# 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.


----------



## waday (Sep 9, 2016)

This was only slightly Photoshopped... In the original picture, he was facing left.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 9, 2016)




----------



## table1349 (Sep 9, 2016)




----------



## Ysarex (Sep 9, 2016)

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

Joe


----------



## KmH (Sep 9, 2016)

Ysarex said:


> 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 (Sep 9, 2016)

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 (Sep 9, 2016)

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 (Sep 9, 2016)

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 (Sep 9, 2016)

AlanKlein said:


> 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 (Sep 9, 2016)

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 (Sep 9, 2016)

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


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 10, 2016)

ChristyChris said:


> 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 (Sep 10, 2016)

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! (Sep 11, 2016)

AlanKlein said:


> 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 (Sep 12, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> 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 (Sep 12, 2016)

SquarePeg said:


> 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.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 15, 2016)

PersistentNomad said:


> Yes, it's really hard to tell if an image has been photoshopped



Especially when the image is tiny!

This thread seems like the same old SOOC baloney.


----------



## snowbear (Sep 15, 2016)

unpopular said:


> This thread seems like the same old SOOC baloney.



Ooh, ooh - I have one of those!


----------

