Image manipulation

I believe if Ansel Adams had a digital camera he would also have a computer
and adobe photo shop at his side.
He would also have his Black and White Film camera too.
If you imagine......Lewis and Clark and if they had a GPS.
Say Columbus.......would he use radar?
Better yet......Just imagine if the egyptians had mechanical
cranes..........
(better not)....May have been looking at High Rises instead of pyramids...
I guess this is the age old dilemma...
I am a wood worker......Do I throw away my "power tools"..........
John Loomis
<aniramca RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175951622.855919.181430@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> In the old days, when I took pictures using either 35 or 120 films, I
> sent the film to the lab for developing and printing. That was
> generally the end of the story. If some of the pictures are too dark,
> or too bright...., the camera store that develops the film perhaps may
> correct them for me, as the lab equipment can automatically adjust the
> contrast and brightness of the photos. That is about it. For other
> special circumstances, I had to ask for special treatment and paid
> extra for it (go to a photo shop instead of doing it in Walmart).
> My questions are as follows:
> - Did Ansel Adams retouch any of his famous photos?
> - How many percent of regular, amateur photos are retouched today?
> - How many percent of photos submitted for competition are retouched?
> - Is there a technology which show whether an image has been
> manipulated (after it is produced)?
>
> I know that this sounds ridiculous, as even in the old days, you can
> over or under exposed your image in the camera before it is taken.
> Using fully manual camera means that you can change and modify the
> settings of the image you are going to take. So, the thinking of
> retouching may, in fact, be just another extension of modifications
> that people made before taking the photo in the old days. How do you
> consider a photo is retouched? If you do not do it yourself, the lab
> may have done it (using old 35mm film) when they develop for printing,
> some cameras has built-in technology to manipulate the sensor to
> overrride for certain things (focusing, exposure). Manual settings,
> such as time and exposure are, in a way, can be considered as
> "retouching" scheme. So, my questions above can become fague!
>
> With digital world is among us today (Raw, Jpeg, Photoshop, Adobe,
> etc. ), I start to think that taking photos, and relying only on
> camera manufacturer's technology is not enough for us anymore. I must
> admit that I changed contrast and brightness, cropping to a lot of my
> digital photos, before printing them. However, I usually do not go
> beyond this, as it starts to take a lot of my time.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Image manipulation 

Depends on what you meen by retouched? Removing parts, adding, parts
probably a small percentage. Adjusting exposure, color, white balance,
sharpness, noise reduction, probably something much much higher. The fact
that in the old days a lot of this didn't happen doesn't mean they wouldn't
have liked to do it. I just means that a lot of the stuff couldn't be done
in a chemical darkroom or if it could it was too time consuming for most.

I think there are a lot of film shots out there that aren't what the
photographer really wanted, but they had no choice as there was little they
could do about. That is one thing digital has given us the ability to get
our shots new ones from digital cameras as well as old film ones scanned it
the way we want them now. So "retouching" is done a whole lot more now.

=(
 >> Stay informed about: Image manipulation 

Today, made these interesting comments ...

> In the old days, when I took pictures using either 35 or 120
> films, I sent the film to the lab for developing and printing.
> That was generally the end of the story. If some of the
> pictures are too dark, or too bright...., the camera store
> that develops the film perhaps may correct them for me, as the
> lab equipment can automatically adjust the contrast and
> brightness of the photos. That is about it. For other special
> circumstances, I had to ask for special treatment and paid
> extra for it (go to a photo shop instead of doing it in
> Walmart). My questions are as follows:
> - Did Ansel Adams retouch any of his famous photos?
> - How many percent of regular, amateur photos are retouched
> today? - How many percent of photos submitted for competition
> are retouched? - Is there a technology which show whether an
> image has been manipulated (after it is produced)?

I cannot answer your questions specifically except to say that
professional photographers down through the ages have used film
with varying light sensitivity and contrast, today's ASA or ISO,
they varied their exposure and used different film depending on
lighting conditions, and often took the same photo multiple times
using different film. Adams and the other greats also took
voluminous notes so they would know what they were shooting, what
the lighting conditions were, and the film(s) they used as well
as other pertinent info such as lens aperture, shutter speed,
etc. Nothing magic about this.

These people also manipulated the film during the development
process using their notes to guide them as how to push to
compensate for low light exposures, compensate for knowingly
incorrect contrast, etc. Then, when creating prints from their
experienced "best guess" film development, again often with
multiples of the same photo, they would experiment with the
various types of print paper available, e.g. contrast. And, they
did the old fashioned dodging and burning in.

Professional portrait photographers and their assistants were
experts at retouching, as we all know. Whether Ansel Adams and
the other greats for scenery, wild life, architecture, and other
non-portraiture did or did not retouch, I do not know. But, I
strongly suspect they did in order to get the best possible
rendition of their subject and to increase the artistic and
dramatic qualities of the final print.

As to amateurs, except for those who develop their own film
and/or their own prints, I don't see how they could possibly
compensate for exposure and lighting conditions nor retouch.

Some advanced amateurs, a doctor and friend is one, do get their
photos printed from expensive custom labs where the negatives are
digitally scanned and he sits with the technician and does the
equivalent of RAW manipulation until it looks "right" to him. The
technician then makes a number of cropped test prints for him,
they meet again, and he commissions the final print. He gets his
scenery and wildlife photos printed in the usual 8 x 10 and 11 x
14 sizes but most likes 16 x 20 so he can frame them and put them
on the walls of his medical offices. He periodically moves prints
in and out to vary them according to what interests him.

> I know that this sounds ridiculous, as even in the old days,
> you can over or under exposed your image in the camera before
> it is taken. Using fully manual camera means that you can
> change and modify the settings of the image you are going to
> take. So, the thinking of retouching may, in fact, be just
> another extension of modifications that people made before
> taking the photo in the old days. How do you consider a photo
> is retouched? If you do not do it yourself, the lab may have
> done it (using old 35mm film) when they develop for printing,
> some cameras has built-in technology to manipulate the sensor
> to overrride for certain things (focusing, exposure). Manual
> settings, such as time and exposure are, in a way, can be
> considered as "retouching" scheme. So, my questions above can
> become fague!

I don't have first-hand knowledge of these things but I do know
there is a growing field of what some people call forensic photo
analysts, who specialize in determining the authenticity of
photos and attempt to increase the quality in those magic ways
you see on TV. A friend spent thousands of dollars on a print
showing his father, a WWII Marine, in a photograph where his dad
had been misidentified. He was trying to prove it was really his
father. I don't know the details, but the forensic photo analyst
he hired was able to digitally enhance the photo sufficiently to
compare facial features to other photos of his father and make
the determination that it was indeed him.

> With digital world is among us today (Raw, Jpeg, Photoshop,
> Adobe, etc. ), I start to think that taking photos, and
> relying only on camera manufacturer's technology is not enough
> for us anymore. I must admit that I changed contrast and
> brightness, cropping to a lot of my digital photos, before
> printing them. However, I usually do not go beyond this, as it
> starts to take a lot of my time.
>
Whether our modern computer controlled cameras can or cannot
produce what we deem good quality obviously depends highly on the
quality of the camera, lens used, lighting conditions, camera
settings, and the skill of the person behind the viewfinder -
you. The final criteria for technical and artistic quality,
though, rests with the photographer, although there are both
quantitative and qualitative metrics that can be used. But,
depending on the subject(s) and individual preferences, one
person's "great" photo may be viewed as "poor" by another person
or what they think is "bad" may be viewed by another as "good".
My view is that photography still is an art form, and not an
absolute scientific issue.

Now, much of what I've said can easily be refuted by those who
are knowledgeable about how photos in contests are judged and to
what degree authenticity is checked for. I am aware, though, of
methods that contest judges use to ascertain if the entrant
altered the basic image with PhotoShop which may be against the
rules of a particular contest.

--
HP, aka Jerry
 >> Stay informed about: Image manipulation 

In article <1175951622.855919.181430.RemoveThis@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
aniramca.RemoveThis@yahoo.com says...
> In the old days, when I took pictures using either 35 or 120 films, I
> sent the film to the lab for developing and printing. That was
> generally the end of the story. If some of the pictures are too dark,
> or too bright...., the camera store that develops the film perhaps may
> correct them for me, as the lab equipment can automatically adjust the
> contrast and brightness of the photos. That is about it. For other
> special circumstances, I had to ask for special treatment and paid
> extra for it (go to a photo shop instead of doing it in Walmart).
> My questions are as follows:
> - Did Ansel Adams retouch any of his famous photos?
> - How many percent of regular, amateur photos are retouched today?
> - How many percent of photos submitted for competition are retouched?
> - Is there a technology which show whether an image has been
> manipulated (after it is produced)?
>
> I know that this sounds ridiculous, as even in the old days, you can
> over or under exposed your image in the camera before it is taken.
> Using fully manual camera means that you can change and modify the
> settings of the image you are going to take. So, the thinking of
> retouching may, in fact, be just another extension of modifications
> that people made before taking the photo in the old days. How do you
> consider a photo is retouched? If you do not do it yourself, the lab
> may have done it (using old 35mm film) when they develop for printing,
> some cameras has built-in technology to manipulate the sensor to
> overrride for certain things (focusing, exposure). Manual settings,
> such as time and exposure are, in a way, can be considered as
> "retouching" scheme. So, my questions above can become fague!
>
Retouching involves modifying the film (negative or print) usually with
a brush and ink or bleach - it's commonly used to hide defects such as
scratches on the negative, or to remove unwanted features in the
picture. Most post-exposure image manipulation isn't retouching, and
nothing pre-exposure is.
Selective exposure called "dodging and burning" can be used during the
printing process. In black and white printing you select the contrast
by using different grades of paper, or different filters with multigrade
paper. In colour printing you have a lot of control over the colour
balance of the final image. Image cropping when printing can sometimes
improve the composition of a shot.
There's quite a lot that goes into 'modifying' the image even before
it's exposed - choice of format, lens, film and filters, aperture and
shutter, additional lighting (flash or reflector, position, colour,
size).

> With digital world is among us today (Raw, Jpeg, Photoshop, Adobe,
> etc. ), I start to think that taking photos, and relying only on
> camera manufacturer's technology is not enough for us anymore. I must
> admit that I changed contrast and brightness, cropping to a lot of my
> digital photos, before printing them. However, I usually do not go
> beyond this, as it starts to take a lot of my time.
>
Nothing has really changed with digital. The way you get from thinking
"I'll take a picture of that" to the finished image uses different
technology, but the creative process is pretty much the same (except
perhaps that the instant feedback of digital gives you a better chance
to achieve what you want, or prompts you to try something different).
 >> Stay informed about: Image manipulation 

<aniramca.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175951622.855919.181430@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> ...snipped...
>
> - Is there a technology which show whether an image has been
> manipulated (after it is produced)?
>

Sometimes, you just have to look at the image closely. Those who do
extensive photography and digital manipulations in software like PhotoShop
would typically know what "things" to look for. However, it's not a 100%
failsafe when viewing some images in circulation.

One article I've read, dated 12/2005, suggests that you can try looking
pixel-by-pixel for sharp lines that result when one image is pasted on top
of another. Source: http://www.csoonline.com/read/120105/ht_image.html

The article also says that Dartmouth College developed software algorithms
sophisticated enough to detect image manipulation. It's been two years since
the article was written so, perhaps there are third party software
developers using the algorithm in their commercial proggies if, any exist.
 >> Stay informed about: Image manipulation 

"Wild Cabayo" <NOREPLYwildcabayo-newsgroups.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9sXRh.1721$zC.992@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> <aniramca.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1175951622.855919.181430@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> ...snipped...
>>
>> - Is there a technology which show whether an image has been
>> manipulated (after it is produced)?
>>
>
> Sometimes, you just have to look at the image closely. Those who do
> extensive photography and digital manipulations in software like PhotoShop
> would typically know what "things" to look for. However, it's not a 100%
> failsafe when viewing some images in circulation.
>
> One article I've read, dated 12/2005, suggests that you can try looking
> pixel-by-pixel for sharp lines that result when one image is pasted on top
> of another. Source: http://www.csoonline.com/read/120105/ht_image.html
>
> The article also says that Dartmouth College developed software algorithms
> sophisticated enough to detect image manipulation. It's been two years
> since the article was written so, perhaps there are third party software
> developers using the algorithm in their commercial proggies if, any exist.
>

Those sharp lines only apply to images done by people that don't know what
they are doing. I think the best way to find faked images is looking at the
lighting and shadows. These are the hardest things to match when taking
something from one image and putting in to another.

However, most digital fakes are so poorly done there is almost always
something that jumps out at you. It may take you a minute to realize what it
is, but your mind says wait something isn't right. Then you have to start
going through a mental list. Most times it is lighting and shadow problems.
Hard edges are only from those that don't know what they are doing.
Otherwise a slight feathering of the edge by 1 to 2 pixels takes care of
that.

=(
 >> Stay informed about: Image manipulation 

"=(" <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:46184c41$0$14143$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> "Wild Cabayo" <NOREPLYwildcabayo-newsgroups.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9sXRh.1721$zC.992@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> <aniramca.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1175951622.855919.181430@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> ...snipped...
>>>
>>> - Is there a technology which show whether an image has been
>>> manipulated (after it is produced)?
>>>
>>
>> Sometimes, you just have to look at the image closely. Those who do
>> extensive photography and digital manipulations in software like
>> PhotoShop would typically know what "things" to look for. However, it's
>> not a 100% failsafe when viewing some images in circulation.
>>
>> One article I've read, dated 12/2005, suggests that you can try looking
>> pixel-by-pixel for sharp lines that result when one image is pasted on
>> top of another. Source:
>> http://www.csoonline.com/read/120105/ht_image.html
>>
>> The article also says that Dartmouth College developed software
>> algorithms sophisticated enough to detect image manipulation. It's been
>> two years since the article was written so, perhaps there are third party
>> software developers using the algorithm in their commercial proggies if,
>> any exist.
>>
>
> Those sharp lines only apply to images done by people that don't know what
> they are doing. I think the best way to find faked images is looking at
> the lighting and shadows. These are the hardest things to match when
> taking something from one image and putting in to another.
>
> However, most digital fakes are so poorly done there is almost always
> something that jumps out at you. It may take you a minute to realize what
> it is, but your mind says wait something isn't right. Then you have to
> start going through a mental list. Most times it is lighting and shadow
> problems. Hard edges are only from those that don't know what they are
> doing. Otherwise a slight feathering of the edge by 1 to 2 pixels takes
> care of that.
>
> =(

That's right too. Those are the "things" I mentioned in my first paragraph
but, was too lazy to write it out. Heh.
 >> Stay informed about: Image manipulation 

aniramca.DeleteThis@yahoo.com wrote:

> I start to think that taking photos, and relying only on
> camera manufacturer's technology is not enough for us anymore.

Inane drivel from someone who doesn't understand the difference between
the art of creating a unique, personal image and merely using technology
to "take" a piece of the real world around us.

Until somebody invents a camera that produces solid, three-dimensional
reproductions of physical objects, every photo is an abstraction of three
dimensions down to only two, perhaps the greatest "manipulation"
imaginable.

To quibble about the use of other possible manipulations is a ridiculous
waste of time. All are legitimate providing the photographer knows what
he's doing and has an artistic eye.
 >> Stay informed about: Image manipulation 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Image manipulation 

On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 14:11:43 +0100, Rob Morley wrote:

> In article <Xns990CCD95972AA3D9.TakeThisOut@212.23.3.119>, if
> nomail.TakeThisOut@nospam.org.invalid says...
>> Rob Morley <nospam.TakeThisOut@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> > Selective exposure called "dodging and burning" can be used during the
>> > printing process.
>>
>> With longer exposures you can dodge & burn in at the taking stage too.
>> It's known that Stieglitz used to dodge his negatives.
>>
> I'd never even considered the possibility of that - how would you go
> about it? I can think of a few possibilities - use a TLR and make
> clone-tool type masks, sketch an exposure map of the scene (or even take
> the shot, use a print to make masks then retake the shot) and fit a
> reference frame in front of the lens, ...
> I guess with a plate or sheet-film camera you could stick some paper in
> the camera and trace the scene.

Even without that don't forget the older tools such as a pencil.

--
Neil
reverse 'r' and'a' - delete 'l' for email
 >> Stay informed about: Image manipulation 

Rob Morley wrote:
> In article <Xns990CCD95972AA3D9.TakeThisOut@212.23.3.119>, if
> nomail.TakeThisOut@nospam.org.invalid says...
>> Rob Morley <nospam.TakeThisOut@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Selective exposure called "dodging and burning" can be used during the
>>> printing process.
>> With longer exposures you can dodge & burn in at the taking stage too.
>> It's known that Stieglitz used to dodge his negatives.
>>
> I'd never even considered the possibility of that - how would you go
> about it?

Example:

Bright sky needs less exposure. Meter the sky, then meter the scene.
Place a card a little in front of the lens at the right height
to block the sky. The card boundary is out of focus so a
soft transition. Calculate the exposure for the scene,
say 4 seconds ad f/64 (this was done with view cameras, remember),
then set the shutter for 4 seconds. Then two seconds into the
exposure, remove the card so the sky gets exposed for 2 seconds.

This sort of thing is done today with split density filters
only with those you don't have to move anything during
the exposure.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Image manipulation 

In article <Xns990CCD95972AA3D9.DeleteThis@212.23.3.119>, if
nomail.DeleteThis@nospam.org.invalid says...
> Rob Morley <nospam.DeleteThis@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Selective exposure called "dodging and burning" can be used during the
> > printing process.
>
> With longer exposures you can dodge & burn in at the taking stage too.
> It's known that Stieglitz used to dodge his negatives.
>
I'd never even considered the possibility of that - how would you go
about it? I can think of a few possibilities - use a TLR and make
clone-tool type masks, sketch an exposure map of the scene (or even take
the shot, use a print to make masks then retake the shot) and fit a
reference frame in front of the lens, ...
I guess with a plate or sheet-film camera you could stick some paper in
the camera and trace the scene.
 >> Stay informed about: Image manipulation 

Rob Morley <nospam RemoveThis @ntlworld.com> wrote:

> In article <Xns990CCD95972AA3D9 RemoveThis @212.23.3.119>, if
> nomail RemoveThis @nospam.org.invalid says...
>> Rob Morley <nospam RemoveThis @ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> > Selective exposure called "dodging and burning" can be used during the
>> > printing process.
>>
>> With longer exposures you can dodge & burn in at the taking stage too.
>> It's known that Stieglitz used to dodge his negatives.
>>
> I'd never even considered the possibility of that - how would you go
> about it?

As someone else indicated, you just hold a black card up or drape a black
cloth over the lens to mask the sky. However I was just checking and I was
wrong to say Stieglitz dodged the exposure, in fact he "dodged" the
development, which gives you much more control. Essentially he
underdeveloped the film and then locally intensified portions of the image
with mercuric chloride.
 >> Stay informed about: Image manipulation