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.'"
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.
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.
Counterpoint: The property owners aren't the market for these images, their potential tenants and customers are the market.
For example, when you're viewing images of hotel rooms on-line:
http://www.fourseasons.com/
Even the image on the landing page has been retouched. If you were taking a picture down an outside corridor like that, you would either blow-out the highlights and have a dark grey blob where the tree is, or you would under-expose the shadows and not see the corridor at all. That image is a composite of at least two images taken with different f-stops and probably different shutter speeds.
http://www.fourseasons.com/accommodations/
See that room? See the Hong Kong sky-line? Notice how the exposure on both the room and the outside are perfect? Notice how the exposure on everything in that room is perfect? Even with good lighting equipment you can't get that sort of perfection with a single exposure. Go look at any other hotel site and notice their pictures too. That takes time and expertise.
The point of all of this? Marketing and advertising. Even paying someone like I've mentioned a couple of thousand for some really excellent images is worth it when you're selling million dollar condos or multi-million dollar office spaces. If you can close on a property even 10% faster due to a really well done image, that's 10% more time you have to find and move other properties. Time==Money and people are swayed by advertising images all of the time.
When was the last time you ordered food because it looked damn good on the menu?
When was the last time you listed after a car, or gun, or other piece of hardware because it looked so god damn cool?
When was the last time a picture of someone in a magazine or ad got your blood pumping and hormones raging?
Advertising.
You actually can uncrop some images, as some image formats/applications save a thumbnail in the metadata and that thumbnail might not be updated properly if the image gets edited, leaving a low-res original in place. Other images formats like JPEG allow you to uncrop up to 7 pixel around the image, as the format only supports width/height that is a multiple of 8, thus the crop to the final image size happens at the decoding stage and data might be left over (depends however on the encoder).
Is gimp not technically a digital photo shop?
Is xerography not possible on canon hardware?
Is this not trivial nitpicking over semantics?
I Photoshop with GIMP all the time. I Xerox with an HP scanner. I use a non-IBM PC, as well, and I Google using a couple of search engines. My Band-Aids aren't. My Aspirin isn't made by Bayer. My Chap-Stick is made by Blistex, not Chap-Stick. The Crock-Pot and Saran Wrap in my kitchen aren't branded as such, either.
Names fall into common use. Words get new definitions. New words are made all the time (ask Shakespeare about that!). Get over it.