Re: JPEGSnoop Sniffs Out Signs of Editing
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:06 pm
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.
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.
