Post-processing challenge February 4, 2023

[tom_r]

Let's have fun while we learn (and show) how we use our imagination, creativity and skills in post-processing.

There are no rules or guidelines: your post-processed images can be 'adjustments' that you think improve the image or 'wildly creative' interpretations. Entirely up to you. Please summarize your PP so we can all learn from each other.

Edited February 5, 2023 by tom_r

[mikemorrellNL]

Desert Landscape is CC0 by Dan Gold sourced at negativespace.co

[Sanford]

2 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

Desert Landscape is CC0 by Dan Gold sourced at negativespace.co

How can I trust any photo after seeing how skillfully they can be manipulated these days... 

[mikemorrellNL]

17 hours ago, Sanford said:

How can I trust any photo after seeing how skillfully they can be manipulated these days... 

Haha, I'll take 'skillfully' as a compliment🙂. The PP challenge threads are of course just for fun.

Wikipedia has a good summary of 'photo manipulation' dating back to the earliest days of photography (19th century).  Bottom line: you can't really 'trust' any photo to faithfully represent what the photographer was seeing through the viewfinder. For me, 'trust' is more in the photographer or publisher than in the photo.

FWIW, I recently saw the 'Theatre of Authenticity' photo exhibition by Natacha de Mahiu. Through skilful photo manipulation (overlaying tens of hundreds of photos of the same tourist destinations) she illustrates how many seek out the same nature spots in search of an 'introspective and authentic experience'. I found it an interesting social comment and innovative application of photo manipulation.

 

[jordan2240]

On 2/5/2023 at 10:54 AM, Sanford said:

How can I trust any photo after seeing how skillfully they can be manipulated these days... 

That extends not only to still photos but videos as well.  It's quite scary how authentic such manipulations look.  Lives can be, and probably will be, ruined by such.  How difficult would it be to produce a video (or pay for one) of your competition in a compromising situation (rhetorical question), much less a photo?  Perhaps the next big field of employment will be photography forensic specialist.

[mikemorrellNL]

38 minutes ago, jordan2240 said:

That extends not only to still photos but videos as well.  It's quite scary how authentic such manipulations look.  Lives can be, and probably will be, ruined by such.  How difficult would it be to produce a video (or pay for one) of your competition in a compromising situation (rhetorical question), much less a photo?  Perhaps the next big field of employment will be photography forensic specialist.

Good observation and prediction. The sophistication of 'deep fake' photos and videos steadily increases. I read somewhere that a photo competion requested the 'Raw data' + all Exif data f⁴rom candidates in order to determine the degree of enhancement/manipulation. In principle, the same kind thing can be done with videos. For both media, some additional 'forensics' can be done both on a macro-level (lighting, color) and on a micro-level (pixel peeping the 'edges')⁴

I fully agree with you that 'deep fakes' are a real danger to society, notably through spreading misinformation through social media or 'non-independent' (?) traditional media (printed and digital).

My hope is that social media companies develop automated (AI) processes whereby 'deep fakes' are detected and prevented from being posted and shared.

But I suspect that the 'deep fake' situation is similar to the 'Spam' situation. Many 'deep fake' prevention processes can be introduced but these will never be 100% effective. So social media companies may also rely on 'the community' to flag possible 'deep fakes'

The 'achilles heel', as see it, is that people - and their (social) media channels are organised into 'bubbles'. So one 'fake post' may be welcomed and fully accepted by groups of participant towards which it is targeted. Other social media participants may never even see the socially targeted 'fake post'. Even if they do, they may struggle to give their opinions the same weight as 'supporters' do (via likes, share⁵s, enz.)

⁴

 

/⁴

[Sanford]

I know sports and news photographers are strictly prohibited from any alterations beyond the basics. So maybe the fear of being fired and shunned keeps them honest.

[jordan2240]

7 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

Good observation and prediction. The sophistication of 'deep fake' photos and videos steadily increases. I read somewhere that a photo competion requested the 'Raw data' + all Exif data f⁴rom candidates in order to determine the degree of enhancement/manipulation. In principle, the same kind thing can be done with videos. For both media, some additional 'forensics' can be done both on a macro-level (lighting, color) and on a micro-level (pixel peeping the 'edges')⁴

I fully agree with you that 'deep fakes' are a real danger to society, notably through spreading misinformation through social media or 'non-independent' (?) traditional media (printed and digital).

My hope is that social media companies develop automated (AI) processes whereby 'deep fakes' are detected and prevented from being posted and shared.

But I suspect that the 'deep fake' situation is similar to the 'Spam' situation. Many 'deep fake' prevention processes can be introduced but these will never be 100% effective. So social media companies may also rely on 'the community' to flag possible 'deep fakes'

The 'achilles heel', as see it, is that people - and their (social) media channels are organised into 'bubbles'. So one 'fake post' may be welcomed and fully accepted by groups of participant towards which it is targeted. Other social media participants may never even see the socially targeted 'fake post'. Even if they do, they may struggle to give their opinions the same weight as 'supporters' do (via likes, share⁵s, enz.)

⁴

 

/⁴

On the other end of the spectrum, people might claim valid photos and videos are fake, and it might be difficult to prove otherwise with the direction technology in that area is going.

I've kept an eye on these post-processing threads for as long as they've existed, and some of the modifications have been quite amazing, creating pictures that are pure fiction.  That was never the intent when the thread was started not-sure-how-many-years ago, but I suppose it was a foreboding of the future.  And now we have software that creates masterpiece works of art with nary a brush stroke and essays with nary a typed word.  The future will be interesting, to say the least.

 

[mikemorrellNL]

@jordan2240 Good point. My thanks - and congrats - for posting the very first PP challenge back in 2014. And of course for proposing the initial PP challenge guidelines. I see what you mean about it never being the original intent to create pictures that are pure fiction.

I'm not quite sure how or when the weekly PP challenges (gradually?) came to accept 'fictional pictures'. I can only guess that this acceptance grew as the active participants changed over the years. For some years, the invitation to participate in the challenge has been generally: "there are no rules or guidelines: your post-processed images can be 'adjustments' that you think improve the image or 'wildly creative' interpretations. Entirely up to you."

Another factor, perhaps, is that current versions of PP software and plugins make a wider range of 'creative transformations' more easily accessible than they did 8 years ago. It'll be interesting to dip into some of the PP-challenges and responses over the years!

 

Mike

11 hours ago, jordan2240 said:

... some of the modifications have been quite amazing, creating pictures that are pure fiction.  That was never the intent when the thread was started not-sure-how-many-years ago ...

 

[jordan2240]

2 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

@jordan2240 Good point. My thanks - and congrats - for posting the very first PP challenge back in 2014. And of course for proposing the initial PP challenge guidelines. I see what you mean about it never being the original intent to create pictures that are pure fiction.

I'm not quite sure how or when the weekly PP challenges (gradually?) came to accept 'fictional pictures'. I can only guess that this acceptance grew as the active participants changed over the years. For some years, the invitation to participate in the challenge has been generally: "there are no rules or guidelines: your post-processed images can be 'adjustments' that you think improve the image or 'wildly creative' interpretations. Entirely up to you."

Another factor, perhaps, is that current versions of PP software and plugins make a wider range of 'creative transformations' more easily accessible than they did 8 years ago. It'll be interesting to dip into some of the PP-challenges and responses over the years!

 

Mike

 

Wow, 2014.  That was pre-retirement.  I started the thread in the 'General Photography' forum because I was genuinely interested in how others might post-process a photo, but when it got moved to the 'Digital Darkroom' forum, much of the interest was lost, as not as many people visit that forum.  Plus, those who do visit it are probably more likely to enjoy making the significant modifications that happen now (which can be fun but aren't really useful with regard to my original intent).  I think it died off for a bit before someone else picked up the baton (it might have been Glenn McCreery or Michael Linder (don't know where he got to)).  I'm amazed it has gone on for as long as it has, though participation has continued to wane, especially with the latest modifications to the site.   I think another thing that contributed to the change of direction was that some of the photos being presented didn't really have many options for post-processing other than turning them into something completely different.  But I digress.  No matter what happens to the challenge, it has certainly shown that photography can be far more deceptive than simply punching up saturation.