Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Is it true or Photoshopped?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Jestertheclown
24 Jul 2014 - 11:49 AM


Quote: So I uploaded this. It tells me it can't make a decision. It is an unaltered image.

As someone with a lot of experience in this field, the fact that it can't decide on one image makes all it's decisions open to question and therefore useless for anything other than a bit of fun.


. . . I rest my case.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
24 Jul 2014 - 11:49 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Chris_L
Chris_L e2 Member 869 forum postsChris_L vcard United Kingdom
24 Jul 2014 - 12:46 PM


Quote: Then I really have seen a genuine picture of a duck-billed elephant? WOW!

http://www.izitru.com/Ae6TH
You see on the page where it say that analysis "reveals clear signs of manipulation in this image"? That means they are certain that the image is not genuine. Perhaps you didn't read the thread properly (lobsterboy's comment immediately after my screengrab) and that's why you just made a fool of yourself.


Quote: It all just adds to this absurd attitude/belief that anything that has been modified/edited (no matter how minor the adjustment is) makes the image somehow inferior

What "all"? You're missing the point, it's like you're saying that the existence of a lie detector shores up some belief that great works of fiction are bad because they aren't true. Where are all these people going around saying "Fake! You remove a dust spot - Fake! You take a mediocre shot and don't edit it and somehow you turn into a modern day Ansel Adams." Seems they only exist within your head. Seems to me that your personal style is under those sort of attacks all of the time and you've got a complex about it.


Quote: I rest my case

Jester, you were quoting Keith's case, perhaps you got caught up in another of your epz navigation nightmares. His case doesn't stand up to critical thinking, you won't have noticed that.


Quote: the fact that it can't decide on one image makes all it's decisions open to question

That logic is totally flawed. If someone downloads some images from a camera, deletes ones they think are rubbish, gives 5 stars to ones they love then they get to one they can't decide on, according to your theory, all of their other decisions are open to question.

Another example? There's a tech guy at work who people go to with tricky problems. Sometimes he says it's one thing, sometimes the opposite thing and sometimes he says he is unsure. Using your logic Keith all of his decisions are open to question.

Similarly with a brilliant doctor, sometimes diagnoses heart problems, sometimes diagnoses lung problems, sometimes doesn't know.

According to the likes of jester, he'd be useless!

Jestertheclown
24 Jul 2014 - 12:54 PM


Quote: Jester, you were quoting Keith's case

Which is absolutely identical to my own.
I still rest my case.

paulcookphotography


Quote: Quote: It all just adds to this absurd attitude/belief that anything that has been modified/edited (no matter how minor the adjustment is) makes the image somehow inferior

What "all"? You're missing the point, it's like you're saying that the existence of a lie detector shores up some belief that great works of fiction are bad because they aren't true. Where are all these people going around saying "Fake! You remove a dust spot - Fake! You take a mediocre shot and don't edit it and somehow you turn into a modern day Ansel Adams." Seems they only exist within your head. Seems to me that your personal style is under those sort of attacks all of the time and you've got a complex about it.

As i previously stated, i dont think a lot of people would use the app as per its described 'uses', which leads me to believe that its main use would be for those who choose purity over aesthetics to decide whether they like a picture or not. These people (or that attitude) does not only exist in my head. There are many people who do not like the idea of any form of manipulation or editing, and those who have never taken the time to understand it (digital or otherwise). It seems the app cannot determine (at this time) what form of editing, if any, has taken place, so therefore only determines if an image has been edited in some way. It does not 'prove' anything and therefore can only be used as something for a bit of fun. Who would get the most 'fun' out of an app like this?

And no, my personal style (whether it is my digital art, wildlife photography or any other area i work in) has never been under attack. Its generally been accepted well and respected, so no complex there

keithh
keithh e2 Member 1023026 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna33 Constructive Critique Points
24 Jul 2014 - 1:21 PM

No Chr...sorry..John. I'm applying forensic logic. If you can't trust a negative, then you can't trust a positive. Flawed testing procedures are just that.

Chris_L
Chris_L e2 Member 869 forum postsChris_L vcard United Kingdom
24 Jul 2014 - 1:42 PM


Quote: Which is absolutely identical to my own.

I rest mine.

Keith, what negative? You upload a pic from your camera and the apps says it doesn't know, that it can't certify it, that's not false info. My other sister uploaded a photo a potential suitor had sent her, it was supposedly direct from his cameraphone. Izitru spotted tell-tale Photoshopping. Turns out he was ten years older than he claimed he was. Had it not been able to give her a decision it wouldn't mean that she wouldn't use it with another photograph!

Why just yesterday, yet another sister, suspicious about the too-good-to-be true condition of a valuable item she was considering buying, uploaded the seller's emailed photograph, got the green high trust result and continued with the deal. She stands to make a fortune by selling this to one of her clients.

paulcookphotography

It really sounds like you have a vested interest in this app, John. Are you in some way affiliated with the product?

Chris_L
Chris_L e2 Member 869 forum postsChris_L vcard United Kingdom
24 Jul 2014 - 2:16 PM

Absolutely not.

mikehit
mikehit  56456 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
24 Jul 2014 - 2:24 PM


Quote: got the green high trust result and continued with the deal

So she is basing a high-value deal on the results of a program that you admit is not foolproof?
Oh, boy...how do you think con artists work? I am not saying the seller is a con artist nor that your sister will not make a tidy profit, just that this false sense of security is precisely the criticism we have been voicing.

Chris_L
Chris_L e2 Member 869 forum postsChris_L vcard United Kingdom
24 Jul 2014 - 3:41 PM


Quote: So she is basing a high-value deal on the results of a program that you admit is not foolproof?

No, armed with that knowledge she simply went further than other potential buyers, confident to make a long journey to view the cabinet in person. She's quids in and I expect a really good birthday present this year.

paulcookphotography

I wonder how many product pictures are faked v carefully shot to hide defects/show its best side v perfectly honest representations of the product (edited or otherwise).

Likewise, you could have a perfectly shot and unedited portrait of someone showing perfect unblemished skin in the area visible in the photograph, while the unseen area hides a scar or tattoo. The image isnt 'faked' but is it a true representation? Is it being honest about the subject?

mikehit
mikehit  56456 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
24 Jul 2014 - 4:47 PM


Quote:
No, armed with that knowledge she simply went further than other potential buyers, confident to make a long journey to view the cabinet in person. She's quids in and I expect a really good birthday present this year.

So if the picture had come back as 'suspect' I presume she would have stopped the deal there and then?

Chris_L
Chris_L e2 Member 869 forum postsChris_L vcard United Kingdom
24 Jul 2014 - 4:56 PM

She'd already decided that it looked too good to be true, as had other potential buyers, and wouldn't have taken it further - that's why I explained "armed with that knowledge she simply went further than other potential buyers, confident to make a long journey to view the cabinet in person".

With no app, she was never going to go and look at the cabinet.

keithh
keithh e2 Member 1023026 forum postskeithh vcard Wallis and Futuna33 Constructive Critique Points
24 Jul 2014 - 5:07 PM

John,

The fact that the app can tell you that a duck billed elephant can be trusted means that if your sister gets a positive 'From camera' result, she can't trust it to be right. What percentage of false positives are you willing to factor in?

Chris_L
Chris_L e2 Member 869 forum postsChris_L vcard United Kingdom
24 Jul 2014 - 5:22 PM

Keith, it didn't! Only the initial result showed that.

It's funny how people think I've got a vested interest in this yet it was ME who created and uploaded the ELEDUCK to show the system's weakness - first to think of a way to beat the systems and first to think of how it can actually be useful despite its flaws

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.