The Hacker Factor Blog

My father hates the word "fake". Call it faux, counterfeit, forgery, unauthentic, bogus, imitation, pseudo, artificial, phony, mock, misrepresentation, or fictional... but not fake. Unlike those other synonyms, "fake" does not provide any context. For example, is a "fake coin" fake because it is counterfeit (made to look like a valuable coin), an imitation (like Monopoly money), fictional (a coin that does not exist), or a misrepresentation (like a Canadian penny used instead of an American penny). As my father puts it, "fake" is a fake word since it has no descriptive value.

What's Real?

With digital image analysis, there is a wide range between the definition of a "real" image and one that is "fake". For my own definition, I use an overly conservative view. An image is "real" if it is in the same form that was created in the camera. While cropping and limited resaving is acceptable, tweaking colors or doing any kind of drawing (including spot or specular removal) is an "enhancement". In contrast, an image that never came from a camera or scanner is "computer graphics" (CG). It is not uncommon to have an enhanced CG image -- first it was rendered, then it was enhanced through a graphics program like Photoshop or Gimp.

This strict definition does have some problems. For example, is red-eye reduction an enhancement? It depends... if it is done in the camera then it may not be. The same goes for auto color correction, motion stabilization, and even some digital zoom. It all depends on how it is done. Most cameras implement digital zoom by hyper-focusing on a region of the CCD or CMOS sensor and adjusting the image scale. This makes the zoom part of the capture process. However, a few cameras actually enhance the zoomed image after it is captured. (Perhaps that is why the Kodak CX7530 calls it an "advanced digital zoom".)

Other Definitions

My definitions for real, CG, and enhanced are certainly not what other people use. Most mass media outlets permit some amount of minor enhancement, as long as it does not alter the meaning of the image. This could include the removal of dust, dirt or specular reflections, some cropping, some recoloring, and possibly the removal of minor distractions (e.g., a power line). The basic rule of thumb: if it is something that can be easily accomplished in a dark room and does not change the meaning of the image, then it is permitted. Anything else changes the photo from "real" to "enhanced".

As a few examples of these rules:

• Associated Press. The AP Guidelines are pretty standard for the media.
  

  AP pictures must always tell the truth. We do not alter or manipulate the content of a photograph in any way.
  
  The content of a photograph must not be altered in PhotoShop or by any other means. No element should be digitally added to or subtracted from any photograph. The faces or identities of individuals must not be obscured by PhotoShop or any other editing tool. Only retouching or the use of the cloning tool to eliminate dust and scratches are acceptable.
  
  Minor adjustments in PhotoShop are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, and normal toning and color adjustments that should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction (analogous to the burning and dodging often used in darkroom processing of images) and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning.

  
  
  
• Reuters. After getting burned by the Adnan Hajj scandal, they revised their requirements and published them. In general, the rules sound a lot like the AP:
  

  THE RULES ARE:
  No additions or deletions to the subject matter of the original image.
  (thus changing the original content and journalistic integrity of an image)
  
  No excessive lightening, darkening or blurring of the image.
  (thus misleading the viewer by disguising certain elements of an image)
  
  No excessive colour manipulation.
  (thus dramatically changing the original lighting conditions of an image)
  
  THE GUIDELINES ARE:
  
  Only minor Photoshop work should be performed in the field.
  (Especially from laptops). We require only cropping, sizing and levels with resolution set to 300dpi. Where possible, ask your regional or global picture desks to perform any required further Photo-shopping on their calibrated hi-resolution screens. This typically entails lightening/darkening, sharpening, removal
  of dust and basic colour correction.
  
  When working under prime conditions, some further minor Photo-shopping (performed within the above rules) is acceptable.
  
  This includes basic colour correction, subtle lightening/darkening of zones, sharpening, removal of dust and other minor adjustments that fall within the above rules. Reuters recommendations on the technical settings for these adjustments appear below. The level of Photoshop privileges granted to photographers should be at the discretion of the Chief/Senior Photographers within the above guidelines. All photographers should understand the limitations of their laptop screens and their working environments.

  
  
  
• Getty Images. The Getty requirements are even more substantial. Besides specifying file formats, they also identify which camera functions can and cannot be used, and even have a list of approved cameras.
  
  
• NPPA. The National Press Photographers Association takes a more vague stance by leaving the concepts of deception up to the artist. From their Code of Ethics, bullet 6:
  

  Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.

  
  
  
• Playboy. Playboy is rumored to have the strictest requirements of all -- they forbid anything beyond cropping and minor color correction for print. I say "rumored" because I cannot find their written guidelines. However, every playboy image I have analyzed (I love my job) has had no indication of digital enhancement. The recent posting at Photoshop Disasters appears to be real (woman and motorcycle appear real, but the background cover was cut out and text was added), and the missing belly button picture was a photoshop job but was not created by Playboy.

When photos are sold to media outlets, they may then undergo additional modifications (cropping, scaling, more recoloring or editing). While most respectable news outlets try to keep changes beyond cropping and scaling to a minimum, other outlets (FOX News, any advertising agency) have no problem with more drastic enhancements. Again: it all depends on what they deem acceptable.

Of course, virtually all photos undergo some kind of enhancement prior to publishing. The most common are cropping, scaling (to fit on the page), and recoloring to match the printed media. (Ink's yellow does not look like pixel yellow, so they adjust the colors in the image so it prints correctly.)

Applying Real

Using these definitions, I recently questioned a few finalists of the Smithsonian Magazine photo contest. As a result, three finalists were disqualified for overly manipulating their images.

I had identified one of the photographers a possible controversial figure because -- even before my accusation -- he was defending the image and claiming it was real. Since being disqualified, Thamer Al-Tassan has responded to my blog, identified his manipulation list, and offered to share the originals with me.

In his response, he wrote:

To be more clear, here are the edits I did on the photo using Photoshop:

Rotation
Crop
Increased Saturation
Increased/Decreased Levels
Increased Contrast
Dodging
Burning
Slight increase in sharpness

But as I always assure everyone, the reflection is 100% real.

While any one of these manipulations could be easily done in a darkroom, the combination is definitely non-trivial. (Increase and decrease color levels? And dodging and burning? Not at the same time in a darkroom!)

Al-Tassan repeatedly says that the image is a real reflection. However, I've never questioned the reflection. I questioned whether the image itself was real. In this case, the image is certainly not "100% real" as he claims. Instead, the image is a digital manipulation -- a caricature -- based on a reflection. But it is not a true reflection.

Al-Tassan offered to share the original photo with me and I accepted his offer. However, he has not provided the original for analysis. Instead, he wrote a blog entry (Google translation from Arabic) and calls me "Dr. Empty" (an insult). In his blog, he includes an alternate reflection photo as a "before" image -- this is a wonderful photograph and appears to be unmanipulated. Converting the real reflection to the final output requires so much modification, that I am certain that the AP, Reuters, Getty, and Playboy would reject it as an overly enhanced digital image.

With regards to "Dr. Empty": He can insult me all he wants. Insults don't make me wrong. By his own admission, the image has been significantly modified digitally. This is not a real reflection. This is a digital enhancement likely based on a real reflection. (And actually, I'm growing fond of this new nickname. "Dr. Empty" -- it's much better than the "Dr. Evil" name that Tessa gave me.)


The digital image analysis problem is much deeper than just identifying manipulations. You also need to identify who made them, how they were made, and whether the edits are acceptable.

Update 2009-04-19
The photographer just sent me the following email:

Hello,

You know what, lets just agree to disagree. You'll never be convinced that it is a real reflection and I will always disagree with your analysis. I was honest in writing my editing steps I did in Photoshop but you kept digging deeper and depending on online translators. That image you saw in my blog post is not a "Before" image that was used to produce the final Eiffel Puddle Reflection photo as you claim, its just an example of a reflection. Like I always say, I saw the reflection on the ground and took a photo of it. Then I placed that photo in Photoshop and applied the editing steps I mentioned to bring out the colors. Obviously after saying all this you still have doubts about the photo. I don't mind that and I will not argue anymore because I already mentioned everything. As I said, lets just agree to disagree.

Fair enough?

Goodbye...

- Thamer

For clarity:

• I never said that he provided the original as a 'before' image. I said that he provided an alternate photo as an analog to providing the original image.
  
• I have never questioned whether the original photo was a reflection.
  
• I do not disagree that he applied the manipulation steps he listed. However, I strongly doubt that the original looked as bright and sharp and crisp as the final version. The amount of photoshopping altered the meaning of the image and it is no longer a "real" photo. It is a cartoon based on a real photo. Specifically, the original likely "looked" like a reflection in a puddle. The final image was modified to shock the viewer when realizing that it is a reflection. The meaning changed due to the photoshop edits.
  
• I used Google Translate to read his web pages because he wrote his blog entries in Arabic. Although Arabic is one of the 20 most common languages in the world, it is only about a third as common as English. Thus, I fully expect the vast majority of Internet users to use a translator when reading his blog entries. As translators go, Google's Arabic-to-English support is very good compared to other translators. In this case, the word "فاضي" really does translate as "Empty".

Finally, he wrote, "you still have doubts about the photo". I have no doubts about the derivation of this image. There was a reflection. It was photographed. It was digitally manipulated beyond was is reasonably expected for a real photograph, and then presented as if it were not manipulated in a contest that explicitly said no digital manipulations. After being identified as a digital manipulation, it was disqualified. I have no doubts.