High Sierra Topix

LINK: http://lifehacker.com/5169143/jpegsnoop ... of-editing

I'm very interested in trying this, esp on a few of my photos I know to be 'edited', and a few I know were not 'edited'...just for kicks and giggles. Too bad there's no mac version

Let us know how it works for you. I'm also curious to know how accurate it really is.

Hmmm...I don't know about this:

In fairness however, the application doesn't have the capacity to judge the difference between a photo being cropped and getting a contrast adjustment in Photoshop versus, say, being cropped and having Godzilla added in, but it is a strong indicator of whether any editing has occurred.

If it really can't distinguish between cropping (full disclosure: I crop 80% of my images) and something like those ubiquitous over-processed HDR deals, then it doesn't sound all that useful.

I took a look and said interesting, and then asked what is the purpose of this?
If your going to shoot in raw than you have you edit the photo no matter what
so what is the use?

Mav is right... anyone shooting digital these days (and everyone shooting RAW) will be editing their images to some degree. From cropping to contrast adjustments to wholesale editing (I've removed telephone poles from a nice turn-of-the-century settler shack image) and obscene over-sharpening, people edit. How well you do it determines whether it's noticed or not. Nothing I hate more than an image that has the green kicked up too high and has been over-sharpened. The Iranian missile launch with 50 launchers in plain sight? Obvious, but hilarious...

maverick wrote:so what is the use?

Like I said, for kicks and giggles Actually I can see at least one use...in scientific journal submissions. I know of at least one journal that claims to perform routine checks (with I guess similar software) on submitted data.

Maybe useful for current event newspaper submissions. What value is unedited photographs out of a digital camera if the result is unnatural? The one thing of value with such a program might be to prove graphic content is real. RAW certainly doesn't deliver close to natural and neither does 99+% of what comes out of digital cameras unless they have pricy calibration like commercial product photographers so even if someone wanted natural they wouldn't be able to deliver it.

There are two basic divisions, graphic changes and luminance and color changes. A lot of photographers used to refrain from much graphic manipulation but that ethic has been receding quickly. For landscape work most manipulated work on color and luminance is obvious. Better is to simply look at a photographer's body of work that make such instantly obvious. Today the landscape and nature status quo is unnatural contrasty and saturated. Those that have an interest in reasonably natural work as per my style are uncommon.

SSSdave wrote:Today the landscape and nature status quo is unnatural contrasty and saturated. Those that have an interest in reasonably natural work as per my style are uncommon.

I realize I'm going to open a can of worms by saying this, but....what is "natural"? As perceived by the viewer of the event? If so how do you account for variations in perception? Is unmanipulated once captured, natural? Then how do you account for different white balance etc settings on the camera or for the old school, for differences in shutter speed (particularly true for photographing moving water). I personally don't do much manipulation in silico, mostly b/c I don't like to be on the computer that much, however I will adjust crooked images or alter contrast, etc if I like the basic content of the image. For me personally its about communicating how I feel about the image.

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.

markorr 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.

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 images