This thread is not the place to hijack into a more general discussion about image manipulation and fidelity. You or anyone else is welcome to email me directly or start such a thread independently. On my home page you might select the sub-page link to my "Philosophy and Style" essay. And there is considerable one can find by searching for "image AND manipulation" on the web. You would find my real name in a fair number of forum discussions going back many years.
For the sake of a minimal reply I'll offer a terse comment that doesn't directly address your question but merely shows such questions are but the tip of a large iceberg of issues that can quickly get out of control unless narrowly focused.
marksfor >>>"what is "natural"? As perceived by the viewer of the event?"
A better term would be "reasonably natural". An argument often tossed out is that since a photograph can never exactly represent a scene and moment in time, why bother thus it might as well be anything goes. In ordinary lingo an example of tossing the baby out with the bathwater fallacy.
JPEGSnoop Sniffs Out Signs of Editing
- SSSdave
- Topix Addict
- Posts: 3527
- Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:18 pm
- Experience: N/A
- Location: Silicon Valley
- Contact:
- ERIC
- Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
- Posts: 3254
- Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:13 am
- Experience: Level 4 Explorer
- Location: between the 916 and 661
Re: JPEGSnoop Sniffs Out Signs of Editing
Nah. Quite the contrary, I sort of posted this article to stimulate discussion.SSSdave wrote:This hread is not place to hijack the discussion into a more general discussion about image manipulation and fidelity.
So long as it remains civil.
New members, please consider giving us an intro!
Follow us on Twitter @HighSierraTopix. Use hashtags #SIERRAPHILE #GotSierra? #GotMountains?
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighSierraTopix
Follow us on Twitter @HighSierraTopix. Use hashtags #SIERRAPHILE #GotSierra? #GotMountains?
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighSierraTopix
- Buck Forester
- Founding Member
- Posts: 452
- Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:38 pm
- Experience: N/A
- Location: Lincoln, CA (Sacramento area)
- Contact:
Re: JPEGSnoop Sniffs Out Signs of Editing
If I take a photo of a manipulated photo, is the new unedited photo now also manipulated?
- ERIC
- Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
- Posts: 3254
- Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:13 am
- Experience: Level 4 Explorer
- Location: between the 916 and 661
Re: JPEGSnoop Sniffs Out Signs of Editing
"Deep thoughts...by Jack Handy."Buck Forester wrote:If I take a photo of a manipulated photo, is the new unedited photo now also manipulated?
New members, please consider giving us an intro!
Follow us on Twitter @HighSierraTopix. Use hashtags #SIERRAPHILE #GotSierra? #GotMountains?
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighSierraTopix
Follow us on Twitter @HighSierraTopix. Use hashtags #SIERRAPHILE #GotSierra? #GotMountains?
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighSierraTopix
- TehipiteTom
- Founding Member
- Posts: 953
- Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:42 am
- Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Re: JPEGSnoop Sniffs Out Signs of Editing
I had the same initial misreading and the same reaction, but figured it out after a moment.trailblazer wrote:I misread your first sentence and thought "that ain't right", until I understood your point (at least, I think I did) - I read it as they look (as in look to publish) altered imagesmarkorr wrote:BTW most scientific journals in the biology realm look for altered images. They have pretty stringent rules on how images can be manipulated and how you make it clear that its been altered. My day job is a bench scientist so I run into this a lot, both in presenting data and reviewing others.
In any case, now I have Don't Talk to Me About Love going through my head.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests