I think it's a great idea but have some real doubts it would be something that actually worked well. Either people lacking the tools or skills to do this well or just not having the time to deconstruct the image.
I would say it points to a potential AI type (future) tool perhaps some of the more techie types here might put together. Then you just launch that and say a few pointers for the direction of changes and get close -- with the application then outputting some (semi?) standardized metric for distance from reality. Though there I can also see some issues with privacy (i.e., would there be some blurred face requirement?) and the whole deepfake type problems coming up too.
Exploring Reverse Photoshop Techniques on Glamour Photos
Have you ever considered “reverse engineering” photoshopped images to approximate real-life appearances? It’s a fascinating exercise, especially when comparing heavily retouched glamour shots to in-person impressions. Many of these photos are manipulated in predictable ways—narrowing faces, elongating bodies, or reducing perceived body mass.
Recently, I met a well-known MILF whose online glamour photos were unmistakably hers but seemed to reflect an idealized version—perhaps 20 pounds lighter and about 30% taller and leaner. Curious, I revisited her photos using a photo-editing app after our meeting. Adjusting elements like width and proportion, I worked to align the images with the person I met. The process was insightful: some areas required a 100% enlargement, others only 50%. The final result was much closer to her real-world appearance.
This experience got me thinking—should we quantify a “Photoshop Factor” in future reports ? For instance, assigning a percentage adjustment (e.g., 10%, 30%, 50%) to reflect the level of modification observed. It could serve as a valuable tool for those seeking a more realistic impression. What do you think of this concept?
I think it's a great idea but have some real doubts it would be something that actually worked well. Either people lacking the tools or skills to do this well or just not having the time to deconstruct the image.
I would say it points to a potential AI type (future) tool perhaps some of the more techie types here might put together. Then you just launch that and say a few pointers for the direction of changes and get close -- with the application then outputting some (semi?) standardized metric for distance from reality. Though there I can also see some issues with privacy (i.e., would there be some blurred face requirement?) and the whole deepfake type problems coming up too.
There's no set algorithm in creating a ps image that is universally used for all images.
Photoshopping is a process that can produce different outputs with same input.
You taking one of input/output pairs and creating an algorithm to go from output to input, does not solve anything for arbitrary output.
And if the exercise is in identifying ps techniques, I think we know most of them already?
As far as % of ps in reviews, I think it's too granular. Considering many people, including many shills, leave reviews with no indication of how different the pics are, I think the first baby step is to mention the difference and where exactly the difference is. Even that will be helpful.
Ie. What do you think is more informative? Sayig the girl is within 20% of her ps image... or saying she has 20% more weight than the PS image? The former is an opaque, vague statement that could mean many things. The latter is pretty clear that she has more weight (typically, in form of fat or larger frame).
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
VIP MEMBER
, you are now a VIP member!
We thank you for your purchase!
VIP MEMBER
, Thank you for becoming VIP member!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
