|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 26, 2007 10:19:43 GMT -4
Here are two pictures of my dog, Madison. The contents of one picture have been altered in a major way, using a technique other than Photoshop or other similar image processing software. Both pictures were taken with a Canon SD600. The first was taken on January 21, 2007, 1:53pm. Location, St. Paul, MN. Focal length, 5.8mm, aperture f/2.8. The second was taken on July 29, 2007, 5 miles south of Denison, IA. Focal length - 17.4mm, aperture f/4.9. Both have been reduced in size from 2816x2112 to the current size. I should clarify: the original photographs were taken with a Canon SD600. Which one has been altered? How?
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Sept 26, 2007 13:16:08 GMT -4
Nice dog.
I would say the first picture has been altered. Although I can't really explain why.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 26, 2007 15:21:43 GMT -4
Geez, that's tough. It's almost impossible to tell, you could have used some filter, or applied more saturation or whatever. But I'll pick the second one as being altered. The first one seems more natural, while the second one almost seems like you cut and pasted the dog in.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 26, 2007 15:23:20 GMT -4
Oh, is the second picture of a dog in front of a picture?
I forgot that you said you didn't use imaging software.
What a beautiful dog by the way. You can tell he's really friendly.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 26, 2007 20:10:15 GMT -4
Does "contents altered in a major way" mean after the exposure was complete? I understand you are specifically eliminating digital image processing tools, but that doesn't really offer much. I know you're trying to test people's ingenuity and don't want to give away too much. So perhaps a good way to ask my question would be whether this alteration depends on the camera having been digital, or whether it could have been accomplished just as effectively using a film camera?
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Sept 26, 2007 21:13:53 GMT -4
had your dog had puppies in the second photograph
or maybe one of the buildings has now been demolished
sorry it was he first thing that popped into my head when you said the contents had been altered. beautiful woofitt though, (goes off to get some sugar) honestly I can never tell when it comes to photographs.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Sept 26, 2007 21:58:11 GMT -4
You used a digital camera so any alteration would have to have taken place using the camera settings. Did you use zoom on the second picture? Is one picture reversed?
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Sept 26, 2007 22:46:39 GMT -4
I say the second photo is altered.
The building in the background doesn't look like something you'd find in Iowa. Now that I think of it, the trees may be the wrong species for that state too.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Sept 27, 2007 1:38:12 GMT -4
The first was taken on January 21, 2007, 1:53pm. The second was taken on July 29, 2007
You have not precised the hour for the second picture, is there a reason?(suspicion)
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Sept 27, 2007 7:19:31 GMT -4
I checked my atlases and 5 miles south of Denison didn't appear to be the centre of a six mile diameter lake in the 1980s.
There's not much to go on -- does it require special knowledge about the USA, or weather patterns, or foliage, or that breed of dog, or are any clues purely photographic? I've not been in snow since 31 August 1958.
The odd depth of field in the first photo bothered me a little until I blew it up and saw white specks all over it, which I imagine means that snow was falling. That might explain the fuzzy distant background but sharp-looking bricks.
The dark roof of the brown building seems to be free of snow but the green fence seems to have collected a little. Is the roof built to repel snow?
Another thing that bothers me about that photo is the grey fringing around the tips of the dog's ears (not visible in the second photo) and along its back. This could indicate burning-in on a conventional print, but could also be a seasonal thing for that breed of dog -- I don't know.
The sharp demarcation between the grey on the dog's back and the brown building makes it look a bit like a cut-out, but it could be natural, or else just a result of pixellation.
A dog standing in snow with its tail up and therefore probably happy, with a relaxed expression, and a leash pulling at it's neck, doesn't seem 100% natural either, but isn't necessarily anomalous if the dog is particularly obedient, or its tail naturally stands up, or it really likes whoever is giving it orders at that particular moment. Besides, it might have taken off, one-forty-fifth of a second after the shutter went off.
Unlike many HBs who don't have much of a clue about photography but nevertheless "analyse" photos, I'm not saying, "It looks like... so it must be."
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Sept 27, 2007 10:23:34 GMT -4
The other thing that occurred to me, though it's more intuitive than logical because I have no real evidence for it and it could just be one of those odd impressions that a still photo can induce, was the feeling about the dog: 1. Alive. 2. Dead.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 27, 2007 12:01:42 GMT -4
Why would you keep a license on a dead dog?
Initially the top one struck me as modified because there was something fishy about the brickwork behind the dog's head that seemed added. But upon re-reading the constraints of the problem, that no digital image processing was done, I'm not sure I can explain the fishiness of the brickwork without that influence.
The brick arch seems more color-saturated than the rest of the picture. That would be explained by its having been imported from a different image. And originally I felt that the shading on it was inappropriate, but I later realized that impression came from my failure to identify it as an arch; I though the wall behind it was integral to it.
The pixel noise under the arch seems inconsistent with the general noise level in the rest of the image, but not strongly enough to be conclusive. And again, if digital manipulation is specifically excluded then I would have to wonder how a different editing method would give selectively noisy pixels.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Sept 27, 2007 12:18:11 GMT -4
Is the dog pregnant in the second picture? That's a major modification to the contents of the picture.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Sept 27, 2007 12:28:51 GMT -4
I'll end this before anyone spends more time on it. Please don't be too pissed about this, but I lied. Neither photograph has been doctored. Beat on me, if you must.
I was curious to see reactions to the question for several reasons. Would anyone question the premise? How far would anyone go to find evidence of alteration? What convincing techniques for image processing exist outside the digital environment?
Although hardly scientific in any way, I wanted to simulate HB thinking. One of the photographs must be fake. Which is it?
Nobody actually fell for it, of course.
I hope I'm not on anyone's death list, now.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Sept 27, 2007 13:01:16 GMT -4
My thought was the "contents," meaning the dog, had been altered. If ya know what I mean.
Second thought was cropping. But both are the same size, give or take a pixel.
|
|