Whoa. Backup.

This whole thread commentary is off point.

You: I don't understand, therfore I'm right

What kind of logic is this?

Its a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

I cannot prove you understand, if you don't.

I'm not here to hypothesize on why thats the case.

I'm not here to lecture you on art history

I'm not here to demonstrate digital image editing

I'm not here to make you understand

I'm here to share information for those that can put it to use.

If you have no need for this, just find another topic.

At a basic level, you don't have a very good understanding of this subject matter. You can admit that, or you can argue. Nobody cares.

Its useful for HN, though, to answer some of the questions you pose. Because, whether or not you are worthy or capable of understanding things, other people might be.

So, don't flatter yourself too much. I don't have the time to explain or reply to all the stupid shit in these posts. I've tried to skip over most of it and make lemonade out of lemons.

Example 1: Quantify the use of XYZ digital editing technique

The fact that you (1) asked this in the first place; and (2) attempt to use it as a "gotcha" to prove how smart you are is truly a great example of Irony.

How can one quantify these effects? I don't think a histogram will do it, since that's global. How can I use digital tools to determine whether these procedures have been used on an image?...What I see is the most direct interpretation and insubstantial modification of the source material. Could you direct me to what I'm missing?

Again, we need to rethink this...

Translation: And when I say "we" I mean "you" and when I say "re-think" I mean "think" of something useful to say.

So, consider I am not trying to answer your question.

Instead, I put forth a simple way for someone with the right skillset, to make some progress. If you fail, you fail. In essence, my only job I'm taking on her is to put a framework in place that migh be useful to someone that has the potential to understand, and the need.

If you don't understand this, no worries.

I think you may have overstated your case. Instead of letting it drop, you have dug in deeper and deeper, as if you could convince without evidence.

I'm not making a case. The images are "photoshopped". You asked to tell how to see artifacts of this. The way to do that is to compare and do an A/B test. I set that up for you. In 30 minutes I found a contemporary image to use. You're missing the point of why I did this.

The image is an obvious photoshop-orama. Its an award winning press photo. Exhibition quality. But--and this is important--its editorial quality. Than means, that its "interpretive" and true to scene. It could go in the NY times front page or whatever.

The point is this: So, even if they were exactly photoshopped exactly alike, they still are "objective" or whatever. If that's something important to you.

So, who cares if you want to make another one yourself? There are an infinite number of possible prints? You're not adding anything to the conversation. You're also skipping over that the digital scanning process. Which is not a neutral process. That nuetral image has been heavily edited. Atc etc....

The purpose is to understand this: We can make these images in photoshop. The original photgrapher could not. He could never see an sRGB colour output space, on an OLED calibrated LCD screen. None of those colours that went into 16 bit ProPhoto RGB and got moved all over the place, he would have never seen. The N-space images of gursky he could never have imagined. The localized N-space sharpening and color contraste every rookie with photoshop does, he could never have imagined. Simple, stupid shit that is in every WorldPressPhotoIntenatinoal photo, he would have never even imaginged, much less ever saw. Is that good or bad? Neither. It just is the way it is.

His images would have been made in a colour space available to him in 1910. His colour-filtered lanterns would define the colors he saw. It was likely a modest colour space, but I have no idea how efficient his gels were. Etc. and to be honest, I sort of don't care. It would have been cool as shit, for him. As history, its genius that he made the seperations.

But, lifelike or not. The stuff on that webpage, the stuff HB is/was commenting on, what modern photoshop. Its art, but its a different medium. I won't tell you if that is good or bad. But its different, that's for sure. Its not really a debate. Its not like kodachrome or whatever. Its a different ballgame.

The only purpose of this sub-thread was to note this as a relevant consideration. And furthermore, to explain some of this to intellectually interested HN readers. 99.99 percent of the world might be clueless to this. I'm still sorta surprised that the HN crowd may or may not be any better.