Impact by poising or impact by hap-chance

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

41 minutes ago, lct said:

Sure but you were not staging there were you. You shot different moments in the same or different ways and you chose your favorite image...

Yes, you are absolutely correct, lct; that was the point I was trying to make.

The scene wasn't staged nor any of the 'cast' subsequently asked to pose. There was no singular 'Decisive Moment' but three individual decisive moments from which I could then make my selection.

At the same time, however, neither was the 'final image' captured quite by chance. On the contrary; the 'feel' of the image was managed very deliberately and the tripping of the shutter at these three decisive moments was very carefully executed(*). It was 'only' the random passing-through by members of the public which was at all open to chance.

Philip.

* EDIT : Four if we count the 'empty' frame.

Edited April 12, 2022 by pippy

[LocalHero1953]

Does anyone know if it is possible to 'fake' a raw file? I remember the furore about the 2013 World Press Photo award, which led (I believe) to major competitions requiring you to submit raw images to 'prove' images have not been manipulated. Could one (in 2022) manipulate a photo and hide the traces in a raw file? 

[pippy]

4 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Does anyone know if it is possible to 'fake' a raw file?...

Good question.

Not to the best of my knowledge, Paul, although perhaps some computer whizz-person might know how to reverse-engineer all the RAW data to cover up some attempted fraud?

Philip.

Edited April 12, 2022 by pippy

[pgk]

7 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Does anyone know if it is possible to 'fake' a raw file?

Almost certainly, although I don't know that you can call a modified RAW file a 'fake'. I believe that Police forensic photographers use software which ensures the integrity ofimage  files from when they are taken onwards, but I've never looked into the detail of how it works.

[LocalHero1953]

Just now, pgk said:

Almost certainly, although I don't know that you can call a modified RAW file a 'fake'. I believe that Police forensic photographers use software which ensures the integrity ofimage  files from when they are taken onwards, but I've never looked into the detail of how it works.

My question was more about whether it is possible to edit an image then save so it looks like an unedited raw file. I suppose the answer is probably 'yes', but it might take a lot of specialised knowledge and software.

[pgk]

6 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

My question was more about whether it is possible to edit an image then save so it looks like an unedited raw file. I suppose the answer is probably 'yes', but it might take a lot of specialised knowledge and software.

Well you can open JPEGs as 'RAW' files in Photoshop from Bridge so I imagine that it wouldn't be too difficult to create a file which RAW converters accept as a 'RAW' file whether it is or not.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When one remove opcodes from a dng file it becomes another dng file with typically more distortion.

[adan]

RE: off-topic subject of fake "raw."

I am not aware of a way to save a non-raw image as a .DNG or raw in any case. Except to make a print and rephotograph/scan it with a digital camera or scanner set to raw capture. At least not with general-use software. Who knows what the CIA can do?

It's possible to convert, say, a, Nikon .NEF or Canon CR2 to a .DNG - but in theory the whole point of that is to still have the exact same original SOOC data, just in a new "package or envelope."

Keep in mind that manipulations of raw files in most usage does not change the original pixels captured. It is "non-destructive" in that sense.

It just changes the .xmp data - a file record of "what settings were last set for this picture." White balance, sharpening, dust removal or other retouching: anything that can be adjusted in LR or Camera Raw or C1, etc. It is a record of all changes made, (a list of "things that were adjusted") as of the last time the file was manipulated and the settings changed, and the file saved.

In Adobe software, the .xmp data for most raw formats is saved as an external "sidecar" file. Usually "hidden" unless one enables "show hidden files" in the catalog view. Send someone a raw file without its sidecar .xmp file as well, and it reverts to the "default, unadjusted" SOOC picture values.

The .DNG format, as an Adobe invention, includes the .xmp data right in the .DNG envelope/metadata. So it remains as a "fingerprint" of what was done to the picture in post-processing - so long as it remains a .DNG and is not saved as a non-raw format (jpg, png, TIFF, .psd, etc.).

The other secure-picture software types that law enforcement uses, I believe, use a "check-sum" method. They can tell if even just one "1" or "0" bit, in the millions within the file, is different from what came directly from the camera. Requires special camera firmware to record the check-sum in the metadata when the picture is made.

Canon .CR2 raw images in Adobe Bridge "catalog"- with "show hidden files" turned on.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Here's what the contents of a .xmp record look like - the current "state' of the image" to be applied to what one sees in Adobe Camera Raw or similar. Including the last date the image settings were changed. "crs" = "Camera Raw Settings."

<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 5.5-c002 1.148022, 2012/07/15-18:06:45        ">
 <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
  <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
    xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/"
    xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/"
    xmlns:aux="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/aux/"
    xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/"
    xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/"
    xmlns:xmpMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/"
    xmlns:stEvt="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceEvent#"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:crs="http://ns.adobe.com/camera-raw-settings/1.0/"
   tiff:Make="Canon"
   tiff:Model="Canon EOS 5D Mark II"
   tiff:Orientation="1"
   exif:ExifVersion="0221"
   exif:ExposureTime="1/3200"
   exif:ShutterSpeedValue="11643856/1000000"
   exif:FNumber="56/10"
   exif:ApertureValue="4970854/1000000"
   exif:ExposureProgram="3"
   exif:ExposureBiasValue="-1/1"
   exif:MaxApertureValue="5/1"
   exif:MeteringMode="5"
   exif:FocalLength="400/1"
   exif:CustomRendered="0"
   exif:ExposureMode="0"
   exif:WhiteBalance="0"
   exif:SceneCaptureType="0"
   exif:FocalPlaneXResolution="5616000/1459"
   exif:FocalPlaneYResolution="3744000/958"
   exif:FocalPlaneResolutionUnit="2"
   exif:DateTimeOriginal="2016-01-22T13:09:59.33"
   aux:SerialNumber="320100276"
   aux:LensInfo="400/1 400/1 0/0 0/0"
   aux:Lens="EF400mm f/5.6L USM"
   aux:LensID="172"
   aux:ImageNumber="0"
   aux:ApproximateFocusDistance="766/10"
   aux:FlashCompensation="0/1"
   aux:Firmware="2.1.2"
   xmp:ModifyDate="2016-01-22T13:09:59.33"
   xmp:CreateDate="2016-01-22T13:09:59.33"
   xmp:Rating="0"
   xmp:MetadataDate="2016-04-05T00:29:01-06:00"
   photoshop:DateCreated="2016-01-22T13:09:59.33"
   photoshop:SidecarForExtension="CR2"
   photoshop:EmbeddedXMPDigest="00000000000000000000000000000000"
   xmpMM:DocumentID="4A9EB333E18D8C4454D3D96202B0791A"
   xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID="4A9EB333E18D8C4454D3D96202B0791A"
   xmpMM:InstanceID="xmp.iid:737ea977-6cd5-4e0e-a1b6-91627638131a"
   dc:format="image/x-canon-cr2"
   crs:RawFileName="IMG_9884.CR2"
   crs:Version="8.3"
   crs:ProcessVersion="6.7"
   crs:WhiteBalance="Custom"
   crs:AutoWhiteVersion="134348800"
   crs:Temperature="4900"
   crs:Tint="-14"
   crs:Saturation="0"
   crs:Sharpness="0"
   crs:LuminanceSmoothing="0"
   crs:ColorNoiseReduction="7"
   crs:VignetteAmount="0"
   crs:ShadowTint="0"
   crs:RedHue="+18"
   crs:RedSaturation="+50"
   crs:GreenHue="+41"
   crs:GreenSaturation="+14"
   crs:BlueHue="+13"
   crs:BlueSaturation="-20"
   crs:Vibrance="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentRed="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentOrange="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentYellow="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentGreen="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentAqua="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentBlue="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentPurple="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentMagenta="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentRed="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentPurple="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentMagenta="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentRed="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentOrange="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentYellow="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentGreen="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentAqua="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentBlue="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentPurple="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentMagenta="0"
   crs:SplitToningShadowHue="0"
   crs:SplitToningShadowSaturation="0"
   crs:SplitToningHighlightHue="0"
   crs:SplitToningHighlightSaturation="0"
   crs:SplitToningBalance="0"
   crs:ParametricShadows="0"
   crs:ParametricDarks="0"
   crs:ParametricLights="0"
   crs:ParametricHighlights="0"
   crs:ParametricShadowSplit="25"
   crs:ParametricMidtoneSplit="50"
   crs:ParametricHighlightSplit="75"
   crs:SharpenRadius="+1.0"
   crs:SharpenDetail="25"
   crs:SharpenEdgeMasking="0"
   crs:PostCropVignetteAmount="0"
   crs:GrainAmount="0"
   crs:ColorNoiseReductionDetail="50"
   crs:ColorNoiseReductionSmoothness="50"
   crs:LensProfileEnable="0"
   crs:LensManualDistortionAmount="0"
   crs:PerspectiveVertical="0"
   crs:PerspectiveHorizontal="0"
   crs:PerspectiveRotate="0.0"
   crs:PerspectiveScale="100"
   crs:PerspectiveAspect="0"
   crs:PerspectiveUpright="0"
   crs:AutoLateralCA="1"
   crs:Exposure2012="+1.35"
   crs:Contrast2012="+18"
   crs:Highlights2012="0"
   crs:Shadows2012="0"
   crs:Whites2012="+24"
   crs:Blacks2012="-51"
   crs:Clarity2012="0"
   crs:DefringePurpleAmount="0"
   crs:DefringePurpleHueLo="30"
   crs:DefringePurpleHueHi="70"
   crs:DefringeGreenAmount="0"
   crs:DefringeGreenHueLo="40"
   crs:DefringeGreenHueHi="60"
   crs:ConvertToGrayscale="False"
   crs:ToneCurveName2012="Custom"
   crs:CameraProfile="Camera Faithful"
   crs:CameraProfileDigest="DEB0ACB5BC4923675001095CB2D21DC4"
   crs:LensProfileSetup="LensDefaults"
   crs:HasSettings="True"
   crs:HasCrop="False"
   crs:AlreadyApplied="False">
   <exif:ISOSpeedRatings>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li>640</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </exif:ISOSpeedRatings>
   <exif:Flash
    exif:Fired="False"
    exif:Return="0"
    exif:Mode="2"
    exif:Function="False"
    exif:RedEyeMode="False"/>
   <xmpMM:History>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li
      stEvt:action="saved"
      stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:354137e4-9f67-4870-a0b8-d84bbdbb0ead"
      stEvt:when="2016-01-23T12:29:12-07:00"
      stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.3 (Macintosh)"
      stEvt:changed="/metadata"/>
     <rdf:li
      stEvt:action="saved"
      stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:737ea977-6cd5-4e0e-a1b6-91627638131a"
      stEvt:when="2016-04-05T00:29:01-06:00"
      stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.3 (Macintosh)"
      stEvt:changed="/metadata"/>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </xmpMM:History>
   <crs:ToneCurvePV2012>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li>
     <rdf:li>130, 117</rdf:li>
     <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </crs:ToneCurvePV2012>
   <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Red>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li>
     <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Red>
   <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Green>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li>
     <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Green>
   <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Blue>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li>
     <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Blue>
  </rdf:Description>
 </rdf:RDF>
</x:xmpmeta>

 

:

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by adan

[lct]

21 minutes ago, adan said:

RE: off-topic subject of fake "raw."

I am not aware of a way to save a non-raw image as a .DNG or raw in any case. Except to make a print and rephotograph/scan it with a digital camera or scanner set to raw capture. At least not with general-use software. Who knows what the CIA can do?

It's possible to convert, say, a, Nikon .NEF or Canon CR2 to a .DNG - but in theory the whole point of that is to still have the exact same original SOOC data, just in a new "package or envelope."

Keep in mind that manipulations of raw files in most usage does not change the original pixels captured. It is "non-destructive" in that sense.

It just changes the .xmp data - a file record of "what settings were last set for this picture." White balance, sharpening, dust removal or other retouching: anything that can be adjusted in LR or Camera Raw or C1, etc. It is a record of all changes made, (a list of "things that were adjusted") as of the last time the file was manipulated and the settings changed, and the file saved.

In Adobe software, the .xmp data for most raw formats is saved as an external "sidecar" file. Usually "hidden" unless one enables "show hidden files" in the catalog view. Send someone a raw file without its sidecar .xmp file as well, and it reverts to the "default, unadjusted" SOOC picture values.

The .DNG format, as an Adobe invention, includes the .xmp data right in the .DNG envelope/metadata. So it remains as a "fingerprint" of what was done to the picture in post-processing - so long as it remains a .DNG and is not saved as a non-raw format (jpg, png, TIFF, .psd, etc.).

The other secure-picture software types that law enforcement uses, I believe, use a "check-sum" method. They can tell if even just one "1" or "0" bit, in the millions within the file, is different from what came directly from the camera. Requires special camera firmware to record the check-sum in the metadata when the picture is made.

Canon .CR2 raw images in Adobe Bridge "catalog"- with "show hidden files" turned on.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Here's what the contents of a .xmp record look like - the current "state' of the image" to be applied to what one sees in Adobe Camera Raw or similar. Including the last date the image settings were changed. "crs" = "Camera Raw Settings."

<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 5.5-c002 1.148022, 2012/07/15-18:06:45        ">
 <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
  <rdf:Description rdf:about=""
    xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/"
    xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/"
    xmlns:aux="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/aux/"
    xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/"
    xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/"
    xmlns:xmpMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/"
    xmlns:stEvt="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceEvent#"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:crs="http://ns.adobe.com/camera-raw-settings/1.0/"
   tiff:Make="Canon"
   tiff:Model="Canon EOS 5D Mark II"
   tiff:Orientation="1"
   exif:ExifVersion="0221"
   exif:ExposureTime="1/3200"
   exif:ShutterSpeedValue="11643856/1000000"
   exif:FNumber="56/10"
   exif:ApertureValue="4970854/1000000"
   exif:ExposureProgram="3"
   exif:ExposureBiasValue="-1/1"
   exif:MaxApertureValue="5/1"
   exif:MeteringMode="5"
   exif:FocalLength="400/1"
   exif:CustomRendered="0"
   exif:ExposureMode="0"
   exif:WhiteBalance="0"
   exif:SceneCaptureType="0"
   exif:FocalPlaneXResolution="5616000/1459"
   exif:FocalPlaneYResolution="3744000/958"
   exif:FocalPlaneResolutionUnit="2"
   exif:DateTimeOriginal="2016-01-22T13:09:59.33"
   aux:SerialNumber="320100276"
   aux:LensInfo="400/1 400/1 0/0 0/0"
   aux:Lens="EF400mm f/5.6L USM"
   aux:LensID="172"
   aux:ImageNumber="0"
   aux:ApproximateFocusDistance="766/10"
   aux:FlashCompensation="0/1"
   aux:Firmware="2.1.2"
   xmp:ModifyDate="2016-01-22T13:09:59.33"
   xmp:CreateDate="2016-01-22T13:09:59.33"
   xmp:Rating="0"
   xmp:MetadataDate="2016-04-05T00:29:01-06:00"
   photoshop:DateCreated="2016-01-22T13:09:59.33"
   photoshop:SidecarForExtension="CR2"
   photoshop:EmbeddedXMPDigest="00000000000000000000000000000000"
   xmpMM:DocumentID="4A9EB333E18D8C4454D3D96202B0791A"
   xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID="4A9EB333E18D8C4454D3D96202B0791A"
   xmpMM:InstanceID="xmp.iid:737ea977-6cd5-4e0e-a1b6-91627638131a"
   dc:format="image/x-canon-cr2"
   crs:RawFileName="IMG_9884.CR2"
   crs:Version="8.3"
   crs:ProcessVersion="6.7"
   crs:WhiteBalance="Custom"
   crs:AutoWhiteVersion="134348800"
   crs:Temperature="4900"
   crs:Tint="-14"
   crs:Saturation="0"
   crs:Sharpness="0"
   crs:LuminanceSmoothing="0"
   crs:ColorNoiseReduction="7"
   crs:VignetteAmount="0"
   crs:ShadowTint="0"
   crs:RedHue="+18"
   crs:RedSaturation="+50"
   crs:GreenHue="+41"
   crs:GreenSaturation="+14"
   crs:BlueHue="+13"
   crs:BlueSaturation="-20"
   crs:Vibrance="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentRed="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentOrange="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentYellow="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentGreen="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentAqua="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentBlue="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentPurple="0"
   crs:HueAdjustmentMagenta="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentRed="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentPurple="0"
   crs:SaturationAdjustmentMagenta="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentRed="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentOrange="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentYellow="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentGreen="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentAqua="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentBlue="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentPurple="0"
   crs:LuminanceAdjustmentMagenta="0"
   crs:SplitToningShadowHue="0"
   crs:SplitToningShadowSaturation="0"
   crs:SplitToningHighlightHue="0"
   crs:SplitToningHighlightSaturation="0"
   crs:SplitToningBalance="0"
   crs:ParametricShadows="0"
   crs:ParametricDarks="0"
   crs:ParametricLights="0"
   crs:ParametricHighlights="0"
   crs:ParametricShadowSplit="25"
   crs:ParametricMidtoneSplit="50"
   crs:ParametricHighlightSplit="75"
   crs:SharpenRadius="+1.0"
   crs:SharpenDetail="25"
   crs:SharpenEdgeMasking="0"
   crs:PostCropVignetteAmount="0"
   crs:GrainAmount="0"
   crs:ColorNoiseReductionDetail="50"
   crs:ColorNoiseReductionSmoothness="50"
   crs:LensProfileEnable="0"
   crs:LensManualDistortionAmount="0"
   crs:PerspectiveVertical="0"
   crs:PerspectiveHorizontal="0"
   crs:PerspectiveRotate="0.0"
   crs:PerspectiveScale="100"
   crs:PerspectiveAspect="0"
   crs:PerspectiveUpright="0"
   crs:AutoLateralCA="1"
   crs:Exposure2012="+1.35"
   crs:Contrast2012="+18"
   crs:Highlights2012="0"
   crs:Shadows2012="0"
   crs:Whites2012="+24"
   crs:Blacks2012="-51"
   crs:Clarity2012="0"
   crs:DefringePurpleAmount="0"
   crs:DefringePurpleHueLo="30"
   crs:DefringePurpleHueHi="70"
   crs:DefringeGreenAmount="0"
   crs:DefringeGreenHueLo="40"
   crs:DefringeGreenHueHi="60"
   crs:ConvertToGrayscale="False"
   crs:ToneCurveName2012="Custom"
   crs:CameraProfile="Camera Faithful"
   crs:CameraProfileDigest="DEB0ACB5BC4923675001095CB2D21DC4"
   crs:LensProfileSetup="LensDefaults"
   crs:HasSettings="True"
   crs:HasCrop="False"
   crs:AlreadyApplied="False">
   <exif:ISOSpeedRatings>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li>640</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </exif:ISOSpeedRatings>
   <exif:Flash
    exif:Fired="False"
    exif:Return="0"
    exif:Mode="2"
    exif:Function="False"
    exif:RedEyeMode="False"/>
   <xmpMM:History>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li
      stEvt:action="saved"
      stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:354137e4-9f67-4870-a0b8-d84bbdbb0ead"
      stEvt:when="2016-01-23T12:29:12-07:00"
      stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.3 (Macintosh)"
      stEvt:changed="/metadata"/>
     <rdf:li
      stEvt:action="saved"
      stEvt:instanceID="xmp.iid:737ea977-6cd5-4e0e-a1b6-91627638131a"
      stEvt:when="2016-04-05T00:29:01-06:00"
      stEvt:softwareAgent="Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.3 (Macintosh)"
      stEvt:changed="/metadata"/>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </xmpMM:History>
   <crs:ToneCurvePV2012>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li>
     <rdf:li>130, 117</rdf:li>
     <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </crs:ToneCurvePV2012>
   <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Red>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li>
     <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Red>
   <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Green>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li>
     <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Green>
   <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Blue>
    <rdf:Seq>
     <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li>
     <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li>
    </rdf:Seq>
   </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Blue>
  </rdf:Description>
 </rdf:RDF>
</x:xmpmeta>

 

:

 

Interesting thank you. What happens when i remove opcodes from a dng file then? It remains a dng file with opcodes removed and there is no way to recover those opcodes, they are gone forever... or not? Just curious.

[adan]

No clue.

[lmans]

12 hours ago, pgk said:

For a start you need to define 'posing'. The very presence of a camera can alter behaviour. Are images where the subject is unaware of the camera unposed or are images where the camera is evident to subjects who are in the middle of carrying on with what they are doing 'posed'. I would suggest that there isa whole rrange of scenarios from the caught unaware to the suject who shws off and everything in between. People have recreated many photographs (kiss in Times Square) and how do we feel about them - a tribute, valid image, rip-off, etc.. Trying to put photographs in genre and sub-genre boxes is IMO, an exercise in futility because there will always be exceptions.

My whole point is that many times we look at great photographs and wonder , "gees....why can't I do it? " But we forget or, are not really aware that many times many great photographs are essentially "choreographed or orchestrated out" so the finished product has been essentially posed. The photographer doesn't come out and state such per se' but they essentially imply (by not stating otherwise) that the photograph was a one shot, non-stage nor posed...photo. But that isn't fair because it wasn't. 

I see awards given to documentary photographers who 'do' stage and pose and orchestrate their images. They find a subject or situation and orchestrate it over and over again by taking images and telling the person how to stand or what to hold and how to hold it and to frown or smile or or or or ...... Yes, they do so to put forth some visual impact that most likely represents something that occurs on a natural basis. But there is a difference between 'a natural basis' and one that is posed or orchestrated. They are simply not the same.

Perhaps all of us should carry in our hip pockets a 'model' to pose for us, or have extra cash on hand to pay for whomever we are looking at to shoot, to replay the situation time and time again until my photo comes out just right. Or pay them to come back to my studio so I can instruct them on how to pose and what expression to have etc etc so I can take that "perfect' award winning shot. 

So I continue to state...(whether it was a name I might have called out or not) that many images are just not 'one shot' ...here it is. Rather many are staged in one way or another. 

 

Watch this documentary on Garbage dump workers in Brazil....a perfect example of photography that was done within a studio, or posed shots, and yet the photographer is given great honor. I am not putting down his work, ...for goodness knows, it is excellent....but the images are planned, orchestrated, posed.... just to provide the perfect shot. Not at all a natural process ..... 

https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/documentaries/waste-land/

Edited April 12, 2022 by lmans

[lmans]

Here is another example of one and I know I have seen multiple examples...

https://www.history.com/news/how-photography-defined-the-great-depression

This one shows a group of photographers during the 1930's attempting to essentially 'sell the public' on government policy occurring in the United States to combat the depression of this era. Most, if not all of these 'hired' photographers were using their photographs as propaganda of sorts by the government but many have gone down in history as 'great images' .... yes, technically they are great images and shot to provide huge impact. But, how many if not all were posed or staged? I imagine most.... 

If their intent was that of propaganda, then yes....they were successful. But there should be no accolades given to such photographers for being great beyond that of promoting a posed/staged situation. 

In reference to the 'raising of the flag' after the hard won battle of Iwo Jima is another example I will continue to bring up. The men who originally raised the flag had either a rotten picture of them or none at all, (I don't know), but later on a photographer came in and used a entirely new set of men to raise the flag so he could get the perfect shot. Wow, what a shot, nice job.....  Funny, that the men who raised the 'second flag' and captured on film hours after the battle were then tromped around the country as hero's and given parades in their honor etc. They felt guilty for they were 'used'.  And the real heroes who did so, were forgotten. Nice job of photography stating it like it was. 

Again my point is..... if you have posed/orchestrated/ methods to capture your images, ....state so. There is a difference between what occurs natural and what is staged. I am not against staged photo's but I would like to see in the credits of these documentaries or images something to the effect that photo's were captured in real / natural time, or were they posed for, orchestrated, etc ... A simply acknowledgement one way or the other should be appropriate. 

My photo's are not staged....they are not perfect... but they are mine captured in real life. 

Edited April 12, 2022 by lmans

[adan]

2 hours ago, lmans said:

Perhaps all of us should carry in our hip pockets a 'model' to pose for us....

Reportedly, some National Geographic photographers once carried a red shirt and jacket in their equipment cases.

Just so they could pose a "person in red" in the foreground to provide scale and contrast in scenic overviews.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_shirt_(photography)

But really, that was a different era, when NG would also light interiors with multiple flashes*, shoot to a script of important scenes that had to be captured for a story, and were taking a dozen suitcases of gear into the field.

Essentially, they were working as "commercial" photographers selling "the human experience."

By sometime in the 1970s, they began to shoot more candid, unposed picture stories - most of the time.

____________________

*so-called Milwaukee Journal lighting, since many of the practitioners came from the MJ newspaper staff to the Geographic. Four synced flash guns, mounted high and at 90° around a room. Thus giving a key light, a fill light, and 1-2 "rim lights," no matter where and how the photographer moved around in the space.

[lmans]

I believe you Adan..... I am sure that is correct for Nat Geo, Life, and just about any magazine dependent on stories / images in any country globally. But this is the sad thing that all of a sudden hits. As a kid I would pour over National Geographic and Life and Look ..etc...and I truly wondered in utter awe 'how did that photographer get that photo'. Well, now we know.

And so now, my respect for those photographers has been whittled away. Their photos were simultaneously  'real and fake'. Real people, real happenings, real situations....but the image itself was 'played to us viewers', it was orchestrated to fit, no more so than a dance on a broadway stage. If I just could look at it from a technical point of view I have nothing but admiration for them for photography in itself, the image, would be technically difficult. But I don't view images from a technical perspective.....I always view photos from a 'real life situation', and it is here they failed us. 

Others out there I am sure fail to actually view an image for what the real situation is telling us and they look at the solely the technical end of things. Fine..... either way, my point is the photographer and galleries and magazines and even your local Photo contest should have a line of delineation that separates the two camps. 

[pgk]

6 hours ago, lmans said:

...and I truly wondered in utter awe 'how did that photographer get that photo'.

In nature photography there is a phenomenon known as 'cheque book photography' which is when someonecan afford to get or be taken somewhere with all the gear, and positioned in the right spot at the right time of day to take photographs of wildlife - sometimes very good. The problem is that whether we 'see' an image in reality, as we live and understand how to take it and do so, or whether we engineer an image (which might be near identical), or whether we put ourselves in positions (perhaps by wealth) to take photographs, the final image can look the same. Nothing really new and there has never really been a solution to differentiating such images. Perhaps we ought to invent one; a bit like original paintings.....

But I won't hold my breath while someone does.

[250swb]

I recommend the book 'Magnum Contact Sheets' which answers a lot of questions about how photographers work. 

I think it's safe to say Bresson didn't ask people to go back and do it again, but he did shoot a lot from the point where he saw something about to happen to the point after it had happened, and somewhere in there would be 'the' shot. And it's more or less the same with all the great documentary photojournalists, there are usually many alternative shots of the same event. For example Bresson's famous photo of the boy on crutches (Seville 1933) hobbling away from being aggressively mocked is followed by fifteen more photos that show he was just playing with his friends. Eve Arnold took 29 close up photos of Joan Crawford putting on her make-up, she refined and refined what she was shooting until 'the' photograph emerges towards the end of the sequence. It's a big thick heavy book, but what comes across almost universally is that far, far film more was shot than many people imagine and that decisive moments are about work, work, and more work, along with a dash of inspiration.

[charlesphoto99]

17 hours ago, lmans said:

 

 

Watch this documentary on Garbage dump workers in Brazil....a perfect example of photography that was done within a studio, or posed shots, and yet the photographer is given great honor. I am not putting down his work, ...for goodness knows, it is excellent....but the images are planned, orchestrated, posed.... just to provide the perfect shot. Not at all a natural process ..... 

https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/documentaries/waste-land/

You've brought up some terrible examples to try and make a point - it's almost like you didn't watch or read about any of them. Vik Muniz is not a photographer, but a multi-media artist (paint and murals primarily) who uses some photography as a starting off point but is not considered a photographer by any stretch, esp not a photojournalist beholden to some standard. 

The FSA did pose many of their subjects, but there's a long history of documentarians posing subjects, up to that point in 1932 the most famous being August Sander in Germany - the most current being every day in the NYT. It's disingenuous to call their work propaganda or think that there was something nefarious in what they were doing. Your definition of what a portrait is supposed to be doesn't negate the importance and value of many posed portraits taken by famous photographers over the years (think Arbus) or working pj's in order to depict a subject in a story they couldn't otherwise. 

Read 'Flags of our Fathers' for the full story on the Iwo Jima flag raising. Yes, the flag raisers were ruthlessly exploited for war bonds with little regards to their mental well being, but the actual flag raising was not posed by the photographer - the commander wanted a more prominent flag raised - both for the men fighting down below and yes, for a photo op, though that photo op was not at all rehearsed or choreographed and just happened as it happened, quicker than the photographer wished in that he almost didn't get the shot. Watch the actual moving film shot of the raising and you'll realize it was over and done with in the blink of an eye. 

[charlesphoto99]

Now the flag raising over the Reichstag by the famous Russian photographer was posed - he had been carrying a large Soviet flag with him for this very opportunity and recruited a couple of soldiers to help him, days after the actual first flag raising happened. He also added smoke to the background. 

[250swb]

4 hours ago, charlesphoto99 said:

Now the flag raising over the Reichstag by the famous Russian photographer was posed - he had been carrying a large Soviet flag with him for this very opportunity and recruited a couple of soldiers to help him, days after the actual first flag raising happened. He also added smoke to the background. 

And touched out the two watches on the flag bearing soldiers wrist to avoid the claim of looting.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[pippy]

On 4/13/2022 at 9:13 AM, pgk said:

...The problem is......the final image can look the same. Nothing really new and there has never really been a solution to differentiating such images. Perhaps we ought to invent one...

Just for a bit of hypothetical light-hearted fun, Paul, in light of the points you raise here I might ask;

1) Why should the method of capture be a problem if the final images look the same?

2) Should there be a way of differentiating such images?...and if so...

3) Why should there be a way of differentiating such images?

Philip.