How Much Image Manipulation?

This time I see different artifacts. If this isn't cloning, the jpeg compression engine is doing something mighty strange (mind you, stranger things happen)...

 

Dave,

There no trickery in the spots you pointed out--this is artificial grass, which is amazingly regular. I noticed that also in the jpeg I posted. I don't see it in the Tiff or PSD original. Besides, I didn't clone anything that far in.:angel:

The digital smears are not--sadly--the result of fooling around digitally. I wish they were. I noticed them too, and I can't explain them. Why would I digitally smear something that small?

I don't remember. This was taken a long time ago. I do save all originals, so I'll have to go back and find it.

 

Well, the longer I stared at the blowup, the more regular patterns I began to see. I'm not going to insist it's cloning, but it's pretty odd that the material should have so many small repeating features such as these...

 

It's not there on the 2860 x 1300 original. Just not there. Bringing things down to 640 pixels wide has nothing to do with the jpeg compression engine; it has to do with what a 4x reduction in pixels will show.

Let's see if I can post the original. I doubt it, but I'll be glad to send it to you via email.

 

Sure, would love to have a gander at the original. This one surely has me intrigued. david at davidksmith dot com.

 

Of course I agree, Pete. I don't care about "winning" in any discussion, and this has been a good one. I just feel so discouraged. My eyes have been opened by both the discussion here and the other thread concerning MR. I truly thought that I was seeing what people had done--and now I know that I have no idea what I'm seeing. It's discouraging. I don't like the deception.

Let's say that you have been enjoying a particular fruit drink that is supposedly fresh from the orchard. One day the news breaks that the manufacturers use rotted fruit along with some creative chemistry to remove the flavors of rot and mold, then sterilize it, then add artificial flavoring back in to fool you--along with corn syrup to hook you. Now how do you feel about your favorite fruit drink? Shouldn't you be just as delighted with it?

Okay, off of industry and back to trains... :yes9rq:

 

David,

Why would anyone spend that much time randomizing something that's pretty regular to begin with? I think you vastly over-estimate my patience with cloning.

Hmmm. It's my bedtime. I think I have some undisturbed artificial turf left, somewhere under my layout. I'll take a picture of that, and let you find evidence of cloning.

 

It wouldn't take much effort at all to clone an irregular chunk of turf and paste it in a few times. That would explain why the repeating artifacts are oriented the same way with one another for the most part. It could have taken just a few seconds to do it. As I said, I'm not out to discredit, but this sort of thing just doesn't happen by itself, and if the turf was treated with combs and brushes as you say, there should be even fewer clusters of matching pixel arrangements.

Well, it's bedtime for me, too, so have a nice night.

 

I really don't have an issue with image adjustment to enhance the subject. retouching, airbrushing, photoshopping to improve an image is nothing new. on a photo of our family business taken in winter 1900, shows the trees full of leaves! the "super leaves" were actually stamped onto the negitive with a full size maple leaf and india ink.

anyway, this first pic is the raw image no shoping/croping/color correcting. the image was shot under mercury lights(very blue), is very busy, and the subject is kind of lost, no sky, very dark, and tons of background clutter.


this is the final "corrected" image with sky added.

the main subject of the image is the same, just the distractions are gone, some cropped, other covered or removed.
it's hard to believe it's the same shot.
which image better represents the subject, the first or the second.

 

In the for what it is worth department, I wrote on this subject in my blog, last year I think it was. I called it "Natural or Silicone".

I thought it was worth 23 cents then, probably not more than 2 cents today and that is with inflation.

And River Eagle, to answer your question the first (top) picture tells us exactly what your layout looks like. (Nice, by the way.) The second, well I suppose it is what you'd like the layout to look like with a backdrop. Seems to me that anyone who can build a fine stream like yours can sure build a backdrop!

 

there is a backdrop,


but the angle of the shot is out into the room, I could have hung a temp. one up, but that's basiclly the same as adding one post production, and it would have needed to be about 5'x20' in size.
layout tour
http://s46.photobucket.com/albums/f123/river_eagle/N-Scale/layout_tour/

 

River Eagle,
Visited your photo tour. Way nice work. Your layout is an incentive to me. Thanks for sharing. And, in regard to photo manipulations, the real shots of your layout are far superior to the one reworked! I'll be spending more time looking at your layout!

Best regards,
Joe

 

But you have! You have seen the result of their expertise at photo manipulation as opposed to their expertise at plaster and styrene manipuation!

I think that the sheer number of contributions to this thread illustrates that there is as much of a challenge and resulting satisfaction from a good photo "hack" as there is in creating a realistic model in the first place (which in itself could be considered fakery if done well enough).

If it tastes good and doesn't kill you, I see no problem (artificial sweetners, etc.). It's all on the label.

Just don't mess with my beer!

 

But I don't care about their expertise at photo manipulation. I really don't. I only care about their expertise at plaster and styrene manipulation.

Exactly so. That's why I said, "I give up." It was apparent to me that people doing this photo-manipulation were so attached to it that they were never going to stop doing it. Arguing my point is like trying to run north in a south-running hurricane. Since I can't believe what I'm looking at anymore, I decided to just view all photos as potential frauds. As others pointed out, it's been done forever, to the extent of MR sending artists out to put up temporary backdrops. It's fraud. I got overwhelmed and gave up arguing my point.

That's ironic, because I fashioned several parables before landing on the fruit juice. I tried beer and rejected it because many people don't care for beer...

...which not include me, by the way. Salud! L'Chaim! :beer:

 

This is a fascinating thread. Let me be a little more specific as to what I find okay or not okay.

As I said earlier, I think adding or removing things digitally is NOT okay without a disclaimer. It's a no-no unless it's clear it has been done.

On the other hand, I don't see any problem with correcting for light balance, using filters, etc. After all, doing such corrections are merely correcting for "faults" in the equipment. What I mean is, for example film has a certain light sensitivity. If you want to use daylight-balanced film to shoot an indoor layout under tungsten light, I feel it's perfectly allowable to balance the film by using a filter. Digital users can correct by adjusting white balance. All this does is make a given model scene acceptably visible.

I also feel it's okay to use digital software to make more of the scene come out in focus. This doesn't add or subtract elements from the original scene, it merely adjusts the scene to match what we really see. No harm done here.

I personally find dodging and burning to be borderline - avoid it if you can - simply because it indicates poor exposure control. The vast majority of properly exposed photos won't need any light/dark manipulation. Of course, if you don't have extra lights/flash units (or have too much light) to illuminate the subject properly, you might not have any choice but to add more visual detail by dodging or burning, or digitally lightening or darkening a scene.

Any other judgments needed? LOL

 

I'm just curious... my friend Rick Spano has a number of "permanent temporary backdrops" installed around his layout. Some of them fold down from the ceiling on hinges; others roll around on tracks mounted to the ceiling like shower doors. He also has a flexible one that stands on legs that he can place anywhere, even around a corner. Would his use of any of these backdrops for picture-taking constitute fraud? At what point does it become fraud? It just seems like a very gray area here that doesn't have a hard line.

 

Well, I "work in the biz," so things like this pop out at me. And... I also happen to model in Z.

 

Rick's fireworks display is amazing !!!!!!!! mg::thumbs_up:

 

River Eagle

The heck with the backdrop. Your work in the foreground is perfect.