The photo has weird blurring effect akin to the background blurring tech that you might find on a zoom call setting I think. Is this still considered doctored? I know they have camera settings that produce a similar effect. What’t the verdict?
To me it just looks like a normal picture where the foreground is in focus and the background is not
1 Like
It isn’t, there is out of focus picture immediately around the object, but further away the picture comes back into focus. Look especially at the tree at the top on the middle/right hand side.
1 Like
It’s a weird effect once you see it, because it is artificial, although it does help to bring the eye’s focus onto the foreground object. I’m not entirely sure how it does this better than the entire background being naturally blurred (naturally: as if it was taken on an SLR using whatever lens and aperture you wanted to get the focus/out-of-focus effect)
1 Like
yea. I see. Could be the case. Could be quite a deep focus. The leaves at the front look really blurry though.
Whatever it is, it doesn’t seem problematic to me
2 Likes
This photo has a clear focus on the point of interest, the colors appear to be natural, and it does not appear to be manipulated to make it seem like the point of interest is somewhere other than where it actually is. I would not consider this “doctored,” no matter what camera effect was used to achieve this look.
4 Likes
It makes me suspicious of the POI. Anything out of the ordinary makes me suspicious!
So just to be clear camera effects (like this) are considered ok? Just want to get on the same page as everyone.
Oh, I would also closely examine the supporting photo and pin when there is anything different about a main photo!
2 Likes
All I can give is my opinion on camera effects. I am going to tag @RoIi112 who can probably give a much more educated answer.
Oh I’m not suspicious of the POI at all. The supporting photo is from a different angle further away showing the street with a normal focus. The POI is on google maps. I wish I could upload the supporting but I forgot to download it. Thanks though.
Edit: I know we’re meant to represent the world as accurately as we can with our submissions. I just wanted to know what passes for ok and what the limit is when it comes to photos and how they should look, especially going forward.
3 Likes
If you’re not suspicious of anything else, the photo doesnt seem concerning either. Seems okay to me
1 Like
It’s likely portrait mode. I don’t like it when it obstructs the surrounding area. Even with a good supporting photo, the primary should still provide context to where the candidate is to help visitors.
When done in extreme ways, I might reject this type of photo.
As usual, I think it’s a “use your best judgment” case. If reviewers overwhelming reject these photos, the submitters will have to change. If the community accepts, then that seems to be setting the precedence for that area.
4 Likes
By the way, it’s “is obviously doctored,” right? That’s going to be difficult to reach consensus on. Some people claim using “object eraser” is “obvious” or editing a license plate out in a way that isn’t obvious is obvious to them because there should be plate numbers. We’ve also seen people say cropping is “obviously doctored” and complaints between landscape and portrait aspect ratios.
Anyways, just because “portrait mode” is embedded in more phones these days doesn’t mean it falls from the “obvious” spectrum - panorama mode, fish-eye, and filters can all be used in some ways that can still be acceptable but also be overused.
2 Likes
The left hand side of the building is slightly out of focus, which could indicate person was taking a photo at a wide aperture. If it is manipulated, it is poorly done.
As someone who has a little bit of a photography background, yes I would say this photo is obviously doctored. What is going on here is using a software algorithm to process the photo to add depth of field after the photo was taken. Many of these algorithms produce poor results as seen in the example photo where some areas are blurred, but random parts are not. The depth of field in this photo is unnatural looking and something you would not see in a photo with lens blur applied in camera, or a more sophisticated depth of field algorithm.
2 Likes
Thank you for that assessment @sunkast. That’s some good insight. I suppose that makes things a little clearer, though I guess we’ll still have to take it with a pinch of salt. I know the blurriness is kinda obvious (which was what threw me off in the first place) but do you know of any kind of software or programme to detect if an image has been altered after the picture was taken?
The guideline is “obviously doctored” so I don’t think detecting if software was used applies here.
If you have to use a tool to detect that it was doctored, then it wasn’t obvious, imo.
1 Like
Well I guess you’re right. Can’t hurt to be sure though.
For that matter, if a doctored photo isn’t obvious, do we let it slide? I’m guessing since this one is only a little off from most of the reactions so far, it should be ok…