Ed Applying luma curve to photos and footage

[nt1]

Can I address one of the many elephants in the room?
All of nt1’s posts are either a chatbot,( the “hello” and “thank you”s) or his speech to text app. That’s why the ones that seem human are riddled with full stops: this dude talks pretentiously even to himself and lies about attributing things to bots.

I honestly never thought I would be trying to defend the dignity of chatbots.

Nope.

My hello's and thank yous are genuine. They are also an example i try to set.

Just because i dont talk about "tan lines", for example, doesnt mean i am pretentious or a bot. I find almost all of you to be rude. Not in a "they dont agree with me wahh" kinda way. Just in a "i dont think you wouldnt talk to another adult like this in public" kinda way.

So. The chatgpt thing? 1. Ive been instructed its not acceptable and its not an option now. 2. I hate chatgpt more than all of you combined. 3. Ive spent more time with chatgpt than all of you combined, your neighbors, their family, their families neighbors, and all of those peoples coworkers and friends combined.

I am fully. Fully. Aware. Of the damages it does and will cause.

Becuase of 1 through 3, i feel more than comfortable using it as a group reference. 1. Because I have spent the time to know exactly what it will and wont say on the subject and compared it to other LLM and information. 2. (This one is important) it allows anyone in the group to use it to refute me or fact check me.

I would be more than willing to purchase any software with a luma curve that the group deems acceptable.

I have not seen one person try it themselves.

So politely. All my fellow elephants. I am not a bot. Pretentious? Yes.

"attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed."

I am an American.

So. Yes. I am pretentious. I also told you how this was going to go in my opening post. And not one of you let me down. Its gross. Its really gross. And you know what? I dont care. These posts werent for you the second you made somehere an authority on a subject that an LLM can write a book report on. (Try it. Ask if it knows them and anyone else in this type of lime light.) Youd be surprised. It might know you!. No seriously. It might. It can give you a full "no websearch" run down of fakeologist main members.

Hope that clears up the bot elephant. And the pretentious question.

Thank you for the reply. I enjoyed standing in my front yard typing it.

 

[nt1]

So how many of the six photos did your filtering technique reveal to be tampered with and how many were not?

If we could dispense with other methods you tried, like reverse image search, that would make for a fairer way to assess whether your halo-detecting method reveals anything, don't you think?

Jack. "My". Its absurd. That is an absurd way to phrase the use of a free public app. I also wrote descriptions.

I am now very concerned about your sincerity towards this subject.

Thank you for the input and reply. Ill go back and see if i cant accurately satisfy your expectations.

 

[nt1]

Why do I get the feeling that the entire point has been missed (or deliberately avoided).

P.j. im not sure. I gave a more detailed answer than "dis one" "dat one". Im not sure how those replies dissatisfied you to the point of calling my intentions and intelligence into question. I will not do the same to you. I fo call into question your sincerity towards this subject.

Thank you for your observations. I will go back and try to make a more concise answer addressing it in a way that satisfies the exact context you would accept an answer.

Thank you again for the feedback.

 

[nt1]

So are you finished?

Hi Andy. Well. Apparently not. It appears that my format and application of effort to your photos was not acceoted by the group.

Was that a genuine question? I try my best to not assume or imply. But your's was the most concise and polite answer ive found so far. My apologies for my confusion.

Let me know dude. Imma get right on dat. Imma hit you back with that new info. If your down to check it out bro.

Thanks

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Jack. "My". Its absurd. That is an absurd way to phrase the use of a free public app. I also wrote descriptions.

I am now very concerned about your sincerity towards this subject.

Thank you for the input and reply. Ill go back and see if i cant accurately satisfy your expectations.

Yours. That's not absurd, it's just factual. The technique you use, which produces bright edges around objects in those photos, is not novel or unique to you, but the claim that these bright edges are residual traces of masking used when altering the photos is yours. That is your claim and not anyone else's.

It's been explained to you what the bright edges really are and why they show up but you don't seem to have taken this on board.

I don't think you're taking this subject seriously. I think you're just playing around and don't want reality to intrude and spoil your fun game of imagining you're discovering nefarious stuff.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Hi Andy. Well. Apparently not. It appears that my format and application of effort to your photos was not acceoted by the group.

It wasn't a particularly complicated challenge, but you didn't actually answer the question. Do you remember? The question was whether your technique for revealing bright edges could detect any anomalies in the 6 photos which you believe to be signs of tampering.

If you could answer that concisely, that would be great.

 

[nt1]

Boy oh boy. Apparently. My expected goal by the first couple replies besides Andy, was that i was to perform a witch hunt and confirm conclusively which passed and failed. And then burn them at the stake.

I included a decent explaination with each. Then made a brief synopsis of the grouo in reaponse to someones post.

Is this still part of the "gunfight" i was told i brought a "paperclip" to? It seems like a silly way to go about things.

I supplied more than a basic answer individually for clarity and organization.

I genuinely believe I be jn the wrong and it would violate if i explained what it seems like is going on.

I included examples and sources in places.

I believe i would be in the wrong and it would violate even if i spelled out the tactics a group in text based discussion canapply to damage a conversation.

I showed effort with naming the Cleveland Steel Mill in one photo

I havent. To the best of my ability. And to be honest. I would gain less than i gain now.

I even brought a 10 year old pdf with the exact photo of the house to show attempt at basic research.

So ill stick to: "is this still part of the "gunfight i was told i brought a "paperclip" to?"

 

[Mojo]

During that one of those stays my English Grandmother called me a mutt for not being full English.

Did she say you were a rasher short of one?

Edited for typo.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Histrionics aside, did your meddling with the luminosity reveal any signs of tampering in Andy's photos?

It's a simple enough question and you previously seemed keen to try it out.

 

[nt1]

It wasn't a particularly complicated challenge, but you didn't actually answer the question. Do you remember? The question was whether your technique for revealing bright edges could detect any anomalies in the 6 photos which you believe to be signs of tampering.

If you could answer that concisely, that would be great.

Hi jack.

I have spelled out for you that i have supplied an answer. I have done it clearly with examples and follow up. This may just not be one that Jack will be fully satisfied with. For that, i apologies. Maybe next time. I hope so.

Ill try to go back and fufill your exact expectations. Again. Thank you for your feedback. Please try to read each response again. It think it will allow you to ask a more detailed question or supply a more concise rebuttal than what you offered. Give it a shot. Its healthy for discussion.

 

[nt1]

Did she say you were a rasher sort of one?

No. She was proped on a stick next to the queen by time i got there. Im not sure she was using "rasher" as her slang. As i said. It was mutt. It was more mumbling, allsorts, pg tips, and grumbling. Im a winegums guy myself. Allsorts were invented so that attacking a uboat bare-handed or turning bedroom lights off for air raid defense, wasnt so bad.

 

[nt1]

Histrionics aside, did your meddling with the luminosity reveal any signs of tampering in Andy's photos?

It's a simple enough question and you previously seemed keen to try it out.

Jack. I enjoy your histrionics. You should not totally abandon them.

Yes. I am going to do you a solid Jack. You have always been decent and asked decent questions. Ill address them directly. One by one. Maybe not all of them. I left my unicycle back at my bear cage.

Before i do.

Jack. Do you get the photos i attach? Are they visible on your end. I would feel terrible if you were on a setup that didnt allow that. It would make your questions make more sense if you didnt and i would feel terrible.

 

[Mojo]

Boy oh boy. Apparently. My expected goal by the first couple replies besides Andy, was that i was to perform a witch hunt and confirm conclusively which passed and failed. And then burn them at the stake.

I included a decent explaination with each. Then made a brief synopsis of the grouo in reaponse to someones post.

Is this still part of the "gunfight" i was told i brought a "paperclip" to? It seems like a silly way to go about things.

I supplied more than a basic answer individually for clarity and organization.

I genuinely believe I be jn the wrong and it would violate if i explained what it seems like is going on.

I included examples and sources in places.

I believe i would be in the wrong and it would violate even if i spelled out the tactics a group in text based discussion canapply to damage a conversation.

I showed effort with naming the Cleveland Steel Mill in one photo

I havent. To the best of my ability. And to be honest. I would gain less than i gain now.

I even brought a 10 year old pdf with the exact photo of the house to show attempt at basic research.

You didn't answer the question that you were actually asked.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

You know the party's almost over when the band strikes up the Martyrdom Tango.

 

[JayUtah]

View attachment 61675

I would say the one i supplied is more genuine. Less filters. Gradient in sky looks more natural.

You know that the sky changes from time to time, right?

Both are genuine photos considering subject matter. Exact angle of photo can be confirmed

That's not what you were asked. There are no people on the beach in your reference image, whereas there are people on the beach in the specimen image. Your "Luma curve" clearly shows halos around the faraway people. Were they composited in, as your method purports to reveal?

The specimen image shows wet streams on the beach. Look in the foreground where you can find people dressed in red.



I've applied your method to an enlargement of the area around those people. There is a halo around the wet part. Was it composited in your judgment? If so, please confirm to that effect. If not, explain why your method suggests it was.

This is not conclusive nor authoritative. It is a 10 minute study and research to satisfy the request

How long, on average, did it take you to apply your method to the other images you've provided and in which you've declared there is evidence of tampering?

 

[nt1]

You didn't answer the question that you were actually asked.

These are the words

"Which ones have been tampered with."

Mojo. Please take just a few minutes and reread.

Thank you

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Jack. Do you get the photos i attach?

I have seen screenshots in some of your posts. I assume any that you have posted I do see but of course I have no way to tell unless you say "here's a screenshot showing such-and-such" which you generally don't do.

If you feel that I have been failing to register whatever point you intend each one to make then that's probably because they're not so self-explanatory as you hope. and you don't tell us what they mean, you just leave them to speak for themselves.

For example, remember when you got cross that I said your AI was telling you that your modified pictures looked unnatural, and you insisted that no, what it was actually saying was that the originals looked unnatural? It was not at all clear from what you posted that this was true.

 

[nt1]

You know the party's almost over when the band strikes up the Martyrdom Tango.

Hi P.J.

I dont know that reference. Thanks for the effort to be funny though. Keeping it light and fun is important.

 

[ahhell]

Final answer the trees and lake were most genuine after a luma curve evaluation.

Tractor was most suspect. But its black and white. I still played along.

House, coast, steel mill, and boat. Matching or near matching alternative examples. Minimal filters or composites added.

Subject matter not held to equal scrutiny as the event with 19 arabs with box cutters that. did? do it. alone?

So, this is the answer then?
Trees and lake untampered with.
house, coast, steel mill, and boat, possibly tampered with but not much?
Tractor probably tampered with?

This doesn't suggest your methods actually work to identify photos that were tampered with. Lot of uncertainty there.

 

[JayUtah]

View attachment 61664

This reacts the most genuine out of all of them. No exact match on reverse image search.

You weren't asked to determine the origin of the images. You were asked to apply your method to them to determine whether they had been composited, as you claimed it would do.

Compared to the others this displays the most natural lighting.

Most of your 9/11 images are enlargements of a larger image. The enlargement is an important part of the provenance of each image. You applied your method to the entire specimen image. Here's what happens when I apply your method to an enlargement of a portion of this image:




Halos around every branch! Can you explain why the halos show up in an enlargement but not in the original? Can you explain why the branches now suddenly display the stair-step pattern you claimed in the 9/11 images were indicative of "masking?"