Martin Hinrichs Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I'd like to know if it is possible to determine if these are two different prints - possibly from the same negative - or if the one on the right is a cleaned up and enlarged photoshop version of the photo on the left? http://jfkcountercou...-mom-in-mc.html The details and signifiance of the photo(s) will be explained later, but I'd like to know if it can be determined if the photos are the same, and one cleaned up and enlarged via photoshop or something similar, or if it can be shown that they are two different prints? First, is it possible to determine such a thing, and if so, is the larger one a copy of the smaller one on the left? Thanks, And I'm not interested in debating any issues, I just want to know if its possible to determine such a thing. Thanks, BK I think we are looking at two different images. The second, enlarged and repaired image shows the woman to be in a slighty different position in relation to the man. The image of the man and woman is the same in both images, but the placement has changed. Its quite subtle, but she seems to move slightly to the right in larger image, more of a rotation really, near the bottom. Can't tell for sure given the small size of the images but if I had to make a call based on these images, I would say she was cut out and pasted back in, either in an analog darkroom or in a digital imaging program Its quite possible that has happened in the damaged image as well, but again the samples are really too small for close inspection. Thanks Craig, I'd like to get a consensus of whether it is two different prints from the same negative or an enlarged and retouched version of the smaller one. BK The latter Bill. If you follow the creases on the small image, you'll see the traces of postwork via clonestamp. There is even one fold of the man's jacket gone in the lower left side of the photo. best to you Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Martin, that seems to clinch it. As an experiment, seeing as you have aligned the two very well, I wonder if you could invert the colors of the top layer and set it at 50% opacity and merge them and present the result? I'm curious what one would see then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Martin, that seems to clinch it. As an experiment, seeing as you have aligned the two very well, I wonder if you could invert the colors of the top layer and set it at 50% opacity and merge them and present the result? I'm curious what one would see then. Thanks John, Here you go: I picked the sepia toned damaged image, inverted the colors and set it two 50% I hope that was the top layer you are talking about. best Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) Great, Martin. Excellent. Now the differences stand out sharply. A grayscaled sepia might do so more re the creases and so forth, but one can see how this technique is a good tool in answering Q's such as these. Also one can now spot a slight misalignment as well (a pixel or so left right). One can do the same with regards to subsequent film frames etc to see who what has moved etc. Thank you, best to you too. edit add: one can get different results by changing top layer but the principle of ''greying'' of similarities apply nevrtheless, it depends on what one is looking for. Similarly on pincushioned frames one can take a particular spot and use this technique to precicely align (rotating) in that area then reinverting/opaquing to create a gif etc focusing on that particular area. Edited August 17, 2010 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I'd like to know if it is possible to determine if these are two different prints - possibly from the same negative - or if the one on the right is a cleaned up and enlarged photoshop version of the photo on the left? http://jfkcountercou...-mom-in-mc.html The details and signifiance of the photo(s) will be explained later, but I'd like to know if it can be determined if the photos are the same, and one cleaned up and enlarged via photoshop or something similar, or if it can be shown that they are two different prints? First, is it possible to determine such a thing, and if so, is the larger one a copy of the smaller one on the left? Thanks, And I'm not interested in debating any issues, I just want to know if its possible to determine such a thing. Thanks, BK I think we are looking at two different images. The second, enlarged and repaired image shows the woman to be in a slighty different position in relation to the man. The image of the man and woman is the same in both images, but the placement has changed. Its quite subtle, but she seems to move slightly to the right in larger image, more of a rotation really, near the bottom. Can't tell for sure given the small size of the images but if I had to make a call based on these images, I would say she was cut out and pasted back in, either in an analog darkroom or in a digital imaging program Its quite possible that has happened in the damaged image as well, but again the samples are really too small for close inspection. Thanks Craig, I'd like to get a consensus of whether it is two different prints from the same negative or an enlarged and retouched version of the smaller one. BK The latter Bill. If you follow the creases on the small image, you'll see the traces of postwork via clonestamp. There is even one fold of the man's jacket gone in the lower left side of the photo. best to you Martin Martiin, can you make them match, size for size. position for position? In you gif, the two images are different size/position to each other. I've rried and I can't do it/ I cna get the guy to near perfect size/positon but then the wonan is off. Perhaps it's just me, but not being able to resize them correctly leads me to believe the image has been changed via cut and paste. I aagree that there has been post production work, but are they the same image just enlarged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I'd like to know if it is possible to determine if these are two different prints - possibly from the same negative - or if the one on the right is a cleaned up and enlarged photoshop version of the photo on the left? http://jfkcountercou...-mom-in-mc.html The details and signifiance of the photo(s) will be explained later, but I'd like to know if it can be determined if the photos are the same, and one cleaned up and enlarged via photoshop or something similar, or if it can be shown that they are two different prints? First, is it possible to determine such a thing, and if so, is the larger one a copy of the smaller one on the left? Thanks, And I'm not interested in debating any issues, I just want to know if its possible to determine such a thing. Thanks, BK I think we are looking at two different images. The second, enlarged and repaired image shows the woman to be in a slighty different position in relation to the man. The image of the man and woman is the same in both images, but the placement has changed. Its quite subtle, but she seems to move slightly to the right in larger image, more of a rotation really, near the bottom. Can't tell for sure given the small size of the images but if I had to make a call based on these images, I would say she was cut out and pasted back in, either in an analog darkroom or in a digital imaging program Its quite possible that has happened in the damaged image as well, but again the samples are really too small for close inspection. Thanks Craig, I'd like to get a consensus of whether it is two different prints from the same negative or an enlarged and retouched version of the smaller one. BK The latter Bill. If you follow the creases on the small image, you'll see the traces of postwork via clonestamp. There is even one fold of the man's jacket gone in the lower left side of the photo. best to you Martin Martiin, can you make them match, size for size. position for position? In you gif, the two images are different size/position to each other. I've rried and I can't do it/ I cna get the guy to near perfect size/positon but then the wonan is off. Perhaps it's just me, but not being able to resize them correctly leads me to believe the image has been changed via cut and paste. I aagree that there has been post production work, but are they the same image just enlarged? Craig, i believe the aspect ratio of both images are slight different. It looks to me the sepia toned image is a photo from a photo. Thats the reason why my GIF doesn't fit to 100%. If i would have released the aspect ratio in Photoshop while scaling, i thinks it's possible to bring them to a perfect fit. I believe the large image is a scan from the damaged photo, enhanced and reworked. best John, it's a pleasure. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) Martin, can you make them match, size for size. position for position? In you gif, the two images are different size/position to each other. I've rried and I can't do it/ I cna get the guy to near perfect size/positon but then the wonan is off. Perhaps it's just me, but not being able to resize them correctly leads me to believe the image has been changed via cut and paste. I aagree that there has been post production work, but are they the same image just enlarged? Craig, i believe the aspect ratio of both images are slight different. It looks to me the sepia toned image is a photo from a photo. Thats the reason why my GIF doesn't fit to 100%. If i would have released the aspect ratio in Photoshop while scaling, i thinks it's possible to bring them to a perfect fit. I believe the large image is a scan from the damaged photo, enhanced and reworked. best John, it's a pleasure. Martin I've tried and I can't make them fit. Perhaps you will have better luck at it. I don't disagree about the retouching, just about the internal sizes of the objects in the photo. Edited August 17, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Martin, if you look on the left and right vertical or near verticals you can see that one side of the jdcomp is light and the other dark (thin stripes. They seem equal width. What I'm suggesting is to (with arrow keys) shift the top (and grayscale it) slightly and you may have a perfect fit. (Do this while inverted and 50%ted) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Martin, if you look on the left and right vertical or near verticals you can see that one side of the jdcomp is light and the other dark (thin stripes. They seem equal width. What I'm suggesting is to (with arrow keys) shift the top (and grayscale it) slightly and you may have a perfect fit. (Do this while inverted and 50%ted) I've redone the sizing and have gotten closer, but I'm still seeing a small shift between inages. Maybe its that one images has had edge lines changed by contrast increases and or unsharp masking. A one pixel nudge is too much to correct. It might even be scanner error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 (edited) Martin, if you look on the left and right vertical or near verticals you can see that one side of the jdcomp is light and the other dark (thin stripes. They seem equal width. What I'm suggesting is to (with arrow keys) shift the top (and grayscale it) slightly and you may have a perfect fit. (Do this while inverted and 50%ted) John, you're a pro it appears. I shift layers also in critical case via arrow keys. I did that here to without success. Just one pixel shift and it looks more of than it's actually is. But now and old trick came in my mind. There is a new mainstream trick in the CG world. Many artist attaching Chromatic abberation to their renderings to give it a photographic touch. To do that subtle and cool, it's neccesary to blow the image up to 10k or something like that...attach the CA and downsize the image again. I've did now the same here. I blowed it up to 6500x9000, shifted one pix or two and resized it. Thats the result: Martin Edited August 17, 2010 by Martin Hinrichs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Martin, if you look on the left and right vertical or near verticals you can see that one side of the jdcomp is light and the other dark (thin stripes. They seem equal width. What I'm suggesting is to (with arrow keys) shift the top (and grayscale it) slightly and you may have a perfect fit. (Do this while inverted and 50%ted) John, you're a pro it appears. I shift layers also in critical case via arrow keys. I did that here to without success. Just one pixel shift and it looks more of than it's actually is. But now and old trick came in my mind. There is a new mainstream trick in the CG world. Many artist attaching Chromatic abberation to their renderings to give it a photographic touch. To do that subtle and cool, it's neccesary to blow the image up to 10k or something like that...attach the CA and downsize the image again. I've did now the same here. I blowed it up to 6500x9000, shifted one pix or two and resized it. Thats the result: Martin Your gif still does not fit.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hinrichs Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Your gif still does not fit.... I know Craig. I never claimed it. The aspect ratio was always kept while scaling in my layers. It's getting closer but i still believe it's a matter of aspect ratio. Both images are slightely different. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 Both images are slightely different. Martin Thats my entire point. The question is why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I don't quite understand ''not fit''. That looks like a very close fit. The second (non sepia_ has been cropped. Also, the first (sepia) has been crumpled enough to break the film coating which prob means that the paper fibres have also broken and stretched. Maybe the slight discrepancy (if there is one) is that in flattening the original for repair and reproduction it necessarily becomes slightly different in size. Martin, I wonder if you could repeat the jdcomp technique (with the sepia grayscaled) using the new image you've linked to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted August 17, 2010 Share Posted August 17, 2010 I don't quite understand ''not fit''. That looks like a very close fit. The second (non sepia_ has been cropped. Also, the first (sepia) has been crumpled enough to break the film coating which prob means that the paper fibres have also broken and stretched. Maybe the slight discrepancy (if there is one) is that in flattening the original for repair and reproduction it necessarily becomes slightly different in size. Martin, I wonder if you could repeat the jdcomp technique (with the sepia grayscaled) using the new image you've linked to? It's really simple, they don't match. Are they close? Yes. The question is why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now