Author Topic: Guess it wasn't photoshoped (Read 942 times)

Sixpence · « **Reply #15 on:** November 15, 2004, 11:47:26 PM »

cigs are bad , mmmkay?

A tootsie pop needs to be photoshoped into the picture

TweetyBird · « **Reply #16 on:** November 15, 2004, 11:55:30 PM »

I'm going to have to upload the proof tommorow. I did it, but the file is 955kb. My webspace only allows 20 meg download per day so 20 hits on the message would kill that. I'll have to do a smaller section of the picture or either email you the proof.

In short jpeg leaves an unmistakable artifact. Its almost like a square with a checkerboard of gradients inside of it. Once shown to you, there is no mistake what is artifact and what is picture, because the artifact is a definite consistant pattern. Its almost like looking at something through tiled glass.

The picture posted was at one time saved as a jpeg, because the artifacts are all over the face. There is none over the cigarette, and in fact, the cigarette trunicates the jpeg artifacts it come in contact with. Someone loaded a jpeg image, painted the cigarette, and saved the file as a bitmap.

NUKE · « **Reply #17 on:** November 15, 2004, 11:57:48 PM »

when did you see it posted as a bitmap? Since it's a jpeg , how do you explain no jpeg artifacts on the cig?

NUKE · « **Reply #18 on:** November 16, 2004, 12:04:43 AM »

I'll host the image if you want. My email is in my cig. ( pun intended)

TweetyBird · « **Reply #19 on:** November 16, 2004, 12:07:37 AM »

Every jpeg save leaves another layer of artifacts. You can experiment yourself. Save a jpeg image over and over and you will see it deteriorate visibly without highpass filters. With the highpass filter, you can tell how many generations it was saved with a destructive algorithm.

NUKE · « **Reply #20 on:** November 16, 2004, 12:09:23 AM »

Well, I never saw the image posted as a bitmap as you stated.

You said that the cig had no jpeg artifacts.....yet the image was a jpeg. That maked no sense.

I'll host your "proof" if you want. Email me.

Nash · « **Reply #21 on:** November 16, 2004, 12:25:52 AM »

The image being photoshopped, and the cig being photoshopped in, are different things.

The artifacts tweety is getting at are clearly there.

Now... maybe the cig wasn't photoshopped into place, but the image as a whole has undergone something. It doesn't take away from the fact that this guy was holding a cig in his mouth for real, but it also should give you pause in shouting down guys like SW who were only really ever saying "something is weird about this picture".

NUKE · « **Reply #22 on:** November 16, 2004, 12:36:25 AM »

Nash, I see many other "artifacts" in the image. Look at the right nostral, the clip on the helmet strap....

Tweety said the pic was originally a bitmap..... I never saw a bitmap of it.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #23 on:** November 16, 2004, 12:42:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
The image being photoshopped, and the cig being photoshopped in, are different things.

but it also should give you pause in shouting down guys like SW who were only really ever saying "something is weird about this picture".

I had no problem with him saying the pic looked photoshopped, heck most digital pictures are post processed in various ways.

However I did challenge SW when he went so far as to say that the cig was fake and that smoke was fake etc when there were obviously far more likely logical are reasonable explainations for what we saw...

Nash · « **Reply #24 on:** November 16, 2004, 12:44:48 AM »

Ya know...

No matter how often people say "digital cameras have come of age".... I gotta sneaking suspicion that this could all be the result of one of those things.

I wouldn't be suprised to learn that this was a digital pic. And that the crud is due to it not handling the contrast between light and dark very well...

Whatever is going on here, it is by no means a basis to make assumptions about another's politics merely on account of them pointing this weirdnes out. That, at the very least, should be a given. It is a weird photograph.

Myself, I still shy away from digital cameras - I won't use them. Yet....

But I'd like the digital photographers here to weigh in on how those cameras treat light/dark edges.... and if they think that's what could be involved here.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #25 on:** November 16, 2004, 12:47:14 AM »

NUKE · « **Reply #26 on:** November 16, 2004, 12:47:26 AM »

Nash, I think digital cameras have surpassed film.

But... how are you gonna post a film picture on the internet? It's gonna be digitized.

Wolfala · « **Reply #27 on:** November 16, 2004, 12:49:46 AM »

Saur - you are awesome!

Nash · « **Reply #28 on:** November 16, 2004, 12:49:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Saurdaukar

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #29 on:** November 16, 2004, 12:54:10 AM »

It was hard not to take politics into account when Mainac showed up and said the cig was added to make a defeated marine look like a tough guy.. And like I said I just lumped SW in with Maniac's conspiracy theories because he was being a jerk.

Personally I have always thought it was exposure issue on a digital camera, either due to flash or just because the cigarette is so much much brighter than everything else in the frame and so the meter would expose for the face and other dark areas. So the cigarette overexposed and blew the highligts which is why the cig has so little deatil and looks so stark.

That just seemed so obvious and simple an explaination of these picture elements to me that I questioned why people would insist that somebody went to all the trouble to fake it..