say, I returned to my old small town, found a real woman and have never regretted it. I have also asked her to show me one beauty if she comes across one if we're together. It's never happened.
Sadly, the practice of photoshopping is damaging our daughters' and sons' self esteem, with eating disorders that have only gotten worse. Sad, sad indeed.
It's certainly interesting, but also pointless. I mean, if you don't know that anything out of Hollywood is heavily retouched then you're embarrassingly naive. And even before photos are loaded up in Photoshop the celebrity has already been loaded up with a pound of makeup, sat under carefully positioned lights and been photographed by a professional. That's why those sexiest people lists are so stupid. Almost anyone subjected to that amount of effort will look great.
It's like those stupid articles where some celebrities fitness "secrets" are revealed. I'll tell you what their secrets entail: enjoy an immense amount of leisure time, make it your job to look good and pay a fitness trainer six figures to accomplish that.
American society is more influenced by the entertainment industry than any other culture on Earth.
...when researchers fed unaltered pictures of Michael Jackson into the system. The system determined that not only were the later pictures manipulated, but that there was only a 0.01% probability that they were even based on the original.
I8-D
Have gnu, will travel.
I think "photochopped" and "shooped" began around the time when Adobe started cracking down on the misuse of the name of Photoshop® software as a verb.
So cool, they have developed a function p = F(x) where x is an image, and p is True if the image is photoshopped and False otherwise. Seems useful, and I'm sure it will be.
However, if this ever becomes deployed widely and if the verdict p = True ever has a negative financial effect on the image producers, then all the producers will do is acquire their own F and incrementally photoshop their images until it reads them as False. End result? Maybe photos will be photoshopped to a slightly less degree.
Such technology would make for a very useful and fun web site ( or app ). Just upload a picture or feed a URL and it will tell you if it is fake.
This is the only one I know of, but I hope others will follow. Jacob magazine ads also state that they aren't retouched. Good for them!
...laura
It is advertising, it is illusions to get you to buy products you don't need. What next, warnings before Disney movies that porcelain does NOT really do a song and dance routine at the slightest provocation?
It reminds of sci-fi morons who always try to link anything with a sci-fi story as proof that some writer nobody ever heard about foretold the future. The only difference between that and follow Nostradamus is that at least that guy people have heard off.
Long before photoshop photo's have been touched up, if not after being shot, then during the shooting by picking the prettiest human beings (yes there is a reaon YOU never starred in an ad, not even a "before" ad) and touching them up with make-up. Look in your girl-friends make-up... oh okay, your mothers make-up collection. Only a small percentage is about color and smell, the rest is about covering up her real look and make it appear she is younger, more in shape and less ravaged by daily life. Wearable photoshop. Most proffesionals plasterers would be ashamed to use that much material to cover up the cracks in a wall.
It is advertising and it is lying. GET FUCKING USED TO IT.
Here are some hints, the burgers at a fast food restaurant NEVER look as good as the picture, in fact taking a look at your burger is the ONLY way to become as thin as the models eating them because you won't be able to force a single bite down. Unless you are American and the look of congealed yellow plastic on half-raw meat on a dry bun is your culinary contribution to the world. Go sit in the corner and be ashamed.
There is NO shampoo or after shave that will turn women wild for you. If you REALLY want girls to fight over your worthless ass, hang around girls with issues (99% of them) and treat them bad.
No matter what car you buy, the roads will NEVER be as empty as they are in the ad. You could drive your new car on the most barren road in no-mans land after the apocalypse and there will be more cars on the road then in all car commercials combined.
Air travel is not fun. Ever and you cannot afford the seats they advertise. Only people in advertising can afford those because you are a gullible fool.
The time of the month is NOT a time when your girlfriend... mother... wishes to go outside and do active sports.
Hope this helps you separate reality from illusion. Next time: Why magicians are NOT all rounded up for horrible acts of cruelty.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
tiff isn't an image format, it's a container like ogg. in fact
the most common type of tiff image i see is compressed,
it's a fax image.
Okay the program tells me that the document has been photoshopped heavily.
That's great, but how can I convince somebody that the document really has been photoshopped heavily? In other words, does the program have an "explain to humans mode?"
Without the explanation, the program is just a black box.
I work for a large printer which does national magazines. From time-to-time we'll need to touch up their covers for various reasons from source files which they provide and as often as not, there's a layer specifically for breast enhancement.
I wonder what all the retouching does in relation to the Uncanny Valley... are we changing our perception of what is "real" over time, so that eventually real people will feel very uncomfortable to look at? Or is this retouching coming to the point where people not exposed to the images on a regular basis will look at them and be creeped out instead of seeing them as the ultimate beauty?
While interesting, it will not be of much use with professional photographs.
I'm a pro photographer and used to program in Assembly, C and Forth. The way I hide the "life experience" of older women is to use specialized lighting. Small point lights create sharp shadows in skin folds, causing the subject to look extremely old. Very large lights might leave no shadows at all because the light wraps all sides of the skin fold. To achieve this, I use a 7 foot diameter Octobox - a light modifier that creates a huge soft light source. I also use a lens that focuses red light on a different plane than green and blue. The net effect is to soften skin, as blemishes will not be in sharp focus. The camera does not record JPEG, but saves raw sensor data that is later converted into a picture using Photoshop or Lightroom.
Thus as far as software can tell, the JPEG photo produced is the original. There are no re-compression artifacts. In fact, until the RAW sensor data was "de-mosaiced" in Photoshop, one could argue that the picture did not exist as such. And most of the smoothing of the image takes place in the analog world, before a digital file is produced.
Place nail here >+
I recently got a tiny point-and-shoot camera, a Canon ELPH 300 HS, and I've been participating in CHDK's effort to hack it. When we got RAW support working, I learned the camera's lens actually has severe barrel distortion that gets "corrected" in software before saving a JPEG.
Images are "shopped" before they even emerge from the camera these days.
The 47 year old with the C-section scar, hip length boobs, yellowed fingers, eight teeth and gnarly, mutant toenails winds up looking suspiciously like Jessica Alba!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
If there is software that can detect photoshopping then the same algorithm can be used to erase all signs of alteration. You can make a fake picture real.
I wish a software would tell if boobs have been inflated. How long until a BoobFox?
What about Mona Lisa? (she was a beauty at those times and, cough, she got rid of eyebrows) ;)
Cough, Rubens' beauties?
I recall my grandma telling me that man having a bit overweight would make him more attractive.
Heck, in India, women with slim bodies are considered not as sexy as those with a bit overweight. (in western terms)
Ever seen what some african tribes do, to look more attractive?
All women wearing makeup should wear a warning label.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The researchers used a set of before-and-after pairs to determine what kinds of image statistics would best correlate with the human observers' ratings of how drastically the pictures had been altered. Now that those stats have been decided, it's possible to apply the evaluation procedure to any picture of the same general content and get back a rating number which should correlate with the amount of alteration done.
It was editored! :)
But, but, Adobe doesn't want us to us the word Photoshopped, according to their guidelines
www.adobe.com/misc/pdfs/TM_GuideforThirdPartiesFinalPrint.pdf
All of the "after" pictures fall into the uncanny valley for me. So either they're really bad examples, or people actually like them. Judging by the mainstream media it must be the latter. What's attractive in a picture of a person that makes them look like a Poser figure?
The images in the first article (http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/downloads/publications/pnas11/) illustrates a pet pewee of mine: Why do professional photoshopers think asymmetry is sexy. In all the examples given, the photo manipulation have introduced weird asymmetry in the portrayed people.
Asymmetry can be very sexy (personally I have a thing for the kind of asymmetric teeth that e.g. Avril Lavinge had (before she had them fixed/destroyed)), but the kind of asymmetry professional photoshopers like to introduce just make people look like they have some weird decease (e.g. in the first example in the article, the woman not only look like she have fake breasts (why do some women want to look like they have had breast cancer?), after photo shopping it also seem like one of them have some kind inflamation, making the fake breasts look even more eery).