Originally posted by sputniksteve
Getting back on track I think. We have seen a lot of speculation by unqualified folks, but it is the qualified ones I like to hear from. I don't care
of you prove or disprove anything as long as you are being honest about your work and willing to admit you don't know anything for sure.
Keep it up guys, I'm buying everyone a pizza party once this is all over.
Supreme with anchovies for me! But may I say this... and it may seem a bit strange as I am directing what follows at me
as well as others -
but I would suggest you exercise great caution before accepting anyone as 'qualified'
. On a forum such as this, you are very, very unlikely
to encounter anyone who has genuine qualifications in imaging forensics or photogrammetry (more about that later..). What you may be lucky enough to
find are some folks who have significant scientific and analytical backgrounds, with genuine real-world experience in digital
imaging/processing/analysis, and who are good at geometry/trigonometry and therefore are likely
to be good at photogrammetry.
Oh wait - that's me!! [/egotistical]
So how do you, or anyone, tell who actually knows what they are talking about? Allow me to offer some advice on that... (I invite others to chime in,
1. Posting images/illustrations or citing what is likely googled text and using long techy-sounding words are NOT a particularly good indication.
Anyone can do that and sound impressive, especially to an uninformed audience (and most folks are not well-informed on how to analyse an image).
Pretenders will also often say that this stuff is too complex for others to understand...
2. Engaging with the readers IS a good indication. If the 'expert' is happy to discuss, elaborate, simplify or defend their words with examples,
debate and discussion, then chances are that they are confident in their information and so unafraid of being exposed as a pretender. If they avoid
topics, or don't want to talk about claims they have made.. beware.
3. Image analysis isn't simple. Neither is the real world - even the simplest of scenes can be quite complex. That means that anything 'unusual'
will often be extraordinarily difficult or impossible to analyse, and require much consideration of every possible contributing factor. If the
'expert' comes forward with a 'simple' solution and seems to be dismissing / completely ignoring other possibilities.. or, if they make a claim
using impressive looking words or pictures but refuse to show how they have used that technique before in a real situation.. again, beware.
4. Note that even experts sometimes get it wrong (not often..!) but when they do, how they handle it can be most enlightening - if they immediately
admit the error and thank the person who corrected them, that's a good sign. If they cannot utter those terrifying words "Sorry, I made a mistake"
even after absolute proof has been shown, then you are almost certainly talking to a pretender.
5. Finally, if the 'expert' is willing to actually take some supporting images themselves or show their own processing in proper detail (rather than
just link to googled stuff) that's a good sign.. But refer back to point 3...
won't you find many/any genuine image analysts on forums? Well, they get paid to do this stuff properly and are in high demand, and
they report back to professional organisations so are not having to deal with multiple ill-informed questions oft from folks with a biased view who
don't like their analyses..
Anyway, if someone claims to be qualified.. simply ask them for details of their formal training in Imaging, Forensics or Photogrammetry. Dates,
courses completed, Institutions, thanks.
If they just claim to be doing it 'professionally' without qual's, ask about their background.. As for me:
- I don't have formal qualifications in I, F or G, but..
- I spent a significant portion of my worklife in commercial photography and was a very early adopter of digital imaging
- Because of that, I ended up teaching Photography, then Digital Imaging and Editing (Photoshop) right up to advanced levels for many years (yes, I'm
- I also have a lot of background in the sciences (I used to manage a marine research centre in Southern Australia, and was involved in all sorts of
analysis including photogrammetry, back when it was almost unheard of..)
I spend a lot of time nowadays doing very wide stitched panoramas (anyone who knows about those will understand that photogrammetry is an essential
- I do a lot of this type of work (unpaid/hobby) in fields as far flung as ufology, marine, sky/star and moon mapping, SOHO/Stereo solar imagery,
Apollo imagery, you name it..
I'm happy to back all that up (and have proven it to moderators at other forums), but I hope my words examples, explanations and willingness to
engage and back up my claims, is enough for folks to judge...