# How do you tell if an image has been Photoshopped?



## madzone (Mar 2, 2007)

Someone posted this on another site but it doesn't look real to me

ETA - Not safe for work if work don't like you looking at fat women in bikinis 
http://www.tonyrogers.com/humor/images/alittlebig.jpg

Something about the shadows on the left side of the image is wonky. Is there a way of checking other than something just not looking quite right?


----------



## Paul Russell (Mar 2, 2007)

Probably

Not Safe For Work

BTW.


----------



## madzone (Mar 2, 2007)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> Not Safe For Work
> 
> BTW.


Sorry


----------



## pengaleng (Mar 2, 2007)

deffo shopped, if the sun was pointing at the angle it is then the shadow of her head would be shorter instead of stretching right over one of her tits (high sunlight = shorter shadows) and I don't like the look of the pixels where her right tit is resting on her knee, it wouldn't 'sit' like that imo and her knee would be in shadow from her face if the tit next to it really was.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 2, 2007)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> deffo shopped, if the sun was pointing at the angle it is then the shadow of her head would be shorter instead of stretching right over one of her tits (high sunlight = shorter shadows) and I don't like the look of the pixels where her right tit is resting on her knee, it wouldn't 'sit' like that imo and her knee would be in shadow from her face if the tit next to it really was.


Yeah, definitely. You can see the smoothing on the left one as well where there aren't any JPEG artifacts.


----------



## Structaural (Mar 2, 2007)

Wot teeps said plus the noise on her tits gets bigger, there's no shadow on her right knee, softness where the extra left tit has been added and they're too fucking big!


----------



## pengaleng (Mar 2, 2007)

Structaural said:
			
		

> Wot teeps said plus the noise on her tits gets bigger, there's no shadow on her right knee, softness where the extra left tit has been added and they're too fucking big!



I didn't see the noise, I'm wearing sunglasses


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 2, 2007)

# Software/Firmware Version = Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
# Last Modified Date/Time = 2005:08:30 17:56:09


----------



## skunkboy69 (Mar 2, 2007)

Not safe for work? Not safe for viewing more like


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 2, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> # Software/Firmware Version = Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
> # Last Modified Date/Time = 2005:08:30 17:56:09



When in doubt, check the EXIF tag


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 2, 2007)

fishfinger said:
			
		

> When in doubt, check the EXIF tag



Of course, but remember most* digital images have some sort of photoshop work even if just levels. So in that case the EXIF tells you nothing.

Of course, the photoshoppery in this one is so obvious you don't need to check anyway!

* generalisation


----------



## madzone (Mar 2, 2007)

Thanks all 

I don't understand about EXIF tags and whatnot but even to my untrained eye it looked fucked about with. No-one on the other site has taken me up on my comment that it's photshopped yet


----------



## Jambooboo (Mar 3, 2007)

I reckon that image could quite feasibly be real.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 3, 2007)

Yes, so do I, wouldn't it be funny if it was?


----------



## fishfinger (Mar 3, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Of course, the photoshoppery in this one is so obvious you don't need to check anyway!



I agree. As mentioned by others above, the light and shadow is wrong on the breasts, and they are a little pixellated where they meet the knees.


----------



## BigRed (Feb 9, 2008)

Even though it's obviously photoshopped, you can also tell that the lady already had quite a bit for the artist to work with!

She's really fat, but I'd still hit it!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 9, 2008)

Another f in recycled f in thread.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 9, 2008)

can i just lower the tone by going "massive tits" ?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 9, 2008)

BigRed said:


> Even though it's obviously photoshopped, you can also tell that the lady already had quite a bit for the artist to work with!
> 
> She's really fat, but I'd still hit it!



That was a really intelligent first post to make. I wonder what the rest will be.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 9, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That was a really intelligent first post to make. I wonder what the rest will be.


do you think its them whats nicked your lappie?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 9, 2008)

madzone said:


> Someone posted this on another site but it doesn't look real to me
> 
> ETA - Not safe for work if work don't like you looking at fat women in bikinis
> http://www.tonyrogers.com/humor/images/alittlebig.jpg
> ...



 I think it's more than the shadows that's wonky.

Its usually not that hard to tell if it's photoshopped. E.g.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 9, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> do you think its them whats nicked your lappie?



Must be. It's the only explanation.

*gets out sjambok*


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 9, 2008)

madzone said:


> Someone posted this on another site but it doesn't look real to me
> 
> ETA - Not safe for work if work don't like you looking at fat women in bikinis
> http://www.tonyrogers.com/humor/images/alittlebig.jpg
> ...



yes mads some one has shopped that photo of you next time look in the mirror and you'll be able to tell straight away...


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Feb 9, 2008)

If an image has been presented in a digital form, it has been photoshopped.  In a similar way that you can tell if a politician is lying when their lips move.

Sometimes it becomes more obvious than others, but it always happens.  I think it is good that ordinary people can tweak or completely distort their photographs on a computer, because they then have access to similar manipulative tools that photographers have had since 1839 but pretended they didn't.  This then means that people can be less trusting of photographs and don't consider them to be the 'truth' any more.  The camera always lies, it is just that it is so plausible because people mistake detail for truth.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Feb 9, 2008)

Hocus Eye. said:


> If an image has been presented in a digital form, it has been photoshopped.  In a similar way that you can tell if a politician is lying when their lips move.
> 
> Sometimes it becomes more obvious than others, but it always happens.  I think it is good that ordinary people can tweak or completely distort their photographs on a computer, because they then have access to similar manipulative tools that photographers have had since 1839 but pretended they didn't.  This then means that people can be less trusting of photographs and don't consider them to be the 'truth' any more.  The camera always lies, it is just that it is so plausible because people mistake detail for truth.



doesnt' stop the fact that people get all purest about the whole thing though...

squelch and others would agree i think in that you always have to manipulate a digital image anyway as you would post process the film...


----------



## wordie (Feb 9, 2008)

That's a no brainer! The most obvious sign is the unnatural look of where her right breast meets her right knee... but there are so many other signs. This is not just Photoshopped, but badly Photoshopped as well!


----------



## chymaera (Feb 9, 2008)

madzone said:


> How do you tell if an image has been Photoshopped?



If I do it very easily.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 9, 2008)

They're not Photoshopped, they're _digitally enhanced_!


----------

