4 ms·

What qualifies the Jennifer in Paradise photo being in there? That photo reportedly is real, even according to the description given. It was used as a demonstr

What qualifies the Jennifer in Paradise photo being in there? That photo reportedly is real, even according to the description given. It was used as a demonstration photo in a famous photo-editing program which was used to fool the world, but the image is ostensibly a real photo, not a fake image.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
Nothing. Nothing qualifies several of them; the photo of Filippa Hamilton is noted in the blurb as immediately drawing ridicule from the public. Or take this description of the edited image of Elvis: > the United Press agency decided to create a mock-up of what the king of rock’n’roll might look like with the typical GI hairstyle, retouching a photo of the singer to remove his quiff (and leaving him with a somewhat disfigured head). “Not all manipulated photographs are intended to deceive,” notes Mia Fineman, a curator at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art Only the headline says "images that fooled the world"; the article is about something different.
- bryanrasmussen 2y ago
  you can be fooled by something without anyone intending to deceive you, if people believed that is actually what Elvis was going to look like they would have been "fooled" whether anyone had that intention.
k1t 2y ago
The fact that there's two of her.
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  I'm pretty sure "hey, look what I can use this software to do to my photo" is about as unlikely to fool anyone as you can achieve. It was a tech demo.
  - k1t 2y ago
    It's an article about images that have been manipulated (to fool people). Photoshop is such a popular tool for image manipulation that it is a verb "to digitally alter (a photograph or other graphic) using image-editing software such as Photoshop". Inclusion of one of the first ever photoshopped images in a list of famous fake images, even if just a tech demo, seems entirely reasonable.
    - autoexec 2y ago
      > Inclusion of one of the first ever photoshopped images in a list of famous fake images, even if just a tech demo, seems entirely reasonable. I'd argue that the inclusion of one of the first ever photoshopped images which was specifically never intended to fool anyone, and in fact never did fool anyone, doesn't belong in a list of famous fake images that "fooled the world". It would have been far more reasonably presented outside of the list, maybe as a part of the article talking about the history of photo manipulation more generally, but presenting it as one of "28 fake images that fooled the world" doesn't really make much sense.
bsenftner 2y ago
The article is a fine example of empty journalism, not intended to inform, just entertain, and then lightly. No effort to be definitive or authoritative, their choices expose casual effort, it is really just "hey! Here's something interesting." I'm a scholar in this area, and that article is shit.
- lambdaone 2y ago
  It's an entertainment article, and doesn't make any claim to be anything else. I'm not sure what you would prefer in its place; can you give any examples of what you would consider to be a suitable treatment of this topic?
  - bsenftner 2y ago
    All that is necessary is for the article to claim not to be authoritative. It's written sloppy, with portions that sound authoritative, and portions that sound like a middle school science text. The author(s) clearly did not care about the content, it reads like it when through an AI enthusiasm filter told to not be so giddy.

thaumasiotes 2y ago

Nothing. Nothing qualifies several of them; the photo of Filippa Hamilton is noted in the blurb as immediately drawing ridicule from the public. Or take this description of the edited image of Elvis: > the United Press agency decided to create a mock-up of what the king of rock’n’roll might look like with the typical GI hairstyle, retouching a photo of the singer to remove his quiff (and leaving him with a somewhat disfigured head). “Not all manipulated photographs are intended to deceive,” notes Mia Fineman, a curator at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art Only the headline says "images that fooled the world"; the article is about something different.

bryanrasmussen 2y ago
you can be fooled by something without anyone intending to deceive you, if people believed that is actually what Elvis was going to look like they would have been "fooled" whether anyone had that intention.

k1t 2y ago

The fact that there's two of her.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
I'm pretty sure "hey, look what I can use this software to do to my photo" is about as unlikely to fool anyone as you can achieve. It was a tech demo.
- k1t 2y ago
  It's an article about images that have been manipulated (to fool people). Photoshop is such a popular tool for image manipulation that it is a verb "to digitally alter (a photograph or other graphic) using image-editing software such as Photoshop". Inclusion of one of the first ever photoshopped images in a list of famous fake images, even if just a tech demo, seems entirely reasonable.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    > Inclusion of one of the first ever photoshopped images in a list of famous fake images, even if just a tech demo, seems entirely reasonable. I'd argue that the inclusion of one of the first ever photoshopped images which was specifically never intended to fool anyone, and in fact never did fool anyone, doesn't belong in a list of famous fake images that "fooled the world". It would have been far more reasonably presented outside of the list, maybe as a part of the article talking about the history of photo manipulation more generally, but presenting it as one of "28 fake images that fooled the world" doesn't really make much sense.

bsenftner 2y ago

The article is a fine example of empty journalism, not intended to inform, just entertain, and then lightly. No effort to be definitive or authoritative, their choices expose casual effort, it is really just "hey! Here's something interesting." I'm a scholar in this area, and that article is shit.

lambdaone 2y ago
It's an entertainment article, and doesn't make any claim to be anything else. I'm not sure what you would prefer in its place; can you give any examples of what you would consider to be a suitable treatment of this topic?
- bsenftner 2y ago
  All that is necessary is for the article to claim not to be authoritative. It's written sloppy, with portions that sound authoritative, and portions that sound like a middle school science text. The author(s) clearly did not care about the content, it reads like it when through an AI enthusiasm filter told to not be so giddy.