c.poulton
Well-known
Just spoted this on the BBC news website:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6936444.stm
Can we ever trust a digital image again?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6936444.stm
Can we ever trust a digital image again?
gavinlg
Veteran
What a crappy software. I'm all for advanced photoshop etc but that sort of thing is useless.
doitashimash1te
Well-known
c.poulton said:
No. But then again, we never could anyway.
R
RML
Guest
Don't know what to think of it, really. Technically cool. But how could anyone want these results? You know you're cheating and showing a place as it wasn't, so what will you do? Keep up the lie, or tell your friends you're a fraud?
Morca007
Matt
Never trust an image, trust the photographer.
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
But what if the photographer tells you to trust the image?Morca007 said:
jbf
||||||
Hah. While the idea is somewhat interesting I find it pretty much useless for anything other than some ordinary person to make their photos "prettier".
Its just another manipulation tool. And honestly i doubt its going to be anything worthwhile. More of something that will be commercialized for families and snap-shooters.
Its going to be obvious of the manipulation. Just because an algorithm "finds the best suitable image" does not mean its going to look good. Chances are its going to be glaringly obvious to anyone who looks at photos enough that its a fake.
Basically its just bringing a dumbed down photoshop and manipulation toolset to people who know nothing about doing their own photo manipulations, etc.
One thing is that I dont like the idea of them being able to scour flickr for photos that match. I dont want people stealing my photos to create their own work. My work isnt online for that. Its there so people can view. Not re-hash or re-use.
Its just another manipulation tool. And honestly i doubt its going to be anything worthwhile. More of something that will be commercialized for families and snap-shooters.
Its going to be obvious of the manipulation. Just because an algorithm "finds the best suitable image" does not mean its going to look good. Chances are its going to be glaringly obvious to anyone who looks at photos enough that its a fake.
Basically its just bringing a dumbed down photoshop and manipulation toolset to people who know nothing about doing their own photo manipulations, etc.
One thing is that I dont like the idea of them being able to scour flickr for photos that match. I dont want people stealing my photos to create their own work. My work isnt online for that. Its there so people can view. Not re-hash or re-use.
R
RML
Guest
The article states that in about 30% of the worked photos the alterations are visible. I assume that means that 70% of the worked photos take much more effort to find the alterations if you don't have the original at hand. Even if that percentage would just be 50-50, I still find it amazing.