How can we identify photoshopped images?

ChristyChris · Sep 9, 2016

Hi there,
I know photography is a skill. I am much interested in photography. I don't have a camera with me otherwise, I may explore. I used to take pictures with my phone camera. But I don't use to do the photoshop. Last day my friend showed his picture that was taken in Nikon camera, he is looking pretty good in that picture and super clarity. I doubt if it being photoshopped. When I asked him, he said he hadn't used any photoshop tricks. How can we know whether the picture is photoshopped or it is original? Here is a picture got from the Killarney Lodge portal,

Please do not post images to which you do not hold rights. You may post a link.
Sorry, here is the image link
http://www.killarneylodge.com/uploads/gallery/thumb/GAL35_25072011060803.jpg
Is it a photoshopped picture? Which type of photography is this? What is the role of the camera lens in photography? (I don't have any idea about photography, sorry if it doesn't fit here).

Braineack · Sep 9, 2016

http://www.killarneylodge.com/uploads/gallery/large/GAL35_25072011060803.jpg

It doesn't strike me as Photoshopped -- at least not in the sense of how I'd use the term.

However, the EXIF data shows the file was saved out of Photoshop:

Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Modify Date 2011:07:25 11:25:04

HughGuessWho · Sep 9, 2016

What exactly is "photoshopped"? Would you concider a simple layers adjustment to be "photoshopped"?

astroNikon · Sep 9, 2016

There also is a lot (even minor tweaks) of "Post Processing" that may occur from an image straight out of the camera.

So the question is, at what level of minor tweaks or major transformations do you consider "photoshopped" ?

PersistentNomad · Sep 9, 2016

Yes, it's really hard to tell if an image has been photoshopped, especially if it's been done REALLY well. And as the others mention, what constitutes "photoshopped"? There are tweaks you can do in PS (or Lightroom) that are dark room equivalents that film photogs do as a matter of course. It's not what a lot of people now consider to be photoshopped because its not major photo alteration or manipulation.
Best way to think of it, if you are really wanting to find out is if the image looks a little to unreal: color saturation is high, it's got a pretty clear exposure vignette, everything looks REALLY crisp, like unnaturally crisp; stuff like that. But, even then, it's not a guarantee. The image link attached is one that's had a lot of manipulation through a LR action preset (courtesy of Greater Than Gatsby). it doesn't look inherently manipulated, but in seeing the before image we can tell that it is: some to enhance, some to change. Greater Than Gatsby Photoshop Actions - Timeline | Facebook

Really, it's all a crapshoot in identification.

Big Mike · Sep 9, 2016

FotoForensics

Ysarex · Sep 9, 2016

PersistentNomad said:
Yes, it's really hard to tell if an image has been photoshopped, especially if it's been done REALLY well. And as the others mention, what constitutes "photoshopped"? There are tweaks you can do in PS (or Lightroom) that are dark room equivalents that film photogs do as a matter of course. It's not what a lot of people now consider to be photoshopped because its not major photo alteration or manipulation.
Best way to think of it, if you are really wanting to find out is if the image looks a little to unreal: color saturation is high, it's got a pretty clear exposure vignette, everything looks REALLY crisp, like unnaturally crisp; stuff like that. But, even then, it's not a guarantee. The image link attached is one that's had a lot of manipulation through a LR action preset (courtesy of Greater Than Gatsby). it doesn't look inherently manipulated, but in seeing the before image we can tell that it is: some to enhance, some to change. Greater Than Gatsby Photoshop Actions - Timeline | Facebook

Really, it's all a crapshoot in identification.

In the example you posted isn't the "before" image is just as manipulated as the "after" image? This is digital photography. A SOOC JPEG is a heavily manipulated image. Is there such a thing as an un-manipulated digital photo and if so what?

In the example you posted the only things altered are tone and color. In all digital photos all tone and color must be altered to create the RGB image. Do we consider the processes necessary to create the image in the first place somehow different than those same processes if used again after the image has been seen by a person? When I use those same processes to correct the camera software's errors and render the image more faithful to reality is my photo "shopped" -- how about "un-shopped?" Was the camera's unfaithful original image "shopped?" When I process a SOOC camera rendered JPEG what I'm typically doing is correcting a botched job of software manipulation. Once I correct those errors shouldn't we refer to my corrected image as having been un-manipulated?

To remove, move, or add an object to an image after the lens has recorded that image would be an obvious case of altering the photo -- photoshopped. How do we draw any other line?

Let's try another example:

What do we say about these two images? They both result from a singular camera exposure -- the shutter was clicked and recorded an image. But that image must be software processed and someone has to write and use that software. There's no alteration of content in either version; nothing removed, moved or added. Are they both un-manipulated or both equally manipulated? Is one manipulated and the other not -- how so? You should be able to guess which one was manipulated by me and which one by these guys:

(They work in Bangalore and write software algorithms for our camera manufacturers.) They're still trying to solve the auto-white balance problem -- see right image above. In the example you posted they manipulated the before image.

The OP here is making the very common but in fact serious mistake to think that the image that comes out of a digital camera (SOOC) exists in a state that is prior to or without manipulation and as such has a different relationship with the "reality" of the referent than an image processed by a photographer at a computer. All digital photos are manipulated -- it is a requirement of the process of their creation. Not all digital photos have the content of what the lens recorded altered, but that does bring up the topic of the pincushion distortion in the image above -- normally I would un-manipulate that?

We can try to adopt rules and language usage among ourselves to control this but we can't control the language used by the public. How about if "manipulation" is exclusively used to refer to objects removed, moved, or added? Then the tone and color alterations are processing and all digital photos are processed. Trouble with that is when someone changes color or tone to create and obvious departure from the subject photographed. In the example you posted the photographer changed some of the leaves from yellow-green to yellow-orange. Now we wade into the murky waters of manipulation to a degree and we get stuck with old Potter Stewart's dilemma and it comes down to "I know it when I see it."

Joe

PersistentNomad · Sep 9, 2016

@Ysarex I think you just took it to a whole entirely different level that the OP probably wasn't thinking about. What you say is true, but I think what I was trying to get at is a more simplified version that many people have asked me about when discussing photography in gallery situations.

Ysarex · Sep 9, 2016

Big Mike said:
FotoForensics

To easy to fool. This photo passes their ELA test and if I wanted to take the time to edit the metadata there would be no way to detect the obvious alterations. (Pickle Creek Commandments: Proof that when Moses was barred entry to the Promised Land he came instead to mid-Missouri and he and God worked it out. Honest! Just ask the Mormons.)

Joe

Joe

Ysarex · Sep 9, 2016

PersistentNomad said:
@Ysarex I think you just took it to a whole entirely different level that the OP probably wasn't thinking about. What you say is true, but I think what I was trying to get at is a more simplified version that many people have asked me about when discussing photography in gallery situations.

Yeah but that's the point -- in the OP's and the public's more simplified version they're drawing false conclusions. They think of the camera generated image as not manipulated and they're applying "manipulation" to anything and everything that may be done afterwards to the camera image as somehow artificial. That general misunderstanding is a problem.

Joe

480sparky · Sep 9, 2016

Every digital image is processed somewhere along the line. Even if it's a SOOC JPEG.

tirediron · Sep 9, 2016

Who cares?

Ysarex · Sep 9, 2016

tirediron said:
Who cares?

The misinformed: Reuters bans RAW photos in questionable bid for authenticity

Joe

astroNikon · Sep 9, 2016

The OP asked when a photo is "photoshopped"
but as mentioned even the camera has built in features to modify what the sensor sees. just set it to "Vivid, Portrait" modes or many other features which are saved in JPEGs.
Then one can make "minor" alterations after the fact.
or make major alterations after the fact.
The problem being, at which "point" does the OP define a certain change as being "photoshopped"

I think photoshopped is when someone makes a major alteration to an image such as added or subtracting something physical in the original image, or even significantly changing colors which could be changing it from color to B&W as an example (which you can also do in-camera).

But does it really matter. To the OP it will matter only based on their definition.

as a photog we are trying to convey something about the image. So Photoshopping or us Lightroom to manipulate it is part of how we want to convey the image.