Truth in Photography ... ?

[TexasTerri]

... lol ... that’s a good one ! ... actually TRS is a zeolite spray used for detoxing heavy metals from the body ...

[TexasTerri]

... I appreciate everyone’s input, time and effort ... thanks !

[Manfred M]

Terri - taking selfies off the table for a moment, the type of analysis you see here is quite common in photography, especially in portraiture. Anyone who has formally studied photographic lighting will like have spent hours doing this type of work in course work. Others will pick it up less formally, through experience.

The place most people will start is, like Ted did, with the eyes. They are effectively convex mirrors that reflect whatever is close to them. If you zoom in, the light is similar, but not identical.

The other aspect that people are taught is to look for small defects in their work that will give away signs that the image has been "doctored", either manually with software like Photoshop or in other instances (especially in apps for camera phones).

The other thing that photographers learn or are taught are how to identify signs that the image has been manipulated. While this can be challenging in low resolution images, like the ones you have posted, both images raise suspicions. Areas of sharp differentiation where the area should be soft are dead give-aways that post-processing has occurred. With the image on the right, the hard line on the cheek is very suspicious as shadow transitions are never that hard, so the image has been manipulated.

Signs of image manipulation should set of warning bells.

P.S. Be wary of this product. Heavy metals are removed through either precipitation or sequestration. Ziolite to remove heavy metals does not inherently make a lot of sense, from a basic chemistry view point.

[TexasTerri]

Man Fred ... thank you for your further analysis ... !

Regarding zeolites ... zeolites have been used for probably centuries for detoxing ... but not without issues or complications ... that is why I choose TRS because it is lab created to eliminate any concern for cross contamination and purity ... I’ve personally have had excellent results with it and know the same for many, many others ... some of the most obvious and amazing results are seen in autistic children ... !

Again, I appreciate your time and comments very much ... !

[tao2]

This photo was posted on a social media platform ... claiming that the “selfie” was taken exactly one month apart... in all my years , even those working as an art director in controlled studio lighting conditions, I understand how difficult it is to duplicate exact lighting and shadows, as well as exact replication of other details

... what are your thoughts on the possibility that someone taking a selfie is able to duplicate the almost exact photo ... I contend that it was probably taken at the same time (slight variation of background) ... and the possible use of a filter to enhance the second photo ...

Hi Terri,
Since Fox Talbot shook up his first salt solution, there has never been "Truth in Photography"

Don't mind me, I'm just an optimist, wounded by the world ...

[TexasTerri]

... I’m sure that is true ... lol

[William W]

I had a good look.

(For the record, Solicitors (aka “Lawyers”) pay me money for forensic investigation of images, that’s not to say that I would assess in a courtroom that I am 100% certain on this one: the images are too small and are at least second hand, probably gone through more processes than two.)

I reckon the same as previous comments – these are two different images, taken a short period of time apart, almost certainly on the same day.

I concur with the rational at detecting and comparing “breadcrumbs”:

FWIW - I started at the eyes, the eyelashes and the eyebrows, then the non-permanent skin imperfections.

***

I appreciated Ted’s work adding and subtracting, I like that very much . . .

But one point on a comment that he made -

. . . Oh for the EXIF - the DNA of images ...

I disagree.

Have a gander here – and read the EXIF



WW

Image © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2020 WMW 1965~1996

[Manfred M]

I had a good look.

(For the record, Solicitors (aka “Lawyers”) pay me money for forensic investigation of images, that’s not to say that I would assess in a courtroom that I am 100% certain on this one: the images are too small and are at least second hand, probably gone through more processes than two.)

I reckon the same as previous comments – these are two different images, taken a short period of time apart, almost certainly on the same day.

I concur with the rational at detecting and comparing “breadcrumbs”:

FWIW - I started at the eyes, the eyelashes and the eyebrows, then the non-permanent skin imperfections.

***

I appreciated Ted’s work adding and subtracting, I like that very much . . .

But one point on a comment that he made -



I disagree.

Have a gander here – and read the EXIF

Some of the critical skills I picked up over the years of taking photography courses included "decomposition" during the studio lighting ones where we would study the image and would try to work out how the photographer lit the image. Like you, we would start with the eyes because some of the most tell-tale signs could be found in the reflections there. Other clues could be found in looking at the brightest areas of the images and what the shadows looked like and where they fell. The one technique that always seemed to fool me is when the lighting design included a scrim or butterfly that was used to diffuse light coming from a studio light and modifier. That approach has become one of my favourite lighting techniques because the light qualities are so different from just using a straight modifier.

The eyes were not always a 100% solution as some photographers retouch the catch lights....

In the retouching courses, especially the advanced "master classes" emphasis was on ensuring that we did not leave "breadcrumbs" behind, giving away the the image had been retouched.

The one consistent advice we got is what you have written. The metadata was not to be trusted because it was far too easy to manipulate (on purpose or as part of the workflow) and in general, the clues of the manipulation were too hard to detect unless they are like the ones in your example, where they jump out.

[William W]

. . . we would start with the eyes because some of the most tell-tale signs could be found in the reflections there.
. . . The metadata was not to be trusted because it was far too easy to manipulate (on purpose or as part of the workflow) . . .

> Reflections (of buildings for example) in the eyes have been substantive enough to assist convictions in a court of law: substantiating a person's placement at a particular place.

> Some competitions nowadays require the entrant to supply the raw file, others have a rule that the Judges can request it.

WW