Digital photography analyzing

ThunderFoot

Scholar
T
Joined
Oct 31, 2007
Messages
109
Hello and thank you for comming by this thread. I have some digital photographs I would like to have analzyed to see if it has been tampered with. One photograph I downloaded from the camera and the other is of the same subject but cropped and enhanced in the area of the photograph in question. He told me he used photoshop to enhance the photograph.

My question: Has the orginal photograph been tampered with or photoshopped with cut and paste or things of the sort? Also I would like to know if someone can enhace the orginal photograph with the same rusults and provide documentation of how they went through the process?

Now I am going to ask that if you have seen this photograph on another thread Please make all comments about the subject matter in the photograph in the moderated thread in question. If you would like a link to that thread please ask and I will provide it.

This is the orginal photograph. I used imageshack to upload it.

my.php
[/URL][/IMG]

I have tried several times to upload the enhanced photograph to imageshack to no avail. If someone can do a better job than me, that shouldn't be too hard to beat lol, please let me know and I will e-mail it to you. I would like to have both photographs on here. Thank you for your help on this.
 
Hi Thunderfoot. I'm familiar with the photo and the thread. But, for those who aren't it may help to post the specifics about the camera, too.

JPEG is a compressed format with a header/footer to control decompression. Many cameras do not natively create JPEG images, but rather create uncompressed BMP or similar.
 
Thanx madurobob, that is what I am talking about. I know absolutly NOTHING! How would I go about this. I can call the friend that took the photo and ask him what camera he used, but that would be all I know to do.
 
Ok, I think I may have what you are asking for,,, I think.

dimensions: 2048x1536

file size: 518 KB (531,426 bytes)

type: jpg file

camera model: CaptureV

Hopefuly this is what you were asking for.
 
I believe the camera in question is a Simmons CaptureView 3MP

(actually, I know this because it is posted in post #254 of the thread)

I does appear to create compressed JPEG images, rather than BMP, etc... Details at the link.
 
What is the orginal thread, and what exactly is this about?

The pic looks like the bigfoot Creekfreak one.

Also, the EXIF data seems very, very weird to me. The usual data can be found, but not the exposure time.

The focal length in the JPG says 7.5 mm. That would be a wide field of view, but the picture is clearly a long shot.

The above mentioned Simmons CaptureView are binoculars, but the EXIF data says the flash was fired.

The chopper blades are in full focus, only a very fast shutter camera could do that, not a cheapo cam or binoculars.

This seems fake/weird/shopped/strange to me.
 
Last edited:
Also, the picture has a much higher resolution than the above linked binoculars can produce.

Edit: And more importantly, where is the alleged Bigfoot?

Edit2: Upon quick check, the chopper is NOT photoshopped in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
wahrheit -

There is an "enhanced" version of this photo that "clearly" shows a bigfoot. The problem is that no amount of contrast, brightness, or color balancing can be done to get the "enhanced" image if we start from the one linked above.
 
Modified in what way? Somewhat difficult to judge when we're not told what to look for. The 315,493th leaf from the left might have been added after the photo was taken. What is this thread about?
 
sthomson said:
wahrheit -

There is an "enhanced" version of this photo that "clearly" shows a bigfoot. The problem is that no amount of contrast, brightness, or color balancing can be done to get the "enhanced" image if we start from the one linked above.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the picture I was talking about. The low-res JPG Creekfreak posted in his Bigfoot thread.

However, like baron in the post above, I just don't get what's going on at the moment.

The pic Creekfreak posted was exactly the same, but with some eyes added at the right to make it look like some creature was there.

Who is ThunderFoot, where does the original picture come from, where's the thread?
 
Thread re-opened. ThunderFoot was given permission to start this thread by another mod, which I didn't know about. Sorry for the confusion.

However, please bear in mind that this thread is strictly for discussing photo analysis and any mention of bigfoot is to be kept in the original thread.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
Last edited:
First I would like to send kudos to Cuddles, thank you.

What I am trying to do here guys is learn more about digital photography. What I know about this subject you can put in a themble and have plenty of room left over for a shot of whisky. I am NOT trying to reroute anything from that thread to here!!!

As in my orginal post I would like to find a person who is proficient in this field who can enhance the photograph and would not mind showing their work process. And bring me out of the digital photography dark a little. The friend of mine who did the first enhacment will not come to this fourm and I respect his wishes on this issue.
 
ThunderFoot, enhancement is a poorly defined term. In this case it may mean drawing lines on the picture, which is not really enhancing--it's adding information which is not in the original.

Think of a digital picture as a grid of numbers. Each number is a pixel, and corresponds to a certain color. Various techniques for storing the picture (jpg vs. bmp) will mean very different patterns of numbers for what appears to be the same picture.

Various compression techniques are also used. For example, a streak of eight yellow pixels will likely be represented as (8 by yellow) instead of (yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow, yellow). Since there are shades of yellow that are too close to be distinguished by the naked eye, the compression may cheat a little and remove subtle changes.

Standard enhancement techniques rely on these subtle differences. For example, a yellow object in front of a yellow object may be slightly different shades of yellow--too similar to be seen with the naked eye. A typical enhancement would be to measure the average shade of yellow and these two areas and make those pixels that are closer to shade one black and those that are closer to shade two, white. Then the image would show a black object on a white background.

There's lots more stuff along these lines that people can do, but all of it comes down to looking for subtle patterns in the numbers that represent the colors of the image.

I posted this before, but if you really want to try your hand at it, here's a free program that will likely do everything that could reasonably be done.

http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/
 
I am proficient in digital enhancement yet without the first idea of what's going on in this thread I'm leaving now and won't be back. Enhance what? And for what purpose? Utterly baffling. Good luck.
 
Can someone post a link to the "enhanced" photo? I'm not slogging through 11 pages on that other thread. I'm interested in digital photgraphy and its manipulation, not that other subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom