5 ms·
AI Tool Reveals How Celebrities’ Faces Have Been Photoshopped
- pchristensen 4y agoMaybe it’s the web resolution, but I can’t see what has changed in any of these (aside from the upturned north corner that they point out for you)
- 0_____0 4y agoFace shape is the most evident. This is a photographer oriented post, you may have to look longer and harder to see the same things that a trained eye would immediately notice (same with graphic design).
- VSerge 4y agoIf you have to be a photographer to see the changes (and the focus on jaws is just so odd), and you won't notice the difference if you are just a regular Joe/Jane, then what purpose do these alterations serve? As a non-photographer, apart from the photo with the strangely big jaw "fix", I can safely say I would be incapable to a) see there is a difference and b) say which image is supposed to be more beautiful.
- psychphysic 4y agoI think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The cover is not intended to be analysed in great detail. It's wholly a subconscious process. And certainly narrowing a jaw slightly will be aesthetically pleasing on a woman. Think of it like a slightly out of tune piano key. Used during a single song. Is it really noticeable? Not to many, will it be a better recital if it was intune? Certainly.
- JohnFen 4y ago> And certainly narrowing a jaw slightly will be aesthetically pleasing on a woman. Maybe? Doesn't what's aesthetically pleasing change from person to person? For instance, I don't find most people on magazine covers to be all that aesthetically pleasing -- but I am also aware that there are many who do.
- psychphysic 4y agoThere's a whole other set of niche magazines for people who like their women square jawed[0]. [0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1OWqz5FMEY0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1OWqz5FMEY0
- 0_____0 4y agoThe visibility of a design choice to a layperson does not affect its value. In photo editing, the fact that these changes are invisible to you is valuable, and desirable. Our experiences in the human world are shaped by millions of tiny, and often invisible design decisions. We could surmise that a decision is invisible to us and thus meaningless, or we could practice a bit of humility and attempt to see and understand what work was done there, and how it affects us.
- fallinghawks 4y agoI agree a lot are subtle. The one that jumped out at me was (I think) Jennifer Aniston on the Petra cover, where they make her jaw bigger (which seems the opposite of what one would want to do).
- thomasahle 4y agoWhen they said the program "fixes" the image, they mean it undoes the photoshop. Hence the larger jaw.
- croes 4y agoOriginal and fixed is a confusing wording. Something like "original cover" and the "changes reverted" would be more understandable.
- fallinghawks 4y agoThanks, I completely missed that.
- trelane 4y agoSource is https://withinhealth.com/learn/articles/perfecting-perfection-uncovering-problematic-celebrity-photoshopping https://withinhealth.com/learn/articles/perfecting-perfectio... This detects one kind of manipulation, the horrifying-sounding "Face-Aware Liquify" tool in Adobe Photoshop
- crazygringo 4y agoActual source paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05856.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05856.pdf It's done using an ML model. The thing is, I don't understand what signal it's using to determine whether the Liquify tool in Photoshop has been used. And from skimming the paper, I'm not sure the authors know either. But it's not detecting seams or compression artifacts or other common signals, because Liquify doesn't generate those. Only thing I can guess is that it's picking up on anatomically impossible or extremely unlikely facial structure, which our own brains don't pick up on? My only other guess would be some kind of subtle mismatch between lighting and skin texture/angle but I don't think the resolution is high enough, plus makeup and smoothing in Photoshop makes that even harder.
- fudged71 4y agoImage Manipulation has been able to be detected for a long time, check out https://fotoforensics.com/ https://fotoforensics.com/ for example. Error Level Analysis measures the amount of change during a JPEG resave, which can indicate spots on an image that were changed. Example: https://fotoforensics.com/tutorial.php?tt=ela&show=ELA%20Sample https://fotoforensics.com/tutorial.php?tt=ela&show=ELA%20Sam...
- antegamisou 4y agoYeah you do not even need ML for accurate manipulation detection but I guess people now really use AI/ChatGPT as a turd polishing agent for anything.
- crazygringo 4y agoAs I stated in my original comment, this does not appear to be that ("compression artifacts or other common signals"). This kind of image retouching appears to be applied to original images. It does not appear to be picking up traditional photo "forensics". (And fashion photographers/editors generally work with TIFF, not JPEG. Pre-manipulation compression artifacts aren't showing up in Vogue.) But it's not clear what it's picking up. Which is why I'm asking what it could be.
- 0cVlTeIATBs 4y ago
- omgomgomgomg 4y agoLooks like a very small finishing touch was given to my amateur eyes. But maybe someone versed in phitography may chime in and educate us? It is a bit sad that just make up wont do the job anymore, I mean the people on the covers all get a proper make up job and a hairdo. Who and why are these ideals pushed down peoples throats?
- alistairSH 4y agoYes, the model used in this study only detects a single type of edit (Adobe's FAL tool). There are likely other edits applied outside the scope of this study. And, yeah, it's sad that two unarguably beautiful women aren't suitable for magazine covers without extensive make-up AND THEN extensive editing.
- Nevermark 4y agoI don't understand harsh judgements like this. Nobody thinks the ladies are unsuitable, or need fixing in any kind of serious sense. But the cover of a magazine is what sells. Artists are going to tweak everything. Portrait and fine art photographers go to great lengths to control lighting, angles, poses -- are their subjects are not good enough to photograph in natural light, with an unplanned pose? Of course not, but they are trying to create the image that achieves the best impact in line with their personal vision. Animators pervasively create characters with bodies superior to any human being. Are they doing that because real human beings are unacceptable? No, it's just the artificial perfection generates attraction and inspiration in us. Almost all human beings artfully adjust their appearance every day, their hair, their clothing, not just makeup. Are they not good enough humans when they get out of bed? Of course they are, but they have the ability to create a more positive impact. Art is art. If you want science or a documentary, then yes, it would be better to have raw imagines. Unless contrast enhancement or other filters help expose the raw reality better.
- alistairSH 4y agoArt is art. If you want science or a documentary, then yes, it would be better to have raw imagines. Fair points above. A few related thoughts, in no particular order... - I hate that modern male leads are all built like Greek gods. Think Connery's Bond vs Craig's Bond. - I understand the photographer's need to produce images that sell. But, for me, there's a line in the sand between make-up and lighting during the shoot, then the "normal" post processing (WB, curves, etc), and then pixel-by-pixel editing (FAL, etc). For me, the first two sets still produce a "real" image. The third set moves from documenting reality into fiction (yes, that's a totally subjective opinion).
- muglug 4y agoEvery pixel of every cover model's face has been photoshopped to bits, after a world-class photographer has lit them to further beautify someone who has already won the genetic lottery.
- heywhatupboys 4y ago> who has already won the genetic lottery. 90 % is hard work and consistent effort!
- ZiiS 4y agoNot something that you can break down into percentages. They have to consistently work hard and win the generic lottery.
- eatsyourtacos 4y ago>90 % is hard work and consistent effort! Eh.. ok let's go with that. But you know what? That 10% allowed them to have the chance to even do that, whereas other people don't even get the opportunity. It's a lot easier then to make "the 90% effort" when you are basically handed the start. Let's take some physical beast like Lebron James. Has he worked hard? Of course. Was he gifted with an insane physique? Absolutely. My argument is it was much easier him to just "put in the effort" given his start than someone who is built just average. I'm not trying to diminish people's effort by any means- but it's also not fair to act like these people just made themselves what they are out of no where- and that "anyone can do the same!". I would argue it's the same with intellect. I look at how I've done and sure I've worked hard, but I was also gifted with some good skills that most people just don't have. It really has me look at things differently as I've gotten older- because it's just another type of privilege. Why is it fair that I get to make so much more money and have it easier than someone else just because I happen to have more natural talent for math etc? Anyway, I think sometimes it's just good to take a good hard look at how people actually become "successful" and most of the time it starts off by something that the person never earned. So maybe we all need to be more humble and realize that everyone is trying hard in life- most people just weren't born as lucky as others.
- mc32 4y agoNo guys in this cursory study. Though of course they get photoshopped as well. I'd like to see them examine food presentation though. I bet there is a lot of manipulation there.
- MarkMarine 4y agoThere is a whole section of photography that is more graphic design in photoshop than it is taking a photo. Didn't make it there for golden hour? no problem, just add the AI sunset. Couldn't get the flowers that are like 10" away from the lens in focus at the same time as the mountain? Also no problem, just clip in a mountain from another photo. I sound like a curmudgeon, but I can't tell what's real so I just ignore all those flashy landscapes because they are probably works of fiction. I'm sure the same people who heavily build an image out of composite parts also take food photos and head shots and everything else. My tastes have swung backwards, to analog cameras that are older than I am, and images that go from a film negative or positive into a print with little to no manipulation.
- mc32 4y agoYou sound a bit like Jorg Colberg: "...However, the problem with photography’s deceit — showing us the world as seen by someone’s vision (let’s call it vision) — also creates a problem, especially when we buy into it too much: when we insist on the deceit being overwhelming, crowding out our other, critical facilities." ... "What this means is that the belief what pictures show also includes an element of how they do it. As viewers, we want to be deceived and we don’t want to be told about it. As photographers, we deceive ourselves and we don’t want to be told about that." https://cphmag.com/deceit/ https://cphmag.com/deceit/
- korroziya 4y agoThis might come as a shock to you but women overwhelmingly outnumber men in using photoshop to augment their faces/bodies.
- cronix 4y agoI tend to doubt the women in the article used photoshop at all. The magazine staff did.
- some_random 4y agoHonestly many of these are less manipulated than I expected, but that's probably because this only is supposed to detect FAL.
- tomhallett 4y agoI've always been curious what it would look like if magazines had to publish the "unphotoshopped version" side-by-side with the "final version" inside the magazine. Would people check the before/after and it would lessen any negative effects? Would magazines photoshop things less? Note: I understand there is nuance in the definition of "photoshop", with respect to processing a "raw" photo for lighting/color/etc, versus manipulating it to add/remove/blur/liquify/shape.
- courgette 4y agoSome countries now require the mention that the picture modified by a digital tool. Nice intentions, but it’s like the EU cookie warning… you quickly ignore it.
- tomhallett 4y agoAgreed. That’s why the before/after is so critical - no one cares about the removal of a stray wisp of hair, but I think people would be interested in digital changes to the “structure” of the person.
- VSerge 4y agoThis would indeed be very interesting to see these pictures side by side, excluding the color / lighting correction of the picture as a whole. I wouldn't discount them entirely though, as I think at least a while back some pretty nasty selective color / lighting manipulation was being used to lighten people's skin color.
- exitb 4y agoThere’s also soo much you can do with just the right light, focal length, composition and makeup. Even with no Photoshop involved, these images are not really life-like.
- korroziya 4y ago[dead]
- donnowhy 4y agothis is the kind of thing truly making computer science into a science. with all this "deep" learning technology, understanding based on principles is no longer required, heck, such 'epistemic-attitude' (i.e. knowledge founded on principles) is on the verge of becoming a burden to be shed out. why reason what happens with the pixels/singals? why try to reason out what Photoshop is doing in reverse direction? why bother with all this difficult trial-and-error cognitive work if you can throw "data" and "compute" at let the "algorithm" do the "thinking" (figure out the "model"). so instead of doing computer engineering like we used to do math, now we simply measure the outcomes without really having a theory (and the worrying part) nor bothering to make one; like physics! or chemistry!! just consider modern 'pharmaceutic' research i.e. letting the models duke it out
- trabant00 4y ago> understanding based on principles is no longer required It very much still is if you care about getting the right answer. If you only care about getting convincing sounding bullshit you just ask the "AI".
- Nevermark 4y agoLanguage models certainly generate their fair share of bullshit. But then, they are actually trained on bullshit - raw human output, much of it informal - so as a first step, it is a sign of great success. By the time language models don't ever generate bullshit they will have succeeded in understanding and communicating at a level most or all of us will never achieve. But most models, including photoshopping detection, are not language models. Their job is to perform some well defined problem (classification, pattern recognition, relationship generalization, etc.) better than alternative methods. They perform, or they don't. There isn't room for bullshit.
- Nevermark 4y agoI recently read an essay about this tragedy of algorithms, perhaps phrased differently. The bittersweet success of general algorithms that just chew up data and compute time to arrive at very good answers, over algorithms crafted from a careful understanding of the problem. I tried searching for it, but haven't found it yet.
- vidanay 4y agoWhere are they getting the "original" photos from? I can't imagine the magazines are making unmodified copies of their cover photos freely available.
- JadoJodo 4y agoMy understanding is that they detect the changes and then implement the “reverse” on the published image.
- Nevermark 4y agoHow can you train on changes, if you don't have access to both originals and altered? In any case, they are labelled originals, not corrected. So I think they are originals.
- wzdd 4y agoThe photo labelled "original" here is the Photoshopped version. The photo labelled "fixed" is the one suggested by the AI to be the pre-Photoshopped image. The explanation is in this paragraph: > In some cases, the FAL Detector also attempts to “fix” the image. The AI tool reverses the use of the Face-Aware Liquify feature on the photo and shows what the original photo looked like before it was manipulated.
- jfim 4y agoFor those of us who never heard of "face aware liquify," it's apparently a tool in Photoshop that allows manipulating faces with some sliders. Here's a Photoshop tutorial with animations that show what it can do: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/how-to/face-aware-liquify.html https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/how-to/face-aware-liquify....
- flappyeagle 4y agoWhat I learned from the article: Angelina Jolie is almost perfect to begin with.