Is This Image Photoshopped?

[superherobyday]

Figured there might a photoshop expert out there that may be able to spot some tell-tale signs that this image has been photoshopped (or if it is legit).

Namely, I'm trying to determine whether or not the reflection in the mirror has been tinkered with. It looks fishy to me, almost as if the reflection of the man taking a picture is not the actual reflection from the original image. But I'm not really sure what to look for.

Anybody have any feelings one way or the other on this? Has the reflection been photoshopped?

Close Up

Any insight would be much appreciated.

Cheers

[barbara_a]

Reflections in photos are often edited, and it looks like the reflection in this photo has indeed been edited. The bright blue hallowing around the head and shoulder on the left is one indication.

There are a number of software application that can detect whether an image has been Photoshopped. I've not tried them so can't vouch for any of them. This one is free, so you could start with that Photo Forensics: How to Check If a Picture Has Been Photoshopped or Not « Digiwonk :: Gadget Hacks

[superherobyday]

Awesome, thank you. I'll run it through the program and see what it spits out

Any opinions as to what extent the reflection has been photoshopped? For instance, would you say the blue tiles seem somewhat normal and it is just the man that has been added? Or does the whole reflection look iffy?

[jane-e]

Legit? Fishy? Iffy???

You may want to look at the series of threads that begin with "Something for the Weekend", now in its 28th week!

Something for the weekend - Part 28 - The basement

When I see what davescm can create with Blender, I would be suspicious of everything in the bathroom.

But call it what it is: Art.

Unless someone is trying to pass it off as a genuine photograph, as for news journalism—then it's fraud.

[superherobyday]

No offense Jane, but your comment is absolutely all over the place and I have no idea what you're trying to say. If anything.

You jump from expressing confusion/skepticism of my wording, to recommending 28 weeks worth of seemingly irrelevant threads, to doubting the legitimacy of this entire photo, to calling it "art," and finally to mentioning journalism and fraud.

It's like you took sentences from 6 unrelated threads and crammed them all into one comment.

Are you just thinking random thoughts directly into your keyboard? Or is there some underlying theme to all of that that I'm missing?

Cheers

[davescm]

No-one can really tell you on such a low res jpeg. There are lots of compression artifacts covering up the edge details.

But it has now ............ 

Dave

[superherobyday]

lol! gold toilet was a nice touch  

[syclone478]

Seriously D Fosse? Not everyone appreciates your political antagonism/activism on here and certainly not everyone agrees with it. I came here to learn about Photoshop.

[D Fosse]

Well, I just got a notice that my post was "rejected by a moderator". So nobody will ever know what my political antagonism/activism is. I also got a "like" on that post, so I suppose it evens out.

[Trevor.Dennis]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/D+Fosse  wrote

Well, I just got a notice that my post was "rejected by a moderator". So nobody will ever know what my political antagonism/activism is. I also got a "like" on that post, so I suppose it evens out.

Mods can see it Dag, and I can't for the life of me, see why anyone would take offense.  This entire thread does not ring true to me. The OP's ridiculous reaction to Jane's post for instance — now that _was_ worthy of being rejected. 

You can see the page the image came from here, and I think it must be one of those blog ideas where folk continue a theme

https://dalneitzel.com/2014/10/21/scrapbook-ninety-nine-point_five/

But I am sure I proved it was faked with my argument in post #23.

[superherobyday]

Trevor,

lol "ridiculous reaction"? You gotta admit, her post was pretty scatterbrained and irrelevant. I certainly wasn't insulting or out of line. Not sure why you would consider that rejection worthy. Anyway..

I think you hit it out of the park with the cold hard math. The difference between the width of the top and bottom of the frame is significant, and yet it's a straight on shot. Makes no sense.

[War Unicorn]

Has anyone even bothered to ask the author? lol (The post is from 2014, though, do I don't know if he's still active with the blog. Couldn't hurt to ask.)

Based on the room layout and light sources, though, it looks legit.

[barbara_a]

Funny you should ask that. I just emailed the author about 25 minutes ago. Will let you know if I get a response.

[D Fosse]

Right, Trevor. My first rejected post after what, twelve years. Thanks for clearing it up, and I think you're right.

[KShinabery212]

Davescm.... I think you forgot something in your edit.  A half eaten bag of McDonald's hamburgers and a sign reminding Eric to flush.

I know I am bad. 

[D Fosse]

The clue is usually in the lighting, but here it actually checks out: there is some bluish cold light coming in from top left - about where it also seems to hit in the reflection.

The blue fringing is no different than the fringing elsewhere. Just sharpening artifacts, taking on whatever color is there.

I can't believe that any software "will" detect altering. Let's say may - if it's badly done. A high-res image downsampled, metadata removed, and saved to jpeg will conceal anything. Except inconsistent lighting.

[barbara_a]

Looking at the image overall, you're right that it does have fringing elsewhere. I hear that Adobe is developing software to detect if any image has been edited. Adobe to use artificial intelligence to detect manipulation in images- Technology News, Firstpost

As you emphasized and as Adobe says in their article "no piece of technology can provide a foolproof verification system". I suppose that means that evidence from such software wouldn't hold up in court.

I can't say for sure, but it looks like the photo was pretty good to begin with and then the whole image may have been enhanced in Photoshop afterwards.

[superherobyday]

D Fosse,

Blast, I was afraid of that.

What about at first glance/gut instinct? Does it look funny to you at all?

Cheers

[barbara_a]

Looking at the top of the chest, it looks like there is some kind of stick laying on it. But I can't figure out what this is (circled in red).

[superherobyday]

Barbara,

Interesting, I hadn't noticed that before. Also looks like the ornament on the right doesn't have a shadow on the wall? Which is strange because the object on the left does. hmm...

[barbara_a]

Yes, I was just noticing that too, about the shadow of the object on the right. On all the other objects, the lighting seems to be coming from two directions, casting a shadow in to directions. But the object on the right casting any shadow.

[syclone478]

Barbara, to me that object on the chest looks like it could be a wooden back scratcher (resting on the 'fingers' side).

superherobyday, regarding the shadows, it looks to me like the light source on our left could be positioned near or on the ceiling (notice the down/rightward shadows it is casting, and also the location of the glare on the man's forehead). The light source on our right appears positioned lower, about mid-height to the room, maybe on the sink, because it is casting long, horizontal shadows, toward the left (the shadow of the statue extends over the toilet and the ornament appears to be casting its shadow near/behind the statue).

For what it is worth, one thing that looks unnatural to me is the cool, bluish coloring in the reflection versus the warm lighting in the rest of the picture. However, it looks like the light above left could be fluorescent while the light on the right is incandescent. The other thing I am questioning is the camera's aim. Does it align with the resulting shot?

Anyway, great mystery!

[barbara_a]

What about the shadows being cast by the two round handles on the bottom of the chest. It looks like they are casting shadows that go up instead of down or to the sides.

[superherobyday]

Barbara,

Nice catch on the shadows of the handles. You're right, they almost look underlit. Strange.

[barbara_a]

I'm not sure if the darkness above the handles is shadow from the handles or oil from hands using the handles multiple times.