What's the best way for a complete retard to tell if a certain

>bumping a post after 3 minutes on one of the slowest boards

>>3096787
Whopped in what way? If you're talking about any editing or adjustments at all, well, virtually every photo posted anywhere by someone with the capability is edited.

File: 19bf3205a653b774e5e7b1e0572c6d45.jpg (37KB, 419x424px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 419x424px

fuck around with the curves a bit

File: jaw3.jpg (39KB, 700x393px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 700x393px

>>3096790

DESU, I've never used photoshop before. I just want to know if pic related is real or edited.

fotoforensics.com

celeb shots or whatever you find on a magazine should go through a PR machine so there has to be some manipulation, at least color correction.

concerning less obvious manipulation like blemish removal and skin soothing you can see in fotoforensics (you can do similar in photoshop with inverting and level/curve fuckery) that there's a lack of banding throughout the smoothed skin - and it really comes to that. in my experience if you shoot that close there's no one with great skin and makeup or great lighting where it's so flawless and perfect out of the camera youre able to approve it for the public

File: Untitled-1.jpg (737KB, 882x882px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 882x882px

>>3096794
forgot pic

>>3096787
i had an epiphany to explain it even simplier: if you can see the details of the eyes, or hair strands, you should be able to see everything else

>>3096827

Could you elaborate?

>>3097364
i think he means if you see any area with enough detail, you should see detail everywhere the depth of field allows to. random big soft spots are the mark of the shoop.

>>3096787
put it through photoshop