Re:Forensic analysis of recent Victoria's Secret photo
by logicalmind on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @10:25AM
(#1020579)
How will you define "real"? Clearly the representative set of bits that make up the image are not "real". If you're attempting to determine whether the underlying scene was real then this photo alone may not be the best evidence. If you're trying to determine whether the image is original and unmodified, then you have already lost. The image is modified when the picture is saved on the camera itself and then any time the image is saved in any other program.
If you clarify your definition of "real" then your bet may become more enticing.
Re:Forensic analysis of recent Victoria's Secret photo
by heyitsnick on Tuesday December 29, 2009 @03:16PM
(#1021197)
ErrantX said "I bet there's been some tampering going on". That's what I was referring too. As is the theme of this thread. I'm not getting in to the nitty definitions of the what "real" or "tampered" means because I think we all know what is being discussed here.
[I have no expert knowledge on photos, wolves, or the photographer in question. But I like a good bet, especially in the pursuit of science!)