Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

226 comments

It Can Tell by the Pixels (5, Funny)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228428)

It also uses advanced neural-network powered learning algorithms to allow it to also leverage "having seen a a great many shops".

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38228512)

don't you mean "shoops" ugh i hate that bastardization of the shorthand 'shop....why oh why did so many people start using it.

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (-1, Offtopic)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228628)

You will have only seen a great many shoops if you hang out on 4chan.

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (2, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228772)

The whole term is dumb. You don't photoshop something in GIMP, for instance... just like you don't xerox on a Cannon.

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38228876)

Its it's
Your your're
Canon Cannon

You are all just ficking idiots if you don't even no that

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (-1, Flamebait)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229180)

Nowhere did I make any of those mistakes, except for the extra 'n' in Canon. I will give you that one.

For the other two? Kiss my fucking ass, AC.

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38229576)

LOL.. You was Trolled sucksexfilly! :)

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (5, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228948)

This looks GIMPED. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few GIMPS in my time.

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38229238)

That wont piss off gimped people at all.

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (0)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229256)

you don't xerox on a Cannon.

Maybe you don't. Everybody else does.

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (5, Funny)

DeadboltX (751907) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229562)

Next you'll be telling me that I don't Google things on Bing?

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (1)

Jbcarpen (883850) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230410)

I see what you did there... Well done good sir.

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (5, Informative)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229568)

The whole term is dumb. You don't photoshop something in GIMP, for instance... just like you don't xerox on a Cannon.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/xerox [reference.com]

noun 2. ( sometimes lowercase ) a copy made on a xerographic copying machine.
verb (used with object), verb (used without object) 3. ( sometimes lowercase ) to print or reproduce by xerography.

See also: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/photoshop [reference.com] — vb , -shops , -shopping , -shopped ( tr ) to alter (a digital photograph or other image), using an image editing application, especially Adobe Photoshop
Notice it says especially, not exclusively.


My point is that you most certainly do photoshop something in G.I.M.P..

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (4, Insightful)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230408)

Is gimp not technically a digital photo shop?
Is xerography not possible on canon hardware?
Is this not trivial nitpicking over semantics?

"Photoshop is not a verb" -- Adobe (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229286)

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.

Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (5, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228776)

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.

Re:Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (5, Insightful)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228820)

That's why amateur porn is the best.

Re:Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38228846)

Ain't that the truth :D

Re:Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38228888)

Amen bro

Re:Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (-1, Offtopic)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228954)

Micro-soft shill!

Re:Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38228998)

Indeed [reddit.com]

Re:Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (-1, Flamebait)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230262)

What's the point in fantasizing about average girls? Fantasy is at its best when it is as far from real and achievable as possible... that's why it's fantasy. If you're really fantasizing about average girls you've never even met, you're probably deficient socially. Develop some social skills and get laid in real life.

Re:Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38229278)

I don't care how they got there I like them.

Re:Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (2)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229756)

They may be wearing push-up bras but those women are mostly just young and gifted. If people weren't so superstitious about cloning all your patients would look like them!

Re:Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (0)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229822)

The first time I was really upset was when they showed a kindergarten teacher who was getting some beauty surgery as she did not like her body.
Because that is what we need to learn little children: How you look is more important then who you are.

Re:Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (3, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230194)

If you think such things are 'anatomically impossible' I rather doubt you're a medical doctor. Aside from spherical boobs, both the goal and the result of plastic surgeries are generally such physical characteristics as can be found in nature but not in the patient. Plastic surgery did not invent the flat stomach or pouty lips or what-have-you.

Re:Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (3, Insightful)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230228)

I refer to this as "burning your eyes out" on impossibly great beauty. Sadly, it raises our overall dissatisfaction.

It's a similar kind of desensitization to what you get more generally from absorbing years of hyper-real broadcast media. TV = mind candy. Most folks = mentally prediabetic.

Re:Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (4, Insightful)

wdef (1050680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230390)

There's truth in this except for your use of "hype real" which is incorrect. Nevertheless to echo a post I made somewhere else: Read the statistics, beauty is not purely socially determined. It's not in the eye of the beholder. It's a near absolute. There are small variations and individual preferences, yes. What happened is this: before mass media and transport, the most beautiful girl most of us ever saw all our life was that one in our village or the next village. Probably 1% of the population. We never saw anyone more attractive than those one or two beautiful girls. Economics was much more important than looks in choosing a partner back then anyway. Nowadays, the media selects thousands of beauties (men and women) who are in the top 0.01% of beauty rankings and puts them on a pedestal. That has exposed us all to extremely attractive people as if they were all around us and we crave it. Given the obesity epidemic in Western countries, if I could only train myself to go crazy for fat women with huge, wobbly, grotesque butts, I would be living in heaven.

Re:Oh noes: the anti-victoria's secret law! (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230320)

I don't even notice those ads. I suspect that the people whose perception is changed by such visual trickery are deficient in some way.

Re:It Can Tell by the Pixels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38229466)

I can tell it's been 'shopped by the globular clusters.

Finally! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38228430)

Very cool.

reliably? (4, Interesting)

drdanny_orig (585847) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228502)

I wonder.... will it be fooled if images are converted to/from lossy formats a few times.....

Re:reliably? (1)

need4mospd (1146215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228844)

Or printed on physical media and scanned?

Re:reliably? (2)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228942)

Or simply a high quality CG rendering (which technically speaking, won't be a photoshop job at all....)

Re:reliably? (4, Interesting)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229094)

Or just provide better feedback to photo editing programs to create better pictures.

Re:reliably? (5, Interesting)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229500)

Actually, conversion is one method of detecting photoshop changes. It's called Image Error Level Analysis.

http://errorlevelanalysis.com/ [errorlevelanalysis.com]

The gist is that every time you save an e.g. JPEG, the quality will get worse. However, the worsening of quality decreases each time it is saved, eventually asymptotically approaching the worst level. Therefore, if you're working on a photoshopped picture, each time you save it the quality of the various parts of the photo will decrease by different amounts. This can be used to identify which pieces of the photo have been modified more recently than others, since they will have a different error level than the pieces that were modified first.

Re:reliably? (1, Offtopic)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229622)

I use TIFF, you insensitive clod.

Nobody doing image alteration for anything beyond amusing the droolers at various low end web sites is going to use a lossy compression algorithm. In fact, you can set up any program written in the past 20 years not to compress the image, even using JPEG. So that sort of thing isn't terribly useful.

Re:reliably? (2)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229714)

re-read OP. He was asking if lossy format conversions could fool this technique. I was pointing out that lossy format conversion actually assists with detecting photoshop jobs.

tiff != lossless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38230016)

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.

Too bad this requires a "before" picture (5, Interesting)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228528)

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!).

Re:Too bad this requires a "before" picture (2, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228572)

It's a hard problem, just because a photo looks photoshopped doesn't necessarily mean that it was. These days one can shoot in RAW or TIF which makes the compression artifacts that used to be helpful non-existent. And ultimately somebody that's willing to put the time and effort into the work is probably going to be able to make it so that it fools the software most of the time.

Re:Too bad this requires a "before" picture (3, Informative)

fatbuckel (1714764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228654)

It needs a "before" pic? Really? (could`nt reach the provided link) Could`nt one simply look at the before pic and see if there was retouching? We need software for this?

Re:Too bad this requires a "before" picture (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229144)

That's been around for ages - there's a Linux package called perceptualdiff that does exactly that. I've used it to measure the differences between CG images while I was "evolving" a picture. Works very well.

Re:Too bad this requires a "before" picture (3, Informative)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229174)

It's for rating it. Says so in the headline and the summary. So there's an objective number. 1 means "small touch-ups" and 5 means "might as well be a CGI model".

Re:Too bad this requires a "before" picture (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228806)

Not sure if equipment would leave some sort of fingerprint in a generic, not sure if retouched or not image, to say for sure that it was some brand or model of camera (or certain specific camera with not so perfect lenses). Same shoud go for algorithms to retouching images (probably different tools, using the same algorithm leaves pretty similar fingerprints).

Re:Too bad this requires a "before" picture (3, Informative)

jandrese (485) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228874)

For some time now there has been resources online to look at the error rates in a JPEG to guess which parts have been photoshopped into a picture. I use it all the time [errorlevelanalysis.com] when I suspect something has been photoshopped. It's not a perfect tool,and someone who is expecting it can defeat this particular analysis, but online it has proven to be quite valuable in spotting fakes.

TFA's link appears to be slashdotted, so I can't tell if they're using a similar technique or not.

Re:Too bad this requires a "before" picture (3, Interesting)

sootman (158191) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230140)

I used the "levels" tool to prove to someone that a photoshopped version of NASA's famous "Earthlights" picture was NOT a real satellite photo of the big blackout in the northeast a few years ago. Besides recognizing the original picture right away and knowing the story behind it (that it was a composite made of pictures taken over many months), lightening it a whole lot showed which parts were natural (dark but not quite black) and which parts were merely the result of someone using a big, soft-edged brush to put down a lot of pure black.

As the saying goes, I really can tell from some of the pixels, and from having seen quite a few 'shops in my time. :-) (Some of which weren't fake celebrity nudes.)

Revert? (3, Insightful)

bobcat7677 (561727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228538)

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?

Re:Revert? (5, Funny)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228664)

Yeah, it shouldn't be that hard to uncrop [youtube.com] a picture.

Re:Revert? (5, Funny)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229614)

I bet the people on CSI can uncrop a picture. ;)

Re:Revert? (4, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230282)

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).

Re:Revert? (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230218)

You can imagine my surprise when I discovered that clip wasn't from CSI. Seriously.

Re:Revert? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228680)

It might be possible to make a very well-informed guess (as with some existing software that can "increase resolution" on human faces) but that's all it is, a guess. It would be impossible to recover the original image with any certainty.

Re:Revert? (4, Interesting)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228768)

Not likely. When you airbrush, you're destroying the original data. That's why you can detect the change; it no longer has the same fringing around areas of contrast, the noise levels don't quite match, the gradients don't look exactly the same, the reflections of lighting are subtly off, etc. There's nothing to restore because the original information is gone. The best you could do is highlight the areas that were altered. Maybe, if you were lucky, you might be able to approximately reverse a virtual tummy tuck by showing where the moved portions probably were originally, then leaving a gap where content was elided, but that's kind of the exception rather than the rule.

What would be more entertaining would be if someone took this algorithm, then rewrote it (or wrote a parallel successive approximation algorithm to feed into it) so that it generates photos that, although heavily doctored, pass this test. Put another way, this sort of methodology is only effective if the details are kept secret....

Re:Revert? (3, Insightful)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229828)

What would be more entertaining would be if someone took this algorithm, then rewrote it (or wrote a parallel successive approximation algorithm to feed into it) so that it generates photos that, although heavily doctored, pass this test. Put another way, this sort of methodology is only effective if the details are kept secret....

Yeah, basically my first thought on the process was that this is also an algorithm to tell you how to make better looking fakes.

I'd like to run that over (4, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228542)

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.

In Soviet Russia ... (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229230)

.... your image deletes you!

/. being sued in 3, 2, 1... (4, Funny)

c0l0 (826165) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228608)

... because THAT story title quite obviously is not in compliance with Adobe's Permissions and trademark guidelines [adobe.com] !

Next time, better talk about images being "GIMPed". Just to be safe and all that ;)

Re:/. being sued in 3, 2, 1... (2, Informative)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230342)

The best part of that is their suggested replacement for "Photoshopped", which is "enhanced with Adobe® Photoshop® Elements software." This has several problems:

  • It contains two registered trademark symbols in the sentence. In addition to making the sentence harder to read, these symbols are only required (legally) if you work for Adobe or are otherwise using the term as part of selling their product or a competing product. It does not dilute Adobe's mark if the term is used in reference to their product, with or without that symbol.
  • If you are going to insert those ® marks, then Elements should have a (TM) mark beside it (which curiously, Slashcode does not allow even though it allows ®).
  • Such images are rarely actually enhanced by the process. The term "Photoshopped" usually refers to constructing a new image that adds somebody into a picture where they didn't actually appear, makes it look like a bus is falling off a cliff, pastes one person's head on another person's body, etc.
  • History has shown that because of the Streisand Effect, guidelines like this are more likely to increase misuse of the mark rather than diminish it.
  • Verbing a trademark only significantly dilutes the mark if people start using the word Photoshopped to also mean GIMPed, Pixelmatored, or MS Painted. Since the Streisand Effect applies here anyway, the company would be better off registering a trademark with the verb form, then begin marketing the word Photoshopped as "edited with Photoshop" in the most clear and unambiguous way possible.

As always, caveat emptor. IANALBIPOOSD.

Photoshopped (1, Insightful)

drpimp (900837) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228618)

What if it was GIMPed or [INSERT EDITOR]ed?

Spawn new genre of fetish mags/sites? (1)

Reasonable Facsimile (2478544) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228626)

Seriously. There are probably lots of people who would be willing to pay for "certified" un-retouched pics, etc.

Re:Spawn new genre of fetish mags/sites? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38228738)

Is preferring natural / real things a fetish now?

Re:Spawn new genre of fetish mags/sites? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228860)

I think it's for people with...less legal tastes who get a rush knowing that whatever awful thing they're looking at really happened.

Re:Spawn new genre of fetish mags/sites? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228778)

realpix.xxx is available...

Re:Spawn new genre of fetish mags/sites? (1)

KaoticEvil (91813) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229126)

Or was.. Now it's in the middle of a bidding war heh

Re:Spawn new genre of fetish mags/sites? (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229284)

What if you used that domain to host photoshopped pictures of Real Dolls?

Re:Spawn new genre of fetish mags/sites? (1)

Reasonable Facsimile (2478544) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229638)

Divide-by-zero!

ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38228656)

So that will just red light every ad ever produced?

Incoming arms race? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38228714)

If this works, I expect to see image-modification software which can fool these techniques.

Having a little experience here (4, Interesting)

squidflakes (905524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228742)

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.

Re:Having a little experience here (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228880)

Or...he could have just bought an HDR rig and saved himself a lot of work.

Re:Having a little experience here (3, Insightful)

squidflakes (905524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229688)

If by "HDR rig" you mean software like Topaz Adjust, then no. That software typically produces the sort of sliders-to-the-right, grainy, neon-lit abortions that people on Flickr call HDR but tend to be referred to by photographers as PCS, or pastel colored shit.

When you're doing high dynamic range in an attempt to present more tones and contrast in an image than your camera is capable of reproducing, you're almost forced to take multiple exposures and combine them. Once you've done that, there is still work to be done to ensure that it doesn't look artificial or retouched.

Just like with human skin, you can grab the clone stamp tool and smooth someone out so much they look like a porcelain doll, or you can dodge and burn until the skin tone is even and you've preserved the texture. One looks obvious, the other is very subtle. Magazines prefer subtle and pay for subtle.

Re:Having a little experience here (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229832)

By "HDR rig" I would easily assume he means a camera with HDR capabilities, not some crappy application that just saturates the fuck out of the images.

Re:Having a little experience here (4, Informative)

squidflakes (905524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230364)

Most DSLRs have "HDR" capabilities. I know that on Nikon it is called bracketing and you can take three or four images with up to a 2 EV increase or decrease on on either side. That still only gives the image out of your camera 10 - 12 EV of range, which bumps right up against what most monitors are capable of displaying.

Re:Having a little experience here (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229834)

No I meant a stereoscopic rig, which can do both 3D and HDR. In fact it's even possible to do HDR with a single camera but I'm not sure the quality is up to professional standards with this method.

Re:Having a little experience here (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230322)

I'm not sure the quality is up to professional standards with this method.

Depends on what you're shooting... even a mid-range body with bracketing capabilities can give you excellent HDR in bright light, still image situations. Once the light starts to drop or you're dealing with a subject in motion, you have to go to the dual-camera with sync cable to get anything useful.

Oh, and for decent HDR, you really need 3 shots (you need to bracket your exposure so you have your range extremes and a midpoint reference), so a stereo rig won't quite cut it either.

Re:Having a little experience here (1)

squidflakes (905524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230394)

As you said, you can do HDR with a single camera, and that's usually what is done, but work is still needed to ensure that the transition between zones is smooth and pleasing to the eye. A stereoscopic mount would be terrible because your images wouldn't be aligned.

Re:Having a little experience here (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229022)

Conjecture: People who have the money to buy "commercial real-estate and mult-unit dwellings" aren't stupid enough to be swayed by a bit of retouching of pictures and the only person being conned is the Realtor[tm] who pays the photographer. "It took me all that time to make all these changes!"

Re:Having a little experience here (2)

jbengt (874751) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229316)

Sounded to me more like the people with enough money to buy "commercial real-estate and mult-unit dwellings" were the ones hoping a bit of retouching would help way potential condo buyers and office renters. In my limited experience, it would help sales/rentals.

Re:Having a little experience here (5, Insightful)

squidflakes (905524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229864)

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/ [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/ [fourseasons.com]

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.

Re:Having a little experience here (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38230124)

> When was the last time you listed after a car, or gun, or other piece of hardware because it looked so god damn cool?

To sell guns all you need to get right is the color of the blood. The CONservatives love violence. They hate humanity. All they need is hate and violence in an image to sell one of their tools of violence.

Re:Having a little experience here (1)

Spiridios (2406474) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230308)

http://www.fourseasons.com/accommodations/ [fourseasons.com]

See that room? See the Hong Kong sky-line?

Just want to point out that the image on that page rotates through several different images. If you don't see the Hong Kong sky-line, reload. Though quite a few images in the set make the point just as well.

Re:Having a little experience here (1)

MasterOfGoingFaster (922862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230370)

>> "Conjecture: People who have the money to buy "commercial real-estate and mult-unit dwellings" aren't stupid enough to be swayed by a bit of retouching of pictures"

If only that were true...

some questions (3, Interesting)

wierd_w (1375923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228798)

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?

Re:some questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38229350)

with realtime rendering, wouldn't it be simpler to create the 3D object, insert it in the picture, and you have a 100% original instead?

Photoshop is nice and well, you have extremely talented people with the knowledge and experience to make impossible to detect frauds. Try blender 3d a little, it has all the pertinent features and you'll see just how much technology has evolved in the last decade, while photoshop is basically the same.

I got disappointed in the fairer sex... (4, Funny)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38228902)

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.

Re:I got disappointed in the fairer sex... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38229218)

That's why you need my new "Photoshop On the Fly" glasses (patent pending). The apply several techniques to beautify and enlarge where needed as you look at the opposite sex. Order yours today.

Re:I got disappointed in the fairer sex... (5, Funny)

GuB-42 (2483988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229428)

I already exists, it is called "alcohol".

Re:I got disappointed in the fairer sex... (1)

molesdad (1003858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229548)

Better yet I can offer you the "Photoshop on the Fly" in a glass, available in any bar. The more you have, the better the ladies look, commonly known as "Beer Goggles". It's a must for all you wing men out there.

Re:I got disappointed in the fairer sex... (1)

DSS11Q13 (1853164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229328)

$20 says this poster is a woman

Re:I got disappointed in the fairer sex... (1)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229846)

You must live in America!

/ kidding --- shame that is necessary

Celebrity culture... (4, Insightful)

MaWeiTao (908546) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229038)

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.

Re:Celebrity culture... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38229880)

It's not really as pointless as you'd think. This kind of thing comes up as an ethical question in photojournalism all the time. For instance, remember the Michele Bachman "death stare" photo on the cover of Newsweek a few months back? Bachman and her campaign insisted the image was altered to make her look evil, Newsweek denied it. The image was no doubt retouched, but it was hard to tell by how much without the source image.

With software like this, someone could run the Newsweek photo through it and figure out exactly where the photo had been altered and by how much. Then either Newsweek could make the legitimate defense that "we retouched the image slightly but it wasn't anywhere near enough to do what Bachman claims we did", or Bachman could say "they retouched 50% of the image with most of the editing around the eye and mouth area, this was clearly done with malicious intent."

The system failed... (3, Funny)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229142)

...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.

Circumventable... (1)

Jahava (946858) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229378)

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.

Seriously, I can't wait (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229410)

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.

No retouching as company policy (1)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229504)

This is the only one I know of, but I hope others will follow. Jacob [jacob.ca] magazine ads also state that they aren't retouched. Good for them!

...laura

And all this effort for what? (3, Funny)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#38229702)

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.

But how do you know it? (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 2 years ago | (#38230028)

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.

Cover .psd files often have layers Boobs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38230208)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...