How to determine if a digital photograph has been manipulated

On 2016-10-22 18:11:44 +0000, John McWilliams said:

On 10/22/16 PDT 9:56 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-22 16:41:50 +0000, android said:

In article 2016102209384396576-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2016-10-22 16:32:10 +0000, android said:

In article 2016102206152888260-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Here is the side-by-side comparison, and that tells the
manipulation story.
Nothing was added or removed, there were some selective color, NR, &
exposure adjustments, and a crop to make stuff fit, all done in
Lightroom CC.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_285.jpg


And a keystone adjustment that makes the folks in the window look even
more overweight...

All done in fun.
...but not really a keystone adjustment, it was a horizontal
perspective adjustment, just to see what was possible.

That would be keystone sideways. Whatever...

;-)
Keystone usually implies a vertical perspective issue.

Regardless, the adjustment makes the women look a bit off.

Hell! The women looked a bit off without having their photo taken.
After all I wasn't going for a flattering portrait.

They were downtown having whatever passed for fun, but still a bit off,
perhaps a bit lit up. You will note the guy sitting on their right
hasn't exactly engaged them in pub conversation.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/22/2016 12:35 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-22 16:15:33 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/22/2016 9:15 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-21 20:19:43 +0000, Bill W said:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:38:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

So, since we are on the subject of manipulation, try this for size.
I will post a side-by-side comparison with the unaltered original once
there are a few comments.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/DNC_8018.jpg

I guess nobody else cared to play. :-(

It looks like something was removed in the upper half of the lower
left window. Also, those smiling girls in the lower right window are
obviously fake. No one ever smiles at me when I'm taking photos. They
tend to look more like they want to kill me...

The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit. That
should get you plenty of smiles.
The girls, ...er ladies were there sipping their beverages enjoying the
passing parade.

I was also wondering what all those reflections were in the upper
windows, until I realized the lower windows were opened upwards behind
them. But that made me wonder why those reflections are missing behind
the Coddington sign. Was something done there, too?

Just some saturation tweaks.

The reflections are present behind the bee.

Here is the side-by-side comparison, and that tells the manipulation
story.
Nothing was added or removed, there were some selective color, NR, &
exposure adjustments, and a crop to make stuff fit, all done in
Lightroom CC.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_285.jpg




IIRC a very similar image was posted in the SI. .

The "Frog & Peach" in San Luis Obispo is one of those places where I can
depend on getting interesting shots. The example above was shot in 2011.
So you might be thinking of this shot in 2012.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/DNC_5320_AH1.jpg

...or this pair shot in 2013(Note the sign change).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/_DNC5820-EE.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/_DNC5821-Edit.jpg


Could be. I noticed that somebody swapped a fat tire for a Guinness,
without the reflections.


--
PeterN

On 2016-10-22 20:28:31 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/22/2016 12:35 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-22 16:15:33 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/22/2016 9:15 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-21 20:19:43 +0000, Bill W said:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 09:38:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

So, since we are on the subject of manipulation, try this for size.
I will post a side-by-side comparison with the unaltered original once
there are a few comments.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/DNC_8018.jpg

I guess nobody else cared to play. :-(

It looks like something was removed in the upper half of the lower
left window. Also, those smiling girls in the lower right window are
obviously fake. No one ever smiles at me when I'm taking photos. They
tend to look more like they want to kill me...

The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit. That
should get you plenty of smiles.
The girls, ...er ladies were there sipping their beverages enjoying the
passing parade.

I was also wondering what all those reflections were in the upper
windows, until I realized the lower windows were opened upwards behind
them. But that made me wonder why those reflections are missing behind
the Coddington sign. Was something done there, too?

Just some saturation tweaks.

The reflections are present behind the bee.

Here is the side-by-side comparison, and that tells the manipulation
story.
Nothing was added or removed, there were some selective color, NR, &
exposure adjustments, and a crop to make stuff fit, all done in
Lightroom CC.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_285.jpg


IIRC a very similar image was posted in the SI. .

The "Frog & Peach" in San Luis Obispo is one of those places where I can
depend on getting interesting shots. The example above was shot in 2011.
So you might be thinking of this shot in 2012.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/DNC_5320_AH1.jpg

...or this pair shot in 2013(Note the sign change).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/_DNC5820-EE.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/_DNC5821-Edit.jpg


Could be. I noticed that somebody swapped a fat tire for a Guinness,
without the reflections.

Actually it was a compete rearrangement, with the "Fat Tire" and
"Guinness" swap between 2011 and 2012. Then in 2013 the "Coddington
Hemp Ale" was replaced with a "Chainbreaker White IPA".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/22/16 PDT 11:32 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-22 18:11:44 +0000, John McWilliams said:

On 10/22/16 PDT 9:56 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-22 16:41:50 +0000, android said:

In article 2016102209384396576-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2016-10-22 16:32:10 +0000, android said:

In article 2016102206152888260-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Here is the side-by-side comparison, and that tells the
manipulation story.
Nothing was added or removed, there were some selective color, NR, &
exposure adjustments, and a crop to make stuff fit, all done in
Lightroom CC.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_285.jpg



And a keystone adjustment that makes the folks in the window look
even
more overweight...

All done in fun.
...but not really a keystone adjustment, it was a horizontal
perspective adjustment, just to see what was possible.

That would be keystone sideways. Whatever...

;-)
Keystone usually implies a vertical perspective issue.

Regardless, the adjustment makes the women look a bit off.

Hell! The women looked a bit off without having their photo taken. After
all I wasn't going for a flattering portrait.

Heh.

They were downtown having whatever passed for fun, but still a bit off,
perhaps a bit lit up. You will note the guy sitting on their right
hasn't exactly engaged them in pub conversation.

Yes, I think you've nailed it!

But in a slightly serious vein, the perspective (keystone?) adjustment
doesn't seem to work as well on human forms as architectural ones. (But
quite slight)

On 2016-10-22 22:19:00 +0000, John McWilliams said:

On 10/22/16 PDT 11:32 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-22 18:11:44 +0000, John McWilliams said:

On 10/22/16 PDT 9:56 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-10-22 16:41:50 +0000, android said:

In article 2016102209384396576-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2016-10-22 16:32:10 +0000, android said:

In article 2016102206152888260-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Here is the side-by-side comparison, and that tells the
manipulation story.
Nothing was added or removed, there were some selective color, NR, &
exposure adjustments, and a crop to make stuff fit, all done in
Lightroom CC.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_285.jpg



And a keystone adjustment that makes the folks in the window look
even
more overweight...

All done in fun.
...but not really a keystone adjustment, it was a horizontal
perspective adjustment, just to see what was possible.

That would be keystone sideways. Whatever...

;-)
Keystone usually implies a vertical perspective issue.

Regardless, the adjustment makes the women look a bit off.

Hell! The women looked a bit off without having their photo taken. After
all I wasn't going for a flattering portrait.

Heh.

They were downtown having whatever passed for fun, but still a bit off,
perhaps a bit lit up. You will note the guy sitting on their right
hasn't exactly engaged them in pub conversation.

Yes, I think you've nailed it!

But in a slightly serious vein, the perspective (keystone?) adjustment
doesn't seem to work as well on human forms as architectural ones. (But
quite slight)

How many flat and parallel surfaces do you have?
Most of mine are curved, and those curves are stretchy.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:15:28 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit.

Hmmm. My understanding is that clown suits are temporarily
problematic.

On 2016-10-23 01:07:08 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:15:28 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit.

Hmmm. My understanding is that clown suits are temporarily
problematic.

;-)
....but just think of all the shots you can get of folks running from
you, and of cops running towards you.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 18:37:19 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-23 01:07:08 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:15:28 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit.

Hmmm. My understanding is that clown suits are temporarily
problematic.

;-)
...but just think of all the shots you can get of folks running from
you, and of cops running towards you.

What shutter speed will capture bullets mid-flight?

Here, I shrunk the people in your photo:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/91481y

I wanted to see if I could do it. I used DXO Viewpoint first, but that
wasn't enough. I went to PS, then to Transform-Scale, and selected
and transformed each of the two r/s windows separately. It came out
okay, but I think someone who knows what he's doing could do a pretty
good job with this technique.

On 2016-10-23 02:27:26 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 18:37:19 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2016-10-23 01:07:08 +0000, Bill W said:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:15:28 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit.

Hmmm. My understanding is that clown suits are temporarily
problematic.

;-)
...but just think of all the shots you can get of folks running from
you, and of cops running towards you.

What shutter speed will capture bullets mid-flight?

Here, I shrunk the people in your photo:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/91481y

I wanted to see if I could do it. I used DXO Viewpoint first, but that
wasn't enough. I went to PS, then to Transform-Scale, and selected
and transformed each of the two r/s windows separately. It came out
okay, but I think someone who knows what he's doing could do a pretty
good job with this technique.

Yup! You compressed the sides a bit which did squeeze them down a tad,
but also did a number on the window. Rather than work off my reworked
shot, here is the original RAW (as DNG) for you to play with.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/DNC_8018.dng

I also have 3 or 4 other shots taken at the same time with less extreme
angles and slightly different action from the ladies. The guy remains
deadpan throughout his ordeal. I will post some of those later to show
some of the sequence.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 19:45:01 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-23 02:27:26 +0000, Bill W said:

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 18:37:19 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2016-10-23 01:07:08 +0000, Bill W said:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2016 06:15:28 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

The next time you go out taking photos try wearing a clown outfit.

Hmmm. My understanding is that clown suits are temporarily
problematic.

;-)
...but just think of all the shots you can get of folks running from
you, and of cops running towards you.

What shutter speed will capture bullets mid-flight?

Here, I shrunk the people in your photo:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/48982192@N05/91481y

I wanted to see if I could do it. I used DXO Viewpoint first, but that
wasn't enough. I went to PS, then to Transform-Scale, and selected
and transformed each of the two r/s windows separately. It came out
okay, but I think someone who knows what he's doing could do a pretty
good job with this technique.

Yup! You compressed the sides a bit which did squeeze them down a tad,
but also did a number on the window.

Yeah, as I posted that, I looked across the room at the other display
with the photo, and saw what a mess the perspective had become. It
makes me a little dizzy to look at it.

Rather than work off my reworked
shot, here is the original RAW (as DNG) for you to play with.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/DNC_8018.dng

I'll have to give it a try. I haven't done anything with photography
lately. How can there be so many distractions when you're retired?

I also have 3 or 4 other shots taken at the same time with less extreme
angles and slightly different action from the ladies. The guy remains
deadpan throughout his ordeal. I will post some of those later to show
some of the sequence.