How can we identify photoshopped images?

[pixmedic]

 

[table1349]

 

[Ysarex]

Between setting the self-timer and running around to get in the shot Elvis lit up a joint -- I shopped it out.

Joe

 

[KmH]

Reuters bans RAW photos in questionable bid for authenticity

Joe

That link?
"RAW photos are uncompressed, have much higher dynamic range (12 to 16 bits instead of 8 bits per pixel)"
Whoever wrote it is technical information challenged.
Many DSLR cameras compress Raw (not RAW) files and how many bits per pixel is the color bit depth, not the dynamic range.

BTW - before Photoshop film photographs were edited too (photo finishing).
If a consumer had the lab develop the film the lab did the photo finishing editing.

 

[terri]

I'm not sure why this was posted in the Alternative Photography forum; if it's digital, it isn't Alt.

Moved to a more appropriate forum. Carry on.

 

[AlanKlein]

While it's nice to know how others have manipulated their photos, it's more important to know what you did to your own. If someone asks you if you Photoshopped it, and you get a funny twinge in your stomach, then you've gone too far.

 

[bratkinson]

The 'heart' of the question is just 'how much' Photoshop is considered as being Photoshopped?

These days, even though the newer cameras and cell phones produce great JPG pictures straight out of the camera (SOOC), even the best in-camera software cannot produce sharp, accurate exposures 100% of the time. No matter how good we are at 'getting it right in the camera', there are times that's not possible due to lighting, exposure triangle requirements, or even time to set up and take a properly exposed/framed/focused shot.

I spend a good portion of my online time on various railroad forums (my other big hobby) and perhaps 80-85% of all the posts contain multiple photos taken by the author or in some instances, from a collection of a deceased railroad photographer (with credit). The biggest problem I see is lack of accurate white balance and underexposure. I assume that since they are more rail fans than photographers, they don't fully grasp the photographic problems or how to correct them. I've many times considered sending them a private email explaining their need for some post processing, but that would more likely alienate them than aid them.

My own photographs will not see the light of day until I have, at a minimum, adjusted WB and exposure as needed, and quite often, fixing non-level issues or keystoning of doorways and wall corners. Shooting indoors with multiple light sources of different types is always problematic, as is outdoor nighttime photography. Post processing those is mandatory in my mind. I use Lightroom for almost all my post processing. Lately, I've been scanning my collection of 35mm railroad slides and post processing for all these problems and dust & scratches is 'standard'.

In short, if the OP wants 'average' or 'ho-hum' results, it's their choice. But for me, I won't show anything other than what I am proud of, and post processing is as much part of digital photography as darkroom skills were with film photography.

 

[Ysarex]

While it's nice to know how others have manipulated their photos, it's more important to know what you did to your own. If someone asks you if you Photoshopped it, and you get a funny twinge in your stomach, then you've gone too far.

Or if someone asks you if you Photoshopped it and you say, "yeah, glad you noticed, I'm pretty proud of that job", then you've got it right.

Joe

 

[AlanKlein]

Fair enough. Each of us knows what we want in our photo and how far to go. If your objective is aesthetics mainly, then Photoshop away. If your photo is to reflect realism, such as in photojournalism, then you have to limit your photoshopping to mainly exposure, cropping and adjustments to correct for the camera limitations to objectively report the "facts".

The problem when a viewer asks the question, is that he is suspicious of the picture and the photographer; that it doesn't represent reality that he would have seen if he was there with the photographer. People use to feel photos were the "truth", and except for experts who did some darkroom magic, they pretty much were especially to old-timers like me who shot chromes. I suppose I'm just an old fuddy-duddy.

 

[ChristyChris]

According to me, photography is the skill which makes an identical image of the original. I don't know whether it is correct.

 

[Ysarex]

According to me, photography is the skill which makes an identical image of the original. I don't know whether it is correct.

I'm going to assume when you say "identical image of the original" that you mean the photograph is as faithful as possible to what a human would experience looking at the subject of the photograph -- what a person would see. I think that's what you're trying to say.

That skill set then will include "photoshopping" skills on the part of the photographer and to realize that result in the fullest extent the image will have to be photoshopped by that skillful photographer. ("Photoshop" in this case being the conversion of a popular proprietary software program's name into a generic term.)

Joe

 

[vintagesnaps]

There's a process for any photograph to be made into a viewable format. If I take a media card out of my digital camera all I have to look at is a square of plastic. If I take a roll of film out of one of my film cameras all I have is a film cartridge to look at. I won't see the pictures until I do something with either one.

I think the post-processing is where it gets into how much is necessary. I find either way, if it's digital or if I've shot B&W film, if I've gotten proper exposures, and I've framed and composed images the way I wanted, I may not have to go beyond processing the photos. I may not do anything considered post, or I might do some, it just depends.

If I got proper exposures when shooting, once the film's developed into negatives, and I've determined exposure time in the enlarger for that roll of film (usually if shot in the same light conditions, etc.), I'd be able to crank out B&W prints pretty efficiently with little of what I'd consider post work (such as to burn in a corner or dodge some detail). I've sometimes just put the media card in the computer, opened it in photoshop and looked at an image - that's probably not what would be considered to be 'photoshopped'. If it looks good, I'll print it, and if that looks good I'm done. Other times I often have to adjust brightness or contrast especially for printing. It just depends.

But much of what I've done is sports and events, and having done that shooting film I know how to frame shots efficiently as things happen quickly. That's where photographers usually need to learn how to get a good shot without needing much post work because there won't be time, they might want the photos like, NOW! There isn't going to be much waiting around for editing to be done, now there's often a picture on a website before a game's even done.

I saw a good bit of misinformation about that Reuters situation, and much of it seemed to have been based on a story in Petapixel written by the self appointed editor of the website (who seems to have less journalism experience than even I do). In that article in Engadget it does clarify that the Reuters photographers were not told to NOT shoot Raw, but to also shoot JPEGs and submit those. I don't think that's unusual to shoot JPEGs for a journalistic purpose. However the Engadget article talks about needing to adjust for exposure being off, etc. which seems misinformed to me. If you're shooting sports you have to know how to get the exposure or readjust it quickly as necessary because there won't be time to correct an entire series of shots much of the time. They expect results and fast.

But what seems to have happened in recent years is many media outlets firing photography staff (then sometimes bringing them back as contracted freelancers). So there seems to be more people with cameras shooting for media outlets who may or may not know what they're doing or who may not have learned the photojournalism ethics that even people like me learned in high school journalism.

 

[thereyougo!]

Fair enough. Each of us knows what we want in our photo and how far to go. If your objective is aesthetics mainly, then Photoshop away. If your photo is to reflect realism, such as in photojournalism, then you have to limit your photoshopping to mainly exposure, cropping and adjustments to correct for the camera limitations to objectively report the "facts".

The problem when a viewer asks the question, is that he is suspicious of the picture and the photographer; that it doesn't represent reality that he would have seen if he was there with the photographer. People use to feel photos were the "truth", and except for experts who did some darkroom magic, they pretty much were especially to old-timers like me who shot chromes. I suppose I'm just an old fuddy-duddy.

When it comes to photography it has always been verisimilitude rather than a single definitive 'truth' It isn't just beauty that is in the eye of the beholder. The camera may not lie by itself but it will show the version of truth (verisimilitude) that the author decides to instruct it to present, either as a result of in-camera settings or from post processing.

Speaking of chrome if you picked up a Velvia 50, you would have a very interesting version of truth. Its verisimilitude was pat of its USP. I still have somewhere (and not refridgerated and is out of date - that could get kind of funky when I use it!

 

[SquarePeg]

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).

+1. I think this is the layman's meaning when using Photoshop as a verb. All the other talk about the camera making internal adjustments is just technical jibberish to someone who isn't into photography. When people say or hear that something's been photoshopped they mean it's been significantly changed in some way. For example a landscape that is a composite with different exposures for the subject and a night sky or has an unattractive tree branch or electrical wires removed, or a portrait where the skin has been smoothed or the models legs have been slimmed.

Where is the line between "photoshopped" and merely enhanced/tweaked? We each have our own line.

 

[KenC]

Where is the line between "photoshopped" and merely enhanced/tweaked? We each have our own line.

I don't have a line - you can get cut on those things.