DailyDirt: Fixing Photos And Fooling Folks

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Wed, Dec 7th 2011 5:00pm — Michael Ho

Photoshop has pretty much become a generic verb for altering a digital image. It's so common to use software to fix flaws in photos that it's a bit difficult to find unaltered photos now. Well, software will come to the rescue for that, too, and it'll help people determine which images have been touched-up. Here are just a few examples of some cool photo-enhancing tools.

Adobe presented a photo fixing feature that can almost magically un-blur digital images. That video could use some "enhance" capabilities for itself. [url]
Xerox labs has created software that can predict whether or not a photography will be aesthetically pleasing. Beauty is still in the eye of the beholder, but now there's an algorithm to help predict it. [url]
Virtual fashion models are about to replace human models in advertising. H&M has already started using completely computer-generated lingerie/swimsuit models on its website. Some people are complaining about being tricked by the fake people, but fake people aren't going away anytime soon. [url]
Maybe you can fool some of the people some of the time, but there's software that will point out photoshopped images. "It seems the scientific community is very aggressive about beautifying its images." [url]
To discover more interesting photography-related content, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blur, digital images, lingerie, photoshop, swimsuit
Companies: adobe, h&m, xerox

15 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 7 Dec 2011 @ 5:49pm

If Telling Lies With Still Photos Is �Photoshopping� ...
... what�s the term for telling lies with motion video? �Videoshopping�?

For example, this, this and this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 6:53pm

Re: If Telling Lies With Still Photos Is �Photoshopping� ...
Japanese censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 6:57pm

Manikins
Virtual fashion models are about to replace human models in advertising. H&M has already started using completely computer-generated lingerie/swimsuit models on its website.

Right Mr Ho has never walked past a clothes shop before in his entire life.

They are called Manikins or "dress manikins", guess what they replace REAL models in advertising and have done so for so many years now...

Get out much ???

Why is it these "tech innovations" are so damn OLD ????

All these things have been around for years and years !!!!
And you only have just worked out they exist ?

Xerox labs has created software that can predict whether or not a photography will be aesthetically pleasing.

Did you know that there is also software that does the same thing for music ? that can determine if a song will become a smash hit or not !!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jay (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 7:38pm

Re: Manikins
I'm marking this as funny because obviously, the AC here has no idea how innovation works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Dec 2011 @ 8:05pm

That Photoshop thing looks a lot like things like picturesolve.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 7 Dec 2011 @ 8:42pm

This looks shopped.
I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 7 Dec 2011 @ 9:19pm

Virtual fashion models are about to replace human models in advertising. H&M has already started using completely computer-generated lingerie/swimsuit models on its website.

What took them so long? James Coburn was doing this with moving CGI models back in 1981!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082677/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob Webster (profile), 7 Dec 2011 @ 11:32pm

Doctored Images.
It's a whole lot easier to deblur an image when it has been synthetically blurred. Caveat emptor.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/10/18/adobeclarifies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 8 Dec 2011 @ 5:31am

Re: Doctored Images.
Yep - that reminds me of the creep who used swirl on photos to blur his face and then taunted the world only to find out that the swirl can be undone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Dec 2011 @ 1:02pm

Re: Manikins
They are called Manikins or "dress manikins", guess what they replace REAL models in advertising and have done so for so many years now...

Mannequins didn't replace living models.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose M. Welch (profile), 8 Dec 2011 @ 1:02pm

Re:
I make my own shops at home.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Ho (profile), 8 Dec 2011 @ 2:09pm

Re: Doctored Images.
Nice find. I was wondering how much of the demo was staged to maximize its "blow your mind" effect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 8 Dec 2011 @ 5:57pm

Re: Re:
Lol
http://xkcd.com/331/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 9 Dec 2011 @ 12:14am

Re: Doctored Images.
Whether the blurring is �synthetic� or not, it can still be physically modelled and undone to some extent. Remember the early days of the Hubble Telescope, when the images it was producing were so crap? I was at a talk given by one of the researchers who developed algorithms to try to undo that crappiness. They were able to produce some quite usable images, even before Hubble was given its COSTAR �glasses�.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
abc gum, 9 Dec 2011 @ 5:28am

Re: Re: Doctored Images.
IIRC - The Hubble images contained information that required correction because the mirrors had been ground incorrectly. There was plenty of information in these images that needed to be rearranged and the mechanism (incorrect mirror grinding) was well understood.

In the case of TVland enhance, enhance, enhance there is not enough information available from low res video surveillance cameras to perform such stunts. Hence, the much laughed at mockery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]