Detection of 'fake' photographs

see

The hidden signs that can reveal a fake photo

Interesting!

Very interesting. One item that is referenced in the document is a fake photo quiz by Adobe at,

Real or Photoshop Quiz, Test Your Perception

I did better than 50%, but just barely. I think that might have done better if I were looking at a screen larger than on my 13" Macbook.

I'm glad you put "fake" in quotes in the title of your thread.

 

I think there are some photographers who don't know when to appropriately apply the word "fake" and I think understanding the misuse of "fake" may be more important than playing detective to snoop around and unmask what are often merely creative applications of the tools of the trade which often have nothing to do with "faking."

 

Maybe in the days of the Internet times in which we live, this is how people will spend their time, but I suspect back in the day when photographers were patching together the sky from one negative and the landscape from another, fellow photographers weren't slapping each other's behinds when they discovered it was being done as if they'd discovered gambling in Casablanca!

 

Of course, there are times when a fake will matter. IMO, energy might be better spent emphasizing when it matters and when it's just a current-day photographic obsession.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Norma Desmond

When I suspect a photo I can see a difference in pixelation when I blow it up

Raising a flag over the Reichstag - Wikipedia

 

"fake" has to be clarified. IMHO it applies to intent. is the intent to mislead or distort? From the very start the Soviet photo was doctored to mislead ( see THE COMMISSAR DISAPPEARS recommended by JDM. as opposed to the flag over Iwo Jima where I believe Rosenthal's account that he shot it as an after thought over his shoulder and sent it off to the coast. Later it was made out to be more than it was at the moment.

It should be possible to write a program that searches a digital photograph for repeating patterns of pixels, which would suggest that someone used a clone tool to manipulate the image. I'd write the program myself if I had the spare time.

 

The Iwo Jima flag-raising photo is often dismissed as a "staged" photo, but it really wasn't staged by or for the photographer. In fact, as Donald Miller alluded, the photographer (A.M. Rosenthal) almost missed the shot because he wasn't paying attention. The full explanation is a long story that's readily found at various sources.

 

The Soviet flag-raising photo over Berlin was staged by the photographer, but that doesn't necessarily make it a "fake." It was a genuine event that would have happened anyway, with or without a photographer present, and many news photos in those days (and today) were posed. However, the photo was manipulated later. For example, the soldier with outstretched arm was wearing multiple wristwatches that were removed by a retoucher to avoid any implication that he was a looter.

It should be possible to write a program that searches a digital photograph for repeating patterns of pixels, which would suggest that someone used a clone tool to manipulate the image. I'd write the program myself if I had the spare time.

 

The Iwo Jima flag-raising photo is often dismissed as a "staged" photo, but it really wasn't staged by or for the photographer. In fact, as Donald Miller alluded, the photographer (A.M. Rosenthal) almost missed the shot because he wasn't paying attention. The full explanation is a long story that's readily found at various sources.

 

 

The Soviet flag-raising photo over Berlin was staged by the photographer, but that doesn't necessarily make it a "fake." It was a genuine event that would have happened anyway, with or without a photographer present, and many news photos in those days (and today) were posed. However, the photo was manipulated later. For example, the soldier with outstretched arm was wearing multiple wristwatches that were removed by a retoucher to avoid any implication that he was a looter.

 

 

Nicely articulated. The smoke and back ground were also altered.

I haven't read the article in full, but suspect the author could benefit from reading this:

 

Photo Editing with Generative Adversarial Networks (Part 1) | Parallel Forall

"Fake"

 

Siblings by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

"Real"

 

That Was Funny, Lil' Bro' by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

The first is for sale on Getty, with no disclosure or disclaimer about its "realness". Most people that buy from Getty are looking for images that they can use in their work. So maybe they're writing a piece about barn owl juveniles and my image pops up when they use the Search function. Mine is designed to POP when viewed on a Thumbnail Gallery, along with 50 others, bright and with lots of blue and, of course, the colors of the owls.

 

Many wildlife photographers think that their images should only be about "truth." I know one that won't even crop his images. I wouldn't try to enter that Fake image in a contest that allowed no removals, but selling it is a different matter. Lance Krueger, a photographer friend of mine that had six Field & Stream covers in one, recent twelve-month period, alters his shots very little, but almost all get altered by the purchaser, sometimes in small ways, but sometimes in big ways.

 

Very recently, I took a power line out of an image of crepuscular rays, beating down on layered Rocky Mountains. That one's with Getty also and I sold a large print to a woman that was there when I took it. The conversation with the lady actually got to the heart of the power lines, when she said, "My shot (with her iPhone) has power lines all through it." My answer was, "I shot at 222mm to avoid the lines." I didn't mention that I "Healed" one out of the image. She's extremely happy with the print and I don't feel one iota of guilt.

 

So, the article started with a simple, innocent enough looking scene and called it "Fake", but then moved on to government and other manipulation of images for political and other reasons. Do we, the cordial member of PN, fall in the spectrum? I think that we do.

 

I strive for "real" images like this one:

 

Readle-eak! by David Stephens, on Flickr

 

All I did was crop square. That's one that I might enter in a contest where modifications are restricted. OTOH, if I'm selling an image, like the first one up above, then I feel no need to disclose that I took out some messy limbs.

 

What do you think?

I think you were dishonest with (lied to) the woman. I'm not judging but think I'm stating a fact, as you've related it. I would not have lied to her in that or a similar case. But I see no great harm done, so how you feel about it is up to you. You did it and seem fine with it, so that's that.

Photography is just a hobby for me and a relatively new one. Until about a year ago, I had no idea how to get a decent picture of the moon for example. Sometimes I'd get lucky. But it would seem very difficult to get a good picture of a city skyline and a detailed picture of the moon at the same time since the moon is a bright object and the city is dark by comparison. Yet you see lots of pictures of evening skylines with a detailed moon in them. Apparently that is often achieved by taking two pictures, and I've considered doing the same. In that sense, it would be a fake, but in another sense, it would be an accurate representation of what was there.

 

I've also heard it's possible to get that kind of photo in one shot using a filter.

I think you were dishonest with (lied to) the woman. I'm not judging but think I'm stating a fact, as you've related it. I would not have lied to her in that or a similar case. But I see no great harm done, so how you feel about it is up to you. You did it and seem fine with it, so that's that.

In my profession ( for me at least) even one little lie leads to the question of what else has the person lied about? What is the threshold of what is trivial? It is not the uestion of any "real damage".It is like the argument that some have said "the russians did not affect the election so no damage and their interferring is not a big concern"

Donald, I understand what you're saying and it has merit but that merit, I think, is limited. Sure, you can get a reputation for lying. But I'm not one who thinks lying is universally bad and try not to judge others when my knowledge of a situation is limited. There are times when I believe the good done by lying outweighs any harm. What things, for example, do you want to tell a dying parent? Telling a lie can often save someone a lot of pain. Now, of course, the greater good argument can be abused and used as an excuse, so I try to use it sparingly. In any case, without knowing more about the situation and dcstep's reasoning, I didn't feel comfortable condemning him so instead said what I'd do with the limited knowledge I had of the situation.

Fred that is true and I think it has parallels with my earlier statement that "fake" is contingent on the intent. If something is altered lets say for artistic or aesthetic reasons and the buyer or observer is aware of this then it is not fake or not genuine. It is exactly what the maker intended. When someone has a legitimate question about why photograph is missing certain elements in what seems to me from what little I know and might be questioning if it was altered I think they should be told exactly what they are buying since it may be important in their decision. It sounds like an answer that you would not give, It is also not an answer someone would give to a savvy buyer and took advantage of the buyer's lack of expertise. They "lie" you are describing is different and different from the sense of how you first discussed it. From what I know of you I do not think you would have done. Not to be judgmental but facts speak for themselves.

I said quite clearly I would not have lied to the woman. I would have no reason to. If I had cloned out wires, I would have done it for aesthetic reasons and would be proud of my choice to have done so and told a buyer that. If that changed their opinion of my photo, I'd understand that and understand if they no longer wanted to buy it. By the way, I don't clone out wires often, though I remember doing so once early on in my photo making. I do clone things out on occasion, and don't go around announcing it but would never hesitate to say so if asked. If I come across wires in a "nature" scene I usually try to figure out a way to work with them. Sometimes even exaggerating them. If I can't make them work, I don't take the picture. I figure I'll find enough wireless nature scenes in my life that another will come along soon enough. I can't think of a time I've ever even thought about lying about a photo I took. But, again, I'm not here to judge others, especially without knowing the particular relationship they have and the reason for the lie, which dcstep didn't discuss.

You do realize that I am essentially agreeing with you. I do not see anything we said that is incompatible. I responded to you in particular because you post had the most meat to it and you said

"I think you were dishonest with (lied to) the woman. were dishonest with (lied to) the woman. " which was succinct, correct and something I feel strongly about. I was adding moral support.

In my profession ( for me at least) even one little lie leads to the question of what else has the person lied about? ...

 

Donald, if you don't mind, what's your profession?

Sorry, Donald, I was confused. Because you had said this:

"When someone has a legitimate question about why photograph is missing certain elements in what seems to me from what little I know and might be questioning if it was altered I think they should be told exactly what they are buying since it may be important in their decision. It sounds like an answer that you would not give."

You were talking about the buyer being told exactly what they are buying and then went on to say "it sounds like an answer you would not give." I think you meant it sounds like an answer you WOULD give. I WOULD tell her exactly what she was buying. Honestly, I was already pretty confident you knew where I was coming from, but because this statement of yours was worded like it was, I just wanted to make sure. ;-)

Wait a minute. I didn't lie to the woman buyer. I just didn't disclose that I cloned something out. I said, "I shot at 222mm to cut the wires out." I did, in fact shoot at 222mm and I did, in fact, cut out several wires by using a long lens. There's no lie there. I just want to be clear. I like the discussion, but I didn't lie.

Sorry, "it" referred to the other answer. My context was poor. I guess I should learn to be more precise before I post. Should have said "the answer given to the buyer is not the answer you would have given"

That you enhance a photo -- removing wires, branches, etc. is of no importance. The issue is intent, no intent to deceive, and that the subject matter is otherwise true to life. That the modified image has the primary subject matter the buyer requires and is factual, just don't see an ethical issue. Being paid as a professional for a product, would seem to me to require that you deliver the best product you can that depicts the subject factually. They are paying for skill and product, not technical details ekplained.

I have to disagree with you, Sandy. I've talked to many photo buyers about this very subject. And, several do ask what kinds of things have been done and these things matter. They've mattered to me on occasion. I was once with a friend who was about to buy a print and the photographer told him it was put together from several different shots. My friend appreciated being told this and didn't buy the photo and I agreed with him. It was the type of photo where the confluence of events mattered a great deal, and knowing they were put together and didn't actually occur that way made a lot of difference to our feelings about the photo.

 

Generally speaking, I wouldn't think of declaring to someone that I'd cloned out wires or debris or what have you. And I think for most people that wouldn't be a big deal at all. But, as we know, there are people who it would bother. We've both heard purists talk in these forums. And, though we might disagree with them, they have the right, IF THEY ASK, to be told the truth. And I feel an obligation to do so when I'm asked.

 

___________________________________________________________

 

dc, lol, I hope you're being tongue-in-cheek. If not, now you just sound like a bad politician. ;-)

That you enhance a photo -- removing wires, branches, etc. is of no importance. The issue is intent, no intent to deceive, and that the subject matter is otherwise true to life. That the modified image has the primary subject matter the buyer requires and is factual, just don't see ann ethical issue. Being paid as a professional for a product, would seem to me to require that you deliver the best product you can that depicts the subject factually. They are paying for skill and product, not technical details ekplained.

Then why not tell her they were cloned out instead of giving a specious answer. If it is not an issue she will buy it anyway. If it is an issue for her then she should know what she is buying, If someone feels they have to conceal or with hold a valid answer then I certainly would not deal with them.

OMG, Fred, I've been nuked! A politician! Wait, maybe a new career? Who was it who just came up with the green for a 4.3 Million dollar mansion? Must be Gold in those California hills!

 

Really, no reason not to, Donald, again it would depend on the customer, and what the photos were being used for.

 

I never went in much for darkroom edits, and still don't in this much more easily alterable digital world, but I can't ever recall anyone complaining about looking better, younger or thinner!

 

Sorry, Fred -- slow tonight!

Edited July 8, 2017 by Sandy Vongries