"Don't sit down and wait for the opportunities to come. Get up and make them." —Madam C.J. Walker

Photography DiscussionAdobe is using machine learning to make it easier to spot Photoshopped images

Post Reply
User avatar
St3v3M
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:02 am
Location: 35,000 feet
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Adobe is using machine learning to make it easier to spot Photoshopped images

Post by St3v3M » Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:08 pm

Adobe is using machine learning to make it easier to spot Photoshopped images
"Experts around the world are getting increasingly worried about new AI tools that make it easier than ever to edit images and videos — especially with social media’s power to share shocking content quickly and without fact-checking. Some of those tools are being developed by Adobe, but the company is also working on an antidote of sorts by researching how machine learning can be used to automatically spot edited pictures."

We all manipulate images, but at what point does an image become something beyond what it was intended to be? S-
"Take photographs, leave footprints, steal hearts"

User avatar
Steven G Webb
Mentoris Alumnus
Mentoris Alumnus
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:12 am
Location: Saluda, SC
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Steven G Webb » Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:33 pm

[If you don't like to read skip to the last paragraph]
The ability to manipulate photography has existed as long as the craft. The state-of-the-art has been elevated up to today's standard. How well have illusions been pulled off? That answer could depend on how broad a definition to "illusions" is applied. Were Ansel Adams' photographs faked because he manipulated them? How about sensational grocery store check stand publication's obviously superimposed photos of aliens, spaceships or surreal ethereal creatures? Sometimes the illusion is paramount to the success of the image, artistically. Not the flashy background of a sports portrait where the added artwork is an enhancement, no. How about the newborn portrait where the baby's chin appears to be propped up on his cupped hands or closed fists or the image which appears to be a swaddled infant precariously suspended far above the ground? Those composites are so well done that the trick (technique) has to be explained to photographers, PHOTOGRAPHERS before they endanger a baby. Sometimes manipulations have all the subtlety of a cut-n-paste ransom note, and sometimes they are completely undetectable.

For a part of my working life I was a peace officer and photographing accident or crime scenes part of my duty. Photographic evidence was scrutinized and needed to meet some criteria to be admitted. So just claiming the existence of photographic evidence hasn't been accepted a proof positive for quite a long time. I think the willingness of the general public to accept a photographic image as reality is two-fold: how well a manipulation is executed; and, the widely known potential potential. We may have come to a point where it is generally accepted that potential is unlimited and thus validating the authenticity is a must and machine language analysis is required to achieve that must.

I think this sort of analysis is something that's time has come. No one really cares to much if my landscape has a little more purple in the mountain's majesty, or my bridal portrait has taken a couple of pounds off the young lady but for science, documentary and evidence use there really should be an authentication ability.
If you've never failed you've never tried.
Holly Ridge Photography
Facebook

User avatar
St3v3M
Key Founding Member
Key Founding Member
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:02 am
Location: 35,000 feet
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: Yes, feel free to edit my image
Contact:

Post by St3v3M » Fri Jun 22, 2018 7:26 pm

Steven G Webb wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:33 pm
[If you don't like to read skip to the last paragraph]
The ability to manipulate photography has existed as long as the craft. The state-of-the-art has been elevated up to today's standard. How well have illusions been pulled off? That answer could depend on how broad a definition to "illusions" is applied. Were Ansel Adams' photographs faked because he manipulated them? How about sensational grocery store check stand publication's obviously superimposed photos of aliens, spaceships or surreal ethereal creatures? Sometimes the illusion is paramount to the success of the image, artistically. Not the flashy background of a sports portrait where the added artwork is an enhancement, no. How about the newborn portrait where the baby's chin appears to be propped up on his cupped hands or closed fists or the image which appears to be a swaddled infant precariously suspended far above the ground? Those composites are so well done that the trick (technique) has to be explained to photographers, PHOTOGRAPHERS before they endanger a baby. Sometimes manipulations have all the subtlety of a cut-n-paste ransom note, and sometimes they are completely undetectable.

For a part of my working life I was a peace officer and photographing accident or crime scenes part of my duty. Photographic evidence was scrutinized and needed to meet some criteria to be admitted. So just claiming the existence of photographic evidence hasn't been accepted a proof positive for quite a long time. I think the willingness of the general public to accept a photographic image as reality is two-fold: how well a manipulation is executed; and, the widely known potential potential. We may have come to a point where it is generally accepted that potential is unlimited and thus validating the authenticity is a must and machine language analysis is required to achieve that must.

I think this sort of analysis is something that's time has come. No one really cares to much if my landscape has a little more purple in the mountain's majesty, or my bridal portrait has taken a couple of pounds off the young lady but for science, documentary and evidence use there really should be an authentication ability.
We've had this discussion before and I think we've all agreed anything but journalistic photographs are left to the artist desires, but it's good to hear from you and your opinion. Personally, I agree and am excited to see what comes next! S-
"Take photographs, leave footprints, steal hearts"

User avatar
Charles Haacker
Mentoris Primus
Mentoris Primus
Posts: 1787
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:20 pm
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA
Social Media Opt-In: No
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Charles Haacker » Fri Jul 06, 2018 1:31 am

Steven G Webb wrote:
Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:33 pm
[...] I think this sort of analysis is something that's time has come. No one really cares to much if my landscape has a little more purple in the mountain's majesty, or my bridal portrait has taken a couple of pounds off the yojoutnalisiung lady but for science, documentary and evidence use there really should be an authentication ability.
Steven, I did read the whole piece but indeed your summation is key. Before Photoshop it was very difficult, not impossible but very difficult to finagle with evidentiary or journalistic pictures. Many people have seen the picture where Nikolai Yezhov, Joseph Stalin's head of secret police, has been skillfully airbrushed out owing to his having been, um, shot. Here's a link to a bunch of such historical erasures: http://www.businessinsider.com/people-w ... t-police-1 Looking at these side-by-side with their originals it is not hard for a trained eye to spot the flaws, starting with the fact that the airbrushed version is never as sharp owing to it having had to be rephotographed through an optical system (no scanners then) so there is degradation no matter how good the job. But the untrained eye not having the original for comparison might well miss it.

Come Photoshop and it has become possible to do things that are essentially indetectable to the naked eye, trained or not. We've always known that "the camera does so lie," starting with its frame, what's framed in or perhaps more importantly framed out. Given the increasing number of discoveries of terrible miscarriages of justice it's more important than ever to be sure that at least pictures placed in evidence have not been tampered with.
Friends call me Chuck. :photo: This link takes you to my Flickr albums. Please click on any album to scroll through it.
(I prefer to present pictures in albums because I can put them in specific order.)

All the great photographers use cameras! No, really. :|

User avatar
Steven G Webb
Mentoris Alumnus
Mentoris Alumnus
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:12 am
Location: Saluda, SC
Social Media Opt-In: Yes
Editing option: No, please do not edit my images
Contact:

Post by Steven G Webb » Fri Jul 06, 2018 12:15 pm

Thank you Chalres.
If you've never failed you've never tried.
Holly Ridge Photography
Facebook

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests