State vs Jason Lynn Young: weekend discussion 11-18 Feb 2012

[Madeleine74]

Enhancing brings out artifacts in the picture that may be obscured due to lighting or shadows. Otto, you do a lot of photo enhancing to help people see the details in various evidence photos. I've seen lots of your work.

Adding or subtracting items that are not in the source photo is manipulation.

Changing the contrast, gamma, brightness, hues, tones, resolution and other things doesn't change the elements in a picture, it is showing what might not be discernible.

 

[tarheel8600]

I think that enhancing can change an image ... it really depends on what someone wants to do. If the objective is to refine detail, then that is what is enhanced. If someone wants to enhance various hues, the result can be quite different from the original. It depends on what is enhanced. It's a rather fine line between manipulating and editing.

I so disagree.

en·hance - to raise to a higher degree; intensify; magnify

ed·it - to revise or correct
to expunge; eliminate
to add


These two words are completely different in meaning. There is no fine line between them. There is a huge wall separating the meanings of these two words.

 

[Turnadot]

But let's get serious a moment. When's the last time any of us enhanced an image and saw a yeti? Happens to me all the time.

You hearin' me?

*fistbump*

 

[Just the Fax]

So that we now agree, the PT needs to get off their duffs and properly enhance the west hall photo so his missing leather gloves are clearly visible.

 

[tarheel8600]

But let's get serious a moment. When's the last time any of us enhanced an image and saw a yeti? Happens to me all the time.

You hearin' me?

*fistbump*

I think that if you saw a photo of Yeti, that would be considered editing, not enhancing. :floorlaugh:

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm convinced if they get the right professional (like the FBI folk for instance) the photo can be enhanced enough to bring out the details of the shoes he's wearing in that hallway pic. That would nail him once and for all. The gloves would be a nice bonus, but the shoes would do the job.

 

[Turnadot]

So that we now agree, the PT needs to get off their duffs and properly enhance the west hall photo so his missing leather gloves are clearly visible.

I agree. It would help nail him. I'm new to the case, only know the details from the trial but so far I'm not convinced of his guilt. Of course, it's early days still.

 

[otto]

Can you point to anything the state presented that was "changed" or "manipulated" in a bad way?
The defense and the judge were fully satisfied with the admitted evidence.

In this image, the side of the step stool appears greenish. It is not. In fact, there is blood on the stool, but it's not visible in the image. The image has either been over-exposed in the camera or after the fact ... I think it's after the fact because of the green.

 

[Turnadot]

I think that if you saw a photo of Yeti, that would be considered editing, not enhancing. :floorlaugh:

I only enhanced, I swanny on the toast with Mary's face. I'm telling you it was a yeti.

:innocent:

 

[tarheel8600]

I'm convinced if they get the right professional (like the FBI folk for instance) the photo can be enhanced enough to bring out the details of the shoes he's wearing in that hallway pic. That would nail him once and for all.

Speaking of FBI folk, I would really loved to have seen a profile of Michelle's killer done by them. It would have been interesting to see what they would have come up with.

 

[otto]

Enhancing brings out artifacts in the picture that may be obscured due to lighting or shadows. Otto, you do a lot of photo enhancing to help people see the details in various evidence photos. I've seen lots of your work.

Adding or subtracting items that are not in the source photo is manipulation.

Changing the contrast, gamma, brightness, hues, tones, resolution and other things doesn't change the elements in a picture, it is showing what might not be discernible.

I think the photo of the foot I posted on page 1 of this thread is a good example of enhancing color that may ultimately be manipulation.

This one (is it blowing margins?):

 

[Talina]

Otto - are you saying that you understand the words manipulate ,edit and enhance to be synonyms?

They are not to me and perhaps that is why I am not agreeing with what you are posting about enhancing photos being a way to manipulate them (that is, if I have it correct what I think you are saying).

 

[Turnadot]

Well, I'm pretty slow on the uptake. I don't see how the photo of the foot shows manipulation.

 

[otto]

Otto - are you saying that you understand the words manipulate ,edit and enhance to be synonyms?

They are not to me and perhaps that is why I am not agreeing with what you are posting about enhancing photos being a way to manipulate them (that is, if I have it correct what I think you are saying).

No ... I'm saying that I know enough about manipulating and editing images using software to know that if I edit it enough, even if it's only moving shadow, it can result in a manipulated image.

 

[tarheel8600]

Well, I'm pretty slow on the uptake. I don't see how the photo of the foot shows manipulation.

To see editing, enhancement, or manipulation, you would need the original photo to compare it to. You cannot tell by looking at just one photo.

 

[Turnadot]

No ... I'm saying that I know enough about manipulating and editing images using software to know that if I edit it enough, even if it's only moving shadow, it can result in a manipulated image.

Interesting. Please elaborate.

I think enhancing changes what can be seen: light, shadow, contrast. But the image itself has not been altered - it's all still there. Intact. Only the emphasis has changed.

Of course, that's IMO.

 

[Just the Fax]

Good grief otto, please warn us before posting those gnarly feet.

 

[Talina]

Interesting. Please elaborate.

I think enhancing changes what can be seen: light, shadow, contrast, but the image itself has not been altered - it's all still there. Intact, only the emphasis has changed.

Of course, that's IMO.

That's what I think of when I think of an enhanced photo or image.

I think of something entirely different when I think of editing or manipulating.

 

[tarheel8600]

Good grief otto, I please warn us before posting those gnarly feet.

Amen!!

JY really is ugly from head to toe!!

 

[LyndyLoo]

Speaking of FBI folk, I would really loved to have seen a profile of Michelle's killer done by them. It would have been interesting to see what they would have come up with.

well..I'll stake a stab at it..

First of all whomever blugeoned this victim was targeting her..no attempt to steal anything from the household full of good electronics. Personal items removed i.e wedding rings. then leaving a living witness along with actually taking the time to care and settle the child..and careful cleanup of all items..such as blood, diaper of child, weapon, no garbage nor doggie prints (had to have been removed from BR his usual sleeping area) Lights on throughout house during night (330AM witness) yet all turned off when left..

Whomever did this knew the house, new the child, knew where things were. This was a personal murder and NOT a random or stranger.

Question??..Why not take the Lexus from the garage? keys were available. Why not steel the purse on floor in Kitchen??..The absence of evidence in this case is in of itself EVIDENCE..

Bottomline..murderer was related, connected and the rage shown means it was personal!!
:seeya: