photoshopped images

by fox 20.12.11 13:47

Would this be any good to check if any photos have been photoshopped?
Just thought I'd try and help ;-))

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hope I've done it right.

The Fox.

by Guest 20.12.11 14:02

fox wrote:Would this be any good to check if any photos have been photoshopped?
Just thought I'd try and help ;-))

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hope I've done it right.

The Fox.

Sorry The Fox, I don't click on strange links, as you never know what will happen. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Gillyspot 20.12.11 14:04

Stella wrote:
fox wrote:Would this be any good to check if any photos have been photoshopped?
Just thought I'd try and help ;-))

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hope I've done it right.

The Fox.

Sorry The Fox, I don't click on strange links, as you never know what will happen. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Hi Fox & Welcome.

I have looked at the site and it is ok

"Photo Police Sniffs Out Photoshopped Images, Highlights How They Were Changed"

Mac: We've discussed how a keen eye can help you detect if an image has been photoshopped, but if you need an app to help you determine if that photo is a fake, Photo Police is a utility for the Mac that can help. If it does detect that an image has been modified, it will show you what's been changed so you can get an idea of what the original may have looked like.

Photo Police is $1.99 in the Mac App Store, and for the price you get a tool that's surprisingly good at detecting even small changes to photos and other images. The app does a great job at detecting obvious and subtle modifications, and while it's not foolproof, it's definitely good enough to help you determine whether that photo you stumbled across on the web is really a photograph or a mashup of other photos put together for effect.

Admittedly, if you have a good eye, you may not need an app like this, but it is fair to say that Photo Police takes a look at details your eye may not be able to discern. Do you have another app that does the same thing? How do you determine if a photo is a fake before calling it out? Let's hear it in the comments."

Whether the app is any good though I cannot comment lol

by fox 20.12.11 14:12

Thanks Gillyspot and no problem Stella,in future I'll try and paste the full link!
Obviously its for Macs which I don;t have,just thought it may be usefull.

Thanks

The Fox. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 20.12.11 14:21

Albym has already analysed the photos with this technology I believe.

It's on Pamalams site, you can google it, or here is the link. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 20.12.11 14:24

fox and welcome
welcome2

by fox 20.12.11 14:27

Thank you Stella and candyfloss [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Fox.

by jd 20.12.11 15:42

Well if this photo police is any good, it is showing that Amelie and Maddie have been added (their images, with clothes and sun hats show on the result), and the white deck chair in the sunshine immediately to gerrys right

by Guest 20.12.11 16:51

If that can be confirmed JD I'm not in the least bit surprised as I have never believed that photo was taken in the early afternoon of 3rd May 2007.

by jd 20.12.11 16:59

I wish I could upload it but can't seem to do it on here. Keeps asking me to download PC software but I am on Mac. I will have to think of another way

Interestingly the tennis girl photo looks to be genuine except for touches around the edges of the sunhat and I think the background too, as this was purple

by Angelique 20.12.11 17:45

jd

Last photo

I have always thought that this was an amalgamation, albeit I thought even Gerry had been added. But thank you for confirming what I had always believed.

by uppatoffee 20.12.11 18:10

JD that is really interesting to hear. Does the app show that they are added, or does it just say they have been altered in some way; change of hue, spot healing etc?

Have you tried running a few of your own photos through just to compare results and see whether it gives accurate results?

by jd 20.12.11 19:33

Thinking about it, I would take the results with a sense of caution, as this is a new app and hasn't been tried and tested. As I read it, the areas that are greyed out in the results means there has been no alteration but where there have been it is seen, even if it just pixels enhancement. For the poolside picture, gerry was not in the results as he was greyed out so to speak but Amelie and Maddie were clearly there and in a sense looked like ghosts.... and as I understand it, this is saying they have been added. And only the bottom portion of deckchair (sun lounger) is showing and very clearly indeed & in bright white, the deckchair further right from gerry just has some colour pixels which indicates it is there in the original but been pixel enhanced. The parts of the deckchair behind gerry hardly show up at all and when you compare this to the bottom one right next to gerry is totally bright white and visible it is most curious. It looks like it has been painted on! strange

Yes I have tried running my own photos with mixed results, some are exactly as I expect and the whole photo is greyed out as I know it is a true untampered with photo but then there are some which have the people in them shown which I think it should not do....though in this case it is showing everybody whereas in the poolside pic gerry is not there and Amelie & Maddie appear as ghosts, whereas in my pics the people do not look like ghosts but real people and it is always 'all people' not just some as in the case of the poolside pic. Its hard to explain without seeing them and I'll try somehow to get them on here

Btw I used the very high res poolside pic that was first posted up on 3A's

by **Nina** 20.12.11 19:43

jd wrote:Thinking about it, I would take the results with a sense of caution, as this is a new app and hasn't been tried and tested. As I read it, the areas that are greyed out in the results means there has been no alteration but where there have been it is seen, even if it just pixels enhancement. For the poolside picture, gerry was not in the results as he was greyed out so to speak but Amelie and Maddie were clearly there and in a sense looked like ghosts.... and as I understand it, this is saying they have been added. And only the bottom portion of deckchair (sun lounger) is showing and very clearly indeed & in bright white, the deckchair further right from gerry just has some colour pixels which indicates it is there in the original but been pixel enhanced. The parts of the deckchair behind gerry hardly show up at all and when you compare this to the bottom one right next to gerry is totally bright white and visible it is most curious. It looks like it has been painted on! strange

Yes I have tried running my own photos with mixed results, some are exactly as I expect and the whole photo is greyed out as I know it is a true untampered with photo but then there are some which have the people in them shown which I think it should not do....though in this case it is showing everybody whereas in the poolside pic gerry is not there and Amelie & Maddie appear as ghosts, whereas in my pics the people do not look like ghosts but real people and it is always 'all people' not just some as in the case of the poolside pic. Its hard to explain without seeing them and I'll try somehow to get them on here

Jd this all sounds so very interesting and hopefully significant, though I agree we should deal with caution before jumping to conclusions. I have read your post and can hardly wait to see what you are speaking of. I wish I could offer help but cannot as I am carp at anything like this, but can offer a big [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] hug and thumbs up.

by Gillyspot 20.12.11 20:47

JD I am so jealous of you. I want a Mac (tantrum)

I can't find a free or even cheap photo forensic program for the PC

by jd 20.12.11 21:30

You want a Mac Gillyspot, they always work!

Ive found a way of getting the pics up. From the app info, the grey areas are what has not been tampered/altered or photoshopped with...ie the grey areas are real. this is a new app for me but this is how I understand the results to mean

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Poolside pic

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Tennis ball Girl pic.....I notice the line a round the girl and am curious why the background has gone all purple. I can only access that this has been added in though could be wrong

This is what I analyse from the results of this app, what do others think?

by **Nina** 20.12.11 22:33

Jd, wow. So looks with Amelie and Madeleine that it is the clothes that are added, have I got this correct. Their faces are grey but their arms and legs are not nor the clothes. And certainly the sun chairs are not grey nor the edge of the pool. Sooooo it is Gerry and the girls but the girls clothes are altered and the location furniture. Have I understood this correctly?

by Angelique 21.12.11 0:01

jd

Maybe the tennis ball picture of Madeleine is showing that line round her plus a lot of "noise" inside it means she was superimposed onto the background. Just guessing. I have a Mac but I don't have photoshop kit - would it need this to be able to use this app?

by jd 21.12.11 0:14

Angelique wrote:jd

Maybe the tennis ball picture of Madeleine is showing that line round her plus a lot of "noise" inside it means she was superimposed onto the background. Just guessing. I have a Mac but I don't have photoshop kit - would it need this to be able to use this app?

No you don't need photoshop Angelique, just download the App from iTunes and it is a stand alone App. Ive tried on other photos and am getting the results I was expecting. I too think the girl in the tennis photo was superimposed onto the background. If you get the app you should get the same results though the nearer to the original you can get the better

by uppatoffee 21.12.11 0:54

I have just downloaded the app and tried it too. There are very few instructions on how to read the results. I got the same results for the pool photo though, which suggests that there are some very obvious alterations to the photo - sunbed, Maddie, Amelie. Given that Gerry originally said that it was Sean, not Amelie in this photo, there is definitely enough cause for concern about the photo anyway.
wft

I have just run a few of the more well known photos through the app. Unlike jd I have not been able to upload the results to this site, so here is a very brief summary of the results I found.

P2 of this thread by ROSA 1.42pm close up photo of colomba/no colomba looks like the whole face has been edited.
Ice Cream Photo looks like it has all been edited
The initial Maddie poster photo (where she looks 2) actually does't show any editing of the colomba but the face has clearly been airbrushed to soften and blur out cheeks.
Blue eyeshadow photo shows editing around the cheek area, again presumably to blur and soften cheeks. Eyeshadow unfortunately does appear to be part of the original photo.

It's definitely an interesting app to play around with. I will try uploading a few of my own photos to the app tomorrow to see what it makes of them given that I definitely know their provenance.

If anyone has any specific photos they want to run through the app, please let me have a link to it and I will be happy to post what the app says about it, or, perhaps jd could post a photo of the results. I would imagine that high res images would be best for producing results.

by Guest 21.12.11 9:29

Uppatoffee, about 99% of the photos issued are doubtful! The two I'm most interested in are:

1) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - supposedly taken in Donegal in April 2007

2) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - the much discussed playground photo

Many thanks in advance for your comments.

by Liz Eagles 21.12.11 9:40

Jean wrote:Uppatoffee, about 99% of the photos issued are doubtful! The two I'm most interested in are:

1) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - supposedly taken in Donegal in April 2007

2) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - the much discussed playground photo

Many thanks in advance for your comments.

I've haven't taken much serious notice of the photos (I was too shocked by the blue eyeshadow one). The second one on your post is just not right (the first one looks odd too). I'm no photographer or IT savvy person but this photo needs to be analysed. SY?

by uppatoffee 21.12.11 10:33

Jean wrote:Uppatoffee, about 99% of the photos issued are doubtful! The two I'm most interested in are:

1) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - supposedly taken in Donegal in April 2007

2) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - the much discussed playground photo

Many thanks in advance for your comments.

Does anyone have links to the high res versions of these two photos? They need to be .jpgs as the .png won't work with the software.

by jd 21.12.11 11:45

Here are the results from the links

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]....Donegal
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]....playground

The playground photo was on the list of photos the PJ retrieved from the camera. They would have to have photoshopped this one before the holiday. The Donegal one suggests the kids are superimposed on to the background and they have done something with the cousins

by sijm 21.12.11 12:48

Hello there.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Sorry to say but that play ground photograph definitely looks tampered with.

An artist friend of mine said he would only paint that tiny picture of the woman in the playhouse window in a surrealism context, the tiny female photo in the plahouse looks as if it is a cut out from a magazine and stuck in the window, the figure is way to small for the building behind this is really weird, what are they hiding here?

by jd 21.12.11 12:58

I think they wanted to send out a picture of the 'family' enjoying themselves...though where is mother kate & Maddie in any pictures from the holiday...there isn't any!

by Guest 21.12.11 13:13

jd wrote:Here are the results from the links

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]....Donegal
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]....playground

The playground photo was on the list of photos the PJ retrieved from the camera. They would have to have photoshopped this one before the holiday. The Donegal one suggests the kids are superimposed on to the background and they have done something with the cousins

Do we trust this program? Because it is telling us madeleine is not fake on the playground photo still she has to left feets or right feets ..If I understood right all original bits are greyed out with this program. And the things pampered with according to this program ( if I have understood it right ) makes no sence, atleast to me...

Im sorry I don't trust this program...

by jd 21.12.11 13:17

I give this app the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise, and agree to take the results with caution. I expected the playground photo to be greyed out because this was taken from thew mcscams camera and in the list of photos retrieved from it in the PJ files, so it was on there. The only way this photo could be false is if it was put on the camera before 28th April 2007

To my knowledge and information, the poolside photo was not on the camera as it is not on the list of photos the PJ retrieved from their camera

by **tigger** 21.12.11 13:24

Jean wrote:Uppatoffee, about 99% of the photos issued are doubtful! The two I'm most interested in are:

1) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - supposedly taken in Donegal in April 2007

2) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - the much discussed playground photo

Many thanks in advance for your comments.

Only a couple of photographs come to mind where I think Maddie is as she is:
hanging between the railings of a playground? Looking to her left at camera. It is seen that she is quite ordinary, lovely of course.
riding a tricycle - this is too far away to clearly see her face though
a still from the pink fairy, face all crunched up in a smile - looks peculiar.
I still think the main reason for doctoring the majority of photographs was to make her prettier, the other reason was to put her in places she never visited. Still another reason is to prove the happy family myth. (the weird kitchen photographs, the one with M as a baby where Gerry has been pasted in, and so on..

by Guest 21.12.11 13:31

Just a suggestion, why not try out some other pictures to see how the program performs? I downloaded a windows product but it tells me that even my own pictures were altered when they weren't. It does however clearly mention photoshop in relation to the Donegal & last photo pictures whereas it doesn't on the others. But how do we prove that the media didn't alter any of the pictures before publishing?