Retouched or not? New software tool spots photos' too-flawless features.

The difference is that this tool made it onto the CBS web site! I detect grant fishing. :-)

Not useful to me, but it seems it would be extremely easy to tell the difference with a relatively easy algorithm. Besides, what are the chances you would have two before and after images side by side?

Now if they could produce a program that didn't need the 'before' photo.. That would be cool.

@Robert - In the unlikely event that the original (ie, before retouching) was a JPG with a moderate compression ratio, many types of retouching usually perturb the fairly regular pattern of 8x8 blocky JPG artifacts. It's easy to enhance the visibility of these by Fourier or even just a high pass filter, and then pick out any areas of localized retouching by eye. I seem to recall some court case where this technique was used to detect retouching without needing the "before" photo.

Tom M

Um, I don't get it. If you have the before and after, why in the world would you need the software to tell you what you're already seeing with your own eyes?

If it brings awareness to the 1 or 2 people out of a hundred that don't already know how much these images are altered, I guess that's a good thing.

Personally, I can't STAND what has become the norm for model retouching. Who in the world thinks it's attractive to replace skin with blurry plastic looking material. Unless the person is hideous, I typically prefer the before shot.

I concur with you Randy, I do not like the plasticky look that seems to pass for re-touching these days.

The link does not work for me.

I suppose this is the same thing that was going the circles and being posted a month ago.

A software program to rate the level of photoshopping.

Like I wrote in the previous thread, it is a useless bit of vaporware at this time. And just as useless if it ever gets written.

It is only getting the press because the anti-Photoshopping thing is gaining traction now. It's all based on the ugly-girl-has-low-self-esteem-and-deserves-special-treatment sentiments that our culture encourages.

To which I said and say, "Get over it.". It's not my fault or concern that you are unattractive, just like its not your fault or concern that I am not rich or athletic. I got over that when I was 18, grow up and get over it already.

When men complain about women's unnatural or unrealistic expectations on men, they are labeled cry babies and whiners. When women do it, they get to start magazines, television shows, and cable channels.

I've seen a very impressive forensic analysis of manipulated photos and am convinced that no matter how good I might be as a retoucher, and no matter how convincing my work may be to all who view it, none of my work would stand up to the scrutiny of a skilled forensic analysis. I've always been very honest in my retouching work and will turn down certain retouching requests I consider deceptive/unethical (e.g. straightening the roof of a building for a real estate listing). However, I think this is a compelling warning that we CAN be caught in our work. Keep your work ethical. ;-)

I doubt that there's anyone out there with more than half a brain who believes that portraits are not retouched, particularly celebrity shots. Even before digital photography and Photoshop, portrait photographers routinely retouched their shots to make them more flattering to the subject. And the question is.....who cares? If a photo is created to please the subject, or simply as a work of art and nothing else, does it matter what was done to get it there?

On the other hand, as Sarah pointed out, there are areas where ethics do matter, marketing being one of them, others including photojournalism, politics, and criminal investigation forensics. I'm sure there are others, and gray areas as well. But, again, manipulation is nothing new, as you can see here:

http://www.fourandsix.com/photo-tampering-history/