Photoshop Gurus Forum
Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Specific Same Photo?
- Thread starter Jrk102688
- Start date
thebestcpu
Guru
- Messages
- 2,996
- Likes
- 2,763
Hi @Jrk102688
It is most likely that both of these images were derived from an original image and not one from the other.
They are cropped differently with slight different rotations.
They hare different resolutions and the darker image has considerably more noise.
If overlaying the two images and comparing, I saw no obvious additions or deletions to the image.
They are both of the same image of the person from the same original (e.g. not two separate frames of a video)
It would be helpful if you were more specific in what you are trying to determine. With the right tools, you make a bad image look a lot better (less noise etc) yet it is also possible to just the opposite and make a good looking image look grungy.
John Wheeler
It is most likely that both of these images were derived from an original image and not one from the other.
They are cropped differently with slight different rotations.
They hare different resolutions and the darker image has considerably more noise.
If overlaying the two images and comparing, I saw no obvious additions or deletions to the image.
They are both of the same image of the person from the same original (e.g. not two separate frames of a video)
It would be helpful if you were more specific in what you are trying to determine. With the right tools, you make a bad image look a lot better (less noise etc) yet it is also possible to just the opposite and make a good looking image look grungy.
John Wheeler
Thanks I was given 2 photos as evidence and then when I reached out to get it directly from the source I was only sent a screenshot from that department and it turned out much clearer and kind of makes the other 2 I was given to be possibly photoshopped to try and make me look like my beard wasn't as long as it actually was to try and make me look like I could possibly be a match to a suspect that they are looking for I told them my beard would prove me innocent and begged for the evidence for a year and when I finally got it it was this dark black and white then nagged everyday all day for a week and got these color ones. And thought they looked odd so reached out to pd. To see if I could have the originals all he sent was a screenshot of one of them these are all the same photo recieved within 12 days of each other from but the clear one is only a partial basicly prosecution produced black and white one first then after complaining for 5 days all day to them about it being too dark I got the dark colored one. And then after I got those ones I reached out to pd and got a much clearer partial image 
thebestcpu
Guru
- Messages
- 2,996
- Likes
- 2,763
Hi @Jrk102688
Just wanted to be clear that what forum members share here are likely not to stand up to the legal criteria of necessary forensics so should be considered opinion back with some data for your consideration. A real forensic expert would be needed for arguments to legally hold water.
What would always be critical is the original unadulterated image or images (if a video or time series of stills) in the format that they were taken in the same resolution without any adjustments or cropping. Then know that exact original (or set of originals) more competent opinions with reasons could be provided.
Then, one could compare those originals to any adjusted images and answer questions. Note that the problem with making many adjustments is that one can turn the dial until they see what they want to see. It would be even worse if selected adjustments were made on only part of the image.
Just because one image looks better than another e.g. lower noise better tone does not mean that is the original. Poor looking images may be the original and the better looking one may be adjusted one. That is what photo restoration is all about. Better does not mean accurate to the original reality either.
When there are a series of images in a time lapse or a video there are often more information in several frames that there is in a single frame. Shadows can play a big role in determining what one is looking at and one frame may not show it will while another frame might reveal it perfectly.
So I don't know if either of the images you provided are the exact originals or not.
The very dark image in your last post is not worth anything. The vast majority of pixels are pure black with no tonal information so you can tell nothing form that image.
The heavily noise image may or may not be the origianal. It certainly is marked as if it came from a time lapse from a bank yet not clear why it would be so noisy and grainy
The larger image with less noise if the original makes it hard to explain where all the noise cam in the middle image.
So more accurate information from about the exact original or series of originals would be needed for me to make further comments. Guessing which is which would not be helpful for you or anyone.
Just my opinion
John Wheeler
Just wanted to be clear that what forum members share here are likely not to stand up to the legal criteria of necessary forensics so should be considered opinion back with some data for your consideration. A real forensic expert would be needed for arguments to legally hold water.
What would always be critical is the original unadulterated image or images (if a video or time series of stills) in the format that they were taken in the same resolution without any adjustments or cropping. Then know that exact original (or set of originals) more competent opinions with reasons could be provided.
Then, one could compare those originals to any adjusted images and answer questions. Note that the problem with making many adjustments is that one can turn the dial until they see what they want to see. It would be even worse if selected adjustments were made on only part of the image.
Just because one image looks better than another e.g. lower noise better tone does not mean that is the original. Poor looking images may be the original and the better looking one may be adjusted one. That is what photo restoration is all about. Better does not mean accurate to the original reality either.
When there are a series of images in a time lapse or a video there are often more information in several frames that there is in a single frame. Shadows can play a big role in determining what one is looking at and one frame may not show it will while another frame might reveal it perfectly.
So I don't know if either of the images you provided are the exact originals or not.
The very dark image in your last post is not worth anything. The vast majority of pixels are pure black with no tonal information so you can tell nothing form that image.
The heavily noise image may or may not be the origianal. It certainly is marked as if it came from a time lapse from a bank yet not clear why it would be so noisy and grainy
The larger image with less noise if the original makes it hard to explain where all the noise cam in the middle image.
So more accurate information from about the exact original or series of originals would be needed for me to make further comments. Guessing which is which would not be helpful for you or anyone.
Just my opinion
John Wheeler
thebestcpu
Guru
- Messages
- 2,996
- Likes
- 2,763
ADDED COMMENT FROM TO LAST POST - I took the very very dark image you provided and replace the completely black pixels with blue. As you can see, this image could not be used for anything and could not be adjusted to bring out any more details for the black pixels. So it is worthless. FYI If one thinks that can see more with their eyes then there are seeing things or its an optical illusions because nothing is there.
John Wheeler
John Wheeler