# Can you spot a fake?  Are you sure?



## Buckster (Feb 27, 2013)

Can you spot a fake?  Are you sure?

Look and see...

Photorealistic 3D Images - Business Insider


----------



## pgriz (Feb 27, 2013)

Wow.  Some of the images have a slight detail or two that gives a clue that the image is not what it seems, the majority are extremely convincing.  

Hmmm... why hire a private eye when you can make the image show anything you want?  Or a photojournalist, when you can make reality whatever it needs to be?  Guess we can now put to bed the idea that "a photograph never lies", even if never really was true.

Great find, Buckster.  Both enjoyable viewing, and something to ponder in terms of the bigger picture.


----------



## RolandRB (Apr 10, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Can you spot a fake? Are you sure?
> 
> Look and see...
> 
> Photorealistic 3D Images - Business Insider




What are peoples opinion (fake or no fake) on the huge wave photo:

Biggest storm of the year sweeps Britain off its feet with flooding, gales and lightning strikes | Mail Online


----------



## photospherix (Apr 10, 2013)

speechless


----------



## spacefuzz (Apr 10, 2013)

They really are getting better.  The give away on these for me is the texturing / gradients are too smooth.  But as soon as they develop an algorithm for that.....it will be nigh impossible to tell!


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 10, 2013)

There are some in there that are impossible to know that they were digitally created.


----------



## spacefuzz (Apr 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> There are some in there that are impossible to know that they were digitally created.



You have to look really close at the textures, the computer applies the lighting so perfectly they look too smooth throughout the total photo.  Like the peeling paint in the window shot.  It shouldnt be quite that perfect.  In the image of the camera, the brass looks *too* perfect and smooth. Its really amazing work though.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 10, 2013)

Yeah, there are some that have clear signs. 

But the white bedroom, bread shot, leather couch and the toy car?

I'm willing to guarantee if those were posted here for C+C instead of prefaced with "which one of these are digital fakes", no one, no matter how experienced would have picked out that they were fake.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 10, 2013)

It's easy to pick out the fakes, and to point out the "tells", when you've been told which ones are the fakes. I can easily tell that the more expensive speakers sound better, too, if you tell me which ones they are.


----------



## PropilotBW (Apr 10, 2013)

The bagels and bread are extremely realistic!


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 10, 2013)

I'm not sure this is a threat to photojournalism yet.

It's not like the artist presses a button and a sentient computer creates the image in minutes. 

I'm sure some hard work went into these images.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 10, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> I'm not sure this is a threat to photojournalism yet.
> 
> It's not like the artist presses a button and a sentient computer creates the image in minutes.
> 
> I'm sure some hard work went into these images.



Well, technically, you don't just press the shutter button either. 

Say you get a job to shoot the President at the inauguration. You're from NY. 

You have to:

 - pack your gear, 
 - get in your car, 
 - drive to the airport, 
 - get on a plane
 - land at the airport
 - get off the plane
 - get your luggage
 - drive to the event
 - set up
 - shoot
 - do every above but backwards

Or, you can drive to work, sit at a computer, come up with the idea and and render the scene.

I'm not saying that CGI is faster, but is it necessarily slower? 

Product photography is a great example where photographers are almost out of a job. Many new advertisements are all CGI. 

Photographers: you?re being replaced by software
CGI takes the place of the camera in product photography | Digital Trends


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure this is a threat to photojournalism yet.
> ...



I was referring to photojournalism specifically. 

And yes, many product shots are already CGI such as those car advertisements where the car is in an unlikely place such as a boxing ring.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 10, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



I know, hence why I mentioned the Presidential Inauguration. But not necessarily that it would do away with photojournalism, but photojournalism may be tough to believe eventually.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Ballistics said:
> ...



Photoshop has already made that a reality. But it would be hard for a newspaper to CGI an inauguration beforehand or during considering that news nowadays is more about the scoop than the story itself. 

I don't think that at this time 3D models can be create quickly enough to satisfy the instant gratification culture. Since wire service are now online and he Associated Press is as well, newspapers can purchase photos and news at a bargain.

It would be both unethical and impractical.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Apr 10, 2013)

RolandRB said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Can you spot a fake? Are you sure?
> ...



Like the guy flying in the wind? Yeah. right.


----------



## spacefuzz (Apr 10, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Yeah, there are some that have clear signs.
> 
> But the white bedroom, bread shot, leather couch and the toy car?
> 
> I'm willing to guarantee if those were posted here for C+C instead of prefaced with "which one of these are digital fakes", no one, no matter how experienced would have picked out that they were fake.




I just think I play too many video games and use a lot of CAD.......so Im used to seeing that rendered "look".
If you applied a smoothing filter to some photos and threw them into the mix, like out of Nik color effects, then I doubt I would be able to tell.


----------



## duhast (Apr 10, 2013)

Buckster said:


> Can you spot a fake?  Are you sure?
> 
> Look and see...
> 
> Photorealistic 3D Images - Business Insider



We are so screwed. Wait until the White House Press Office gets a hold of it. We can now be sold a complete bill of goods by anyone about anything. A picture is now not worth a thousand words, it is a complete and total lie. This is not good news.


----------



## Ballistics (Apr 10, 2013)

rexbobcat said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



I don't know about impractical.

Photoshop has made it a reality, but you need a photo to begin with. But you're kind of going a long with my point with photojournalism being unbelievable eventually. 
Being unethical is a concern for people who are ethical. If someone wants to slander another, they can hire a good CGI designer to create an individual doing anything they want.

The question is, how quickly can someone render an individual image?


----------



## TCampbell (Apr 11, 2013)

Canon used to sell an accessory product called the "Original Data Security Kit" OSK-E3.  It was a special memory card, reader, and software which "digitally signed" images as they were taken (and if you had a GPS accessory on the camera it would also include date/time/location info that would be signed as well.  It was created for forensic images... if you had to _prove_ an image was NOT faked, photoshop'd or enhanced in anyway... what you see is what the camera saw.

I don't think they make it anymore.

The images on that site are _really_ impressive.  After looking at a few, I kept going back to re-read the intro... because I was having a hard time believing _all_ of them were fakes.  A few were, as others have said, just a little too good... the window scene with the cracked pain had cracking that was just too perfect.  An aged neglected window never looks so evenly crackled.  The table of breads was very impressive.


----------



## amolitor (Apr 11, 2013)

duhast said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > Can you spot a fake?  Are you sure?
> ...



Really? You think you need photoshop or digital renders to lie with pictures? You can lie with a crop (considered perfectly "legitimate" by All The Best News Agencies) as with an erasure, or a render. And they DO lie with crops, all the time.


----------



## Buckster (Apr 11, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> The question is, how quickly can someone render an individual image?


Probably depends on whether all the objects they want to render for a particular scene are already in their CGI library of objects, ready to be re-used in new scenes.  They each only need to be made once.  As the libraries grow and CPU power increases, rendering scenes should happen faster and faster for those in the business of doing that sort of thing.


----------



## duhast (Apr 11, 2013)

amolitor said:


> duhast said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



Sure, I know that. The recent 'polar bears on melting ice cap' comes to mind. I'm talking about complete fabrication though, let's say someones murder, or even the existence of 'aliens'. But you have a good point. This just further shows the falseness of the idea of 'unbiased media'. There is no such thing. All news is biased somehow.


----------



## timor (Apr 11, 2013)

Digital technology makes faking very easy and to say shortly: is not the problem what is not on the picture (regarding crop), problem is what's on the picture.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 11, 2013)

its so hard to spot fakes now...
they look so natural, and there's almost no scarring. 
isn't technology wonderful


----------



## timor (Apr 11, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> isn't technology wonderful


Depens on the point of view.


----------

