How to tell if a photo is manipulated?
- Thread starter seesick
- Start date
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. There isn't anything inherently wrong or dishonest about using Photoshop. I shoot in RAW format so every one of my images spends some time in Photoshop. That doesn't make them dishonest or "manipulated."
It's a tool. Would you walk up to Ansel Adams and say "You didn't develop that film did you?" He used to spend weeks in the darkroom perfecting a single print.
username in use
Sciencing Daily
Is this more in relation to buying corals and seeing if it really looks as amazing at it does in the pic?
dendronepthya
Premium Member
This is a tough question. I think what the OP is asking is how can one determine if a picture seen online will look like that once he acquires it. In short, you can't. Even if the photo were accurate, lighting differences from tank to tank, angle of view, etc. will drastically change the appearance of coral. I've hand picked corals that look completely different once in my tank.
The other point is about digital photography. Whenever I hear someone say they have an image that is unprocessed or "right out of the camera" I wince. Every digital photo is processed. Every single one. It is either done by the camera, or it is done by the photographer in a program like Lightroom, Aperture, or Photoshop.
Like beerguy, I think there is nothing inherently wrong in processing images yourself. I'll even go a step further and say half of digital photography is post processing and I trust my ability to adjust the image far more than the firmware in the camera.
Can programs be abused to post process images? Sure. If done poorly, graphical artifacts will show such as over-saturation of colors, etc. If done really well, you probably can't tell at all.
The other point is about digital photography. Whenever I hear someone say they have an image that is unprocessed or "right out of the camera" I wince. Every digital photo is processed. Every single one. It is either done by the camera, or it is done by the photographer in a program like Lightroom, Aperture, or Photoshop.
Like beerguy, I think there is nothing inherently wrong in processing images yourself. I'll even go a step further and say half of digital photography is post processing and I trust my ability to adjust the image far more than the firmware in the camera.
Can programs be abused to post process images? Sure. If done poorly, graphical artifacts will show such as over-saturation of colors, etc. If done really well, you probably can't tell at all.
SushiGirl
Premium Member
Unless they strip the EXIF information out of the photo, you can right-click on it and look at the Advanced tab (or the equivalent in whatever OS you're running), and it lists details in there, sometimes including some of the processing. On my pics, it usually says "Sharpened" and "Darkened" (our camera shoots light). I always try to make my pics look exactly as I saw them when it comes to lighting or coloring. Darkening ours usually brings the true color more exactly as I saw it. I never change color stuff cuz it looks fake to me, I guess because I saw the real colors...I guess it might fool others.
Dendro is right though, anything you see on the screen is not going to look the same in your tank due to all the things he listed.
Dendro is right though, anything you see on the screen is not going to look the same in your tank due to all the things he listed.
IPT
Active member
If you are talking about corals posted and people saying it is "photoshopped", my guess is they are talking about the saturation (color intensity) being boosted. Thus it might look more saturated than it is in real life. People were doing this way before digital (like Beerguy said, with Ansel Adams - though he was B&W, so he just perfected the tonal range). In the color film days people would actually choose a film based on how it rendered colors. Landscape photographers loved Velivia for it's overly saturated colors. For the same reasons Velvia was bad for Portrait photos , so there were other films of choice for that too. Now we can just change it "on the fly" with software.
If you are just talking about what you see online, there are a few hints. If it looks to amazing to be real, questions it...however, some truely unreal captures occur so you never know. Some other hints are shadows where the lighting appearing to come from different directions, scale of objects being wrong (see this one with the moon all the time), and if very poorly done the colors or exposure levels being mismatched. There are some very talented PS people out there though, they can hide a lot!
If you are just talking about what you see online, there are a few hints. If it looks to amazing to be real, questions it...however, some truely unreal captures occur so you never know. Some other hints are shadows where the lighting appearing to come from different directions, scale of objects being wrong (see this one with the moon all the time), and if very poorly done the colors or exposure levels being mismatched. There are some very talented PS people out there though, they can hide a lot!
Reef Bass
colors and textures
The term "Photoshopped" should really be replaced with "enhanced" in the common vanacular. As others have said, Photoshop is a tool, not an evil piece of image corrupting software. If there's any evil, it's in the intent of the Photoshop user, not the software.
On one hand, a really good digital artist can create a completely artificial image that looks real. On the other, all my RAW images (completely "natural" or shots of real, existing corals) are white balanced in Photoshop, where, ironically, I strive hard to make them look as they do in my tank (striving for realism, not manipulating for visual glory).
As IPT points out, there are common signs of bad digital manipulations. Light sourcing from different angles on different elements of the photo. A lack of shadow, or shadows conflicting or overlapping inappropriately. Bad seams between objects or at the edge of objects. A number of not so little circles where background texture doesn't quite match.
On one hand, a really good digital artist can create a completely artificial image that looks real. On the other, all my RAW images (completely "natural" or shots of real, existing corals) are white balanced in Photoshop, where, ironically, I strive hard to make them look as they do in my tank (striving for realism, not manipulating for visual glory).
As IPT points out, there are common signs of bad digital manipulations. Light sourcing from different angles on different elements of the photo. A lack of shadow, or shadows conflicting or overlapping inappropriately. Bad seams between objects or at the edge of objects. A number of not so little circles where background texture doesn't quite match.
Jacob D
New member
Everyone else already mentioned it, but just because it's been in Photoshop doesn't mean that the photo has been manipulated to misrepresent the coral (or whatever). But if you have doubts about it use an EXIF data reader (there are browser plugins and stand alone apps) to look at the meta data for the image. If you see "Photoshop" in the EXIF, or if the EXIF is completely missing you can always ask for a copy of the original un-edited photo. Of course this doesn't mean that you'll get one, but can't hurt to ask.
Similar threads
