FauxtoshopFilter
August 11, 2009 4:17 PM Subscribe
PhotoshopFilter: I'm looking for two things - recent photoshopped hoax pictures sent in by someone in the audience that the mainstream media has mistakenly printed or put on TV. Also any tips on detecting photoshopped photos would be appreciated. Even better if someone on the 'net outed them before MSM caught it.
Sure - we've all seen the George Bush reading the upside down kids book, and the shark bites chopper guy. Anything else you have seen that recently has made it onto local television news, a news website, or into a local paper would be greatly appreciated, so would any tips on detecting photoshopped pictures. Photoshoppers are getting so much better than the MSM is at detecting them.
Sure - we've all seen the George Bush reading the upside down kids book, and the shark bites chopper guy. Anything else you have seen that recently has made it onto local television news, a news website, or into a local paper would be greatly appreciated, so would any tips on detecting photoshopped pictures. Photoshoppers are getting so much better than the MSM is at detecting them.
By the way, the critical google keyword is "fauxtography".
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:33 PM on August 11, 2009
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 4:33 PM on August 11, 2009
Best answer: Theres always the blog PhotoshopDisasters. They recently had one about Getty Images and Michael Jackson.
posted by lilkeith07 at 4:36 PM on August 11, 2009
posted by lilkeith07 at 4:36 PM on August 11, 2009
Digital fake in MSM, etc, etc, and more.
eHow: How to Detect Fake Photos:
1- Look for obvious anomalies in the photo (mis-matches in lighting, sharpness of detail, point of view)
2- Zoom in with some photo viewing/editing program and look for small anomalies (esp color mis-matches)
3- hire a professional to do this, but more professionally
4- buy your own image analysis software package
posted by filthy light thief at 4:36 PM on August 11, 2009
eHow: How to Detect Fake Photos:
1- Look for obvious anomalies in the photo (mis-matches in lighting, sharpness of detail, point of view)
2- Zoom in with some photo viewing/editing program and look for small anomalies (esp color mis-matches)
3- hire a professional to do this, but more professionally
4- buy your own image analysis software package
posted by filthy light thief at 4:36 PM on August 11, 2009
Protip: the "clone" tool should not be used to copy one item completely and repeat it to make more missiles or smoke.
Often, they first feel wrong. Then look for the inconsistencies.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:46 PM on August 11, 2009
Often, they first feel wrong. Then look for the inconsistencies.
posted by filthy light thief at 4:46 PM on August 11, 2009
Best answer: Photoshop Disasters is a favorite for the sheer hilarity.
Also any tips on detecting photoshopped photos would be appreciated.
You need to look at an image and see if it contains duplicate areas from other parts of the image. Having a basic understanding of how light and shadow work, how objects look and interact with each other, and how gravity effects them also helps.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:55 PM on August 11, 2009
Also any tips on detecting photoshopped photos would be appreciated.
You need to look at an image and see if it contains duplicate areas from other parts of the image. Having a basic understanding of how light and shadow work, how objects look and interact with each other, and how gravity effects them also helps.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:55 PM on August 11, 2009
In some cases it takes logic to figure out what's wrong. There was a case from a few years ago where a photographer stitched together the right-side of one picture he'd taken with the left-side of another. Both were taken within a short period.
The photographer didn't notice that one man had moved between the shots, and was included twice in the resulting montage. The picture was published by one of the big news syndicates, and later pulled when bloggers noticed him on both sides of the image.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 5:03 PM on August 11, 2009
The photographer didn't notice that one man had moved between the shots, and was included twice in the resulting montage. The picture was published by one of the big news syndicates, and later pulled when bloggers noticed him on both sides of the image.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 5:03 PM on August 11, 2009
Photoshop Disasters is run by MeFi's Own Cosmo7.)
posted by Ian A.T. at 6:16 PM on August 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by Ian A.T. at 6:16 PM on August 11, 2009 [1 favorite]
Best answer: things to look for:
- inconsistent blur/sharpness - is the image quality the same throughout the image?
- repeating patterns
- matching blacks - are the colour values in all the darkest areas of the image similar?
- film grain - is it the same everywhere?
- light direction - are all the shadows and highlights going in the right directions?
- edges - are there any too sharp or too blurred edges anywhere?
- colour tones - does it look like everything in the image is lit by the same light?
- reflections and shadows - does everything cast them?
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 7:55 PM on August 11, 2009
- inconsistent blur/sharpness - is the image quality the same throughout the image?
- repeating patterns
- matching blacks - are the colour values in all the darkest areas of the image similar?
- film grain - is it the same everywhere?
- light direction - are all the shadows and highlights going in the right directions?
- edges - are there any too sharp or too blurred edges anywhere?
- colour tones - does it look like everything in the image is lit by the same light?
- reflections and shadows - does everything cast them?
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 7:55 PM on August 11, 2009
From salon years ago. I still don't know which is the real one and which is the fake. It also refers to the Kerry/Fonda fake which is a classic.
posted by chairface at 8:42 PM on August 11, 2009
posted by chairface at 8:42 PM on August 11, 2009
oh, and that being said - it's totally possible to create an image that will be impossible to tell it's fake
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 9:20 PM on August 11, 2009
posted by 5_13_23_42_69_666 at 9:20 PM on August 11, 2009
Best answer: Though not widely reported, my personal favorite bit of nonsense is Al Franken in a diaper. The thing about this photo is it's almost impossible to tell until you see the picture they ripped the face from. You need to pay someone to find inconsistencies in the actual photo.
posted by itsonreserve at 9:46 PM on August 11, 2009
posted by itsonreserve at 9:46 PM on August 11, 2009
Best answer: This photo of Obama smoking is often used by bloggers as real. It isn't.
And of course, there's his Kenyan birth certificate, though I think that hoax was more than photoshop.
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:15 PM on August 11, 2009
And of course, there's his Kenyan birth certificate, though I think that hoax was more than photoshop.
posted by CunningLinguist at 10:15 PM on August 11, 2009
There was a case from a few years ago where a photographer stitched together the right-side of one picture he'd taken with the left-side of another.
Probably referring to the Brian Walski photo published by the LA Times syndicate.
Also, try not to use terms like "MSM", which is a term of art originating in the wingnut community and popularized by the likes of Michelle Malkin (who also has a tradition of debunking fauxtography when it can be used to demonize Muslims, or "the MSM").
posted by dhartung at 10:21 PM on August 11, 2009
Probably referring to the Brian Walski photo published by the LA Times syndicate.
Also, try not to use terms like "MSM", which is a term of art originating in the wingnut community and popularized by the likes of Michelle Malkin (who also has a tradition of debunking fauxtography when it can be used to demonize Muslims, or "the MSM").
posted by dhartung at 10:21 PM on August 11, 2009
The thing about this photo is it's almost impossible to tell until you see the picture they ripped the face from.
I strongly disagree, the face looks really awkward on the body, it's not in proportion. Also, the shadows on Franken's right cheek have that Photoshop look, meaning they look flat, like they're made from just black, where real shadows have color and variety. Some of Franken's neck should be showing on his left side also. Finally, the body is one of man who's in shape, which is something Franken never seemed to be.
The big giveaway though is the photo looks staged for a cut and paste job designed to be embarrassing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:00 AM on August 13, 2009
I strongly disagree, the face looks really awkward on the body, it's not in proportion. Also, the shadows on Franken's right cheek have that Photoshop look, meaning they look flat, like they're made from just black, where real shadows have color and variety. Some of Franken's neck should be showing on his left side also. Finally, the body is one of man who's in shape, which is something Franken never seemed to be.
The big giveaway though is the photo looks staged for a cut and paste job designed to be embarrassing.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:00 AM on August 13, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 4:27 PM on August 11, 2009