Mixing
Blur faces in raw images
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Is there a way to edit a raw image to black out or blur faces in raw images. The purpose would be to post images online for editing advice whithout identifying the people in the shot.
I’m currently using a canon 350d but if some systems can and others don’t knowing which are which would be helpfull so this question is not restricted to my camera.
raw editing
asked 5 hours ago
lijat
432210
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Is there a way to edit a raw image to black out or blur faces in raw images. The purpose would be to post images online for editing advice whithout identifying the people in the shot.
I’m currently using a canon 350d but if some systems can and others don’t knowing which are which would be helpfull so this question is not restricted to my camera.
raw editing
asked 5 hours ago
lijat
432210
1
Unless you really need to discuss skin tones, pets & stuffed toys make good test subjects with no fear of recognition or embarrassment. Or get your subject to hold said pet/toy in front of their face.
– Tetsujin
3 hours ago
@Tetsujin my usecase was along the lines of, how can I rescue this Image (In this case I had problems getting exposure rigt for both the sky and the people and sand in the forground)
– lijat
3 hours ago
1
OK, for a retrospective post, then no soft toy available. In that case you could blur & just upload a jpg, with potentially a link to a full single-layer TIFF. No-one could unscramble from either of those if you solidly blacked out the faces - but see security.stackexchange.com/questions/184099/… for caveats if your information is highly sensitive [though I'd usually assume that in most cases no-one would be bothered to go to such lengths] (I should drop this in as a secondary answer to keep to the spirit of SE)
– Tetsujin
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Is there a way to edit a raw image to black out or blur faces in raw images. The purpose would be to post images online for editing advice whithout identifying the people in the shot.
I’m currently using a canon 350d but if some systems can and others don’t knowing which are which would be helpfull so this question is not restricted to my camera.
raw editing
asked 5 hours ago
lijat
432210
Is there a way to edit a raw image to black out or blur faces in raw images. The purpose would be to post images online for editing advice whithout identifying the people in the shot.
I’m currently using a canon 350d but if some systems can and others don’t knowing which are which would be helpfull so this question is not restricted to my camera.
raw editing
raw editing
asked 5 hours ago
lijat
432210
asked 5 hours ago
lijat
432210
asked 5 hours ago
lijat
432210
asked 5 hours ago
lijat
432210
asked 5 hours ago
lijat
432210
432210
1
Unless you really need to discuss skin tones, pets & stuffed toys make good test subjects with no fear of recognition or embarrassment. Or get your subject to hold said pet/toy in front of their face.
– Tetsujin
3 hours ago
@Tetsujin my usecase was along the lines of, how can I rescue this Image (In this case I had problems getting exposure rigt for both the sky and the people and sand in the forground)
– lijat
3 hours ago
1
OK, for a retrospective post, then no soft toy available. In that case you could blur & just upload a jpg, with potentially a link to a full single-layer TIFF. No-one could unscramble from either of those if you solidly blacked out the faces - but see security.stackexchange.com/questions/184099/… for caveats if your information is highly sensitive [though I'd usually assume that in most cases no-one would be bothered to go to such lengths] (I should drop this in as a secondary answer to keep to the spirit of SE)
– Tetsujin
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
Unless you really need to discuss skin tones, pets & stuffed toys make good test subjects with no fear of recognition or embarrassment. Or get your subject to hold said pet/toy in front of their face.
– Tetsujin
3 hours ago
@Tetsujin my usecase was along the lines of, how can I rescue this Image (In this case I had problems getting exposure rigt for both the sky and the people and sand in the forground)
– lijat
3 hours ago
1
OK, for a retrospective post, then no soft toy available. In that case you could blur & just upload a jpg, with potentially a link to a full single-layer TIFF. No-one could unscramble from either of those if you solidly blacked out the faces - but see security.stackexchange.com/questions/184099/… for caveats if your information is highly sensitive [though I'd usually assume that in most cases no-one would be bothered to go to such lengths] (I should drop this in as a secondary answer to keep to the spirit of SE)
– Tetsujin
2 hours ago
1
1
Unless you really need to discuss skin tones, pets & stuffed toys make good test subjects with no fear of recognition or embarrassment. Or get your subject to hold said pet/toy in front of their face.
– Tetsujin
3 hours ago
Unless you really need to discuss skin tones, pets & stuffed toys make good test subjects with no fear of recognition or embarrassment. Or get your subject to hold said pet/toy in front of their face.
– Tetsujin
3 hours ago
@Tetsujin my usecase was along the lines of, how can I rescue this Image (In this case I had problems getting exposure rigt for both the sky and the people and sand in the forground)
– lijat
3 hours ago
@Tetsujin my usecase was along the lines of, how can I rescue this Image (In this case I had problems getting exposure rigt for both the sky and the people and sand in the forground)
– lijat
3 hours ago
1
1
OK, for a retrospective post, then no soft toy available. In that case you could blur & just upload a jpg, with potentially a link to a full single-layer TIFF. No-one could unscramble from either of those if you solidly blacked out the faces - but see security.stackexchange.com/questions/184099/… for caveats if your information is highly sensitive [though I'd usually assume that in most cases no-one would be bothered to go to such lengths] (I should drop this in as a secondary answer to keep to the spirit of SE)
– Tetsujin
2 hours ago
OK, for a retrospective post, then no soft toy available. In that case you could blur & just upload a jpg, with potentially a link to a full single-layer TIFF. No-one could unscramble from either of those if you solidly blacked out the faces - but see security.stackexchange.com/questions/184099/… for caveats if your information is highly sensitive [though I'd usually assume that in most cases no-one would be bothered to go to such lengths] (I should drop this in as a secondary answer to keep to the spirit of SE)
– Tetsujin
2 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
When you "edit" a raw image, you're not really editing the raw data. You're editing the set of instructions on how that data should be used to produce a viewable image. The actual raw data is not altered.
When you look at a 'raw' image on a screen, you're not really looking at "THE raw image", either. You're looking at one possible interpretation among a (practically infinite) number of equally valid interpretations of that data.
If someone else opens a raw image file that you have "edited" to blur or black out faces, your edit will only be used and the faces blurred or blacked out if the application the other party uses to open the raw file:
- Understands the instructions you added with your previous edit. This usually means the same application is used to by both you and the other party
and
- The application on the second user's device is set to use those instructions, rather than some other set - such as another default set - to open the file.
Even then, the user could easily reverse your blurring edit to see the faces without the blur.
If the raw file is opened by a different application than the one you used to blur or black out the faces, it is nearly impossible that the faces will be blurred or blacked out in the image displayed on the screen.
I was wondering if there was a way to actually obscure or delete the information in some pixels in the raw data.
If the original raw data is unaltered by every commercially available raw editing/viewing application, the answer should be fairly obvious: "No."
I suppose you could create an application that could convert the monochrome luminance values of each pixel in a raw file to some other raster format, apply gamma correction (so that you can see what you are doing instead of trying to work on a black blob of nothingness), mask out the faces, and then convert the gamma corrected values back to linear values and re-encode that into whatever particular raw file format your images use (NEF, CR2, etc.). But to the best of my knowledge, no such product is commercially available.
answered 4 hours ago
Michael Clark
121k7136335
1
This does not answer my question, I was wondering if there was a way to actually obscure or delete the information in some pixels in the raw data.
– lijat
4 hours ago
1
@lijat If the raw data is unaltered by every commercially available raw editing/viewing application, the answer is obviously "No." Please see the addition to the answer.
– Michael Clark
4 hours ago
thanks, with the addition the question is answered thou not in the direction I hoped
– lijat
4 hours ago
The software wouldn't necessarily need to re-encode or reverse gamma — it'd just apply its obfuscation to the selected area in the data.
– mattdm
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Comments turned into an answer...
As has already been covered, you cannot blur the RAW, because edits to RAW are saved as 'sidecar' files & are entirely optional for any other person, app or computer viewing them to use or ignore as they see fit.
There's another downside to RAW - only you know what your intent was; anyone else opening it in disparate software won't even know your start-point. A TIF or JPG will at least look the same to everyone [within tolerance of their monitor, calibration etc]
Unless you really need to discuss skin tones, pets & stuffed toys make good test subjects with no fear of recognition or embarrassment. Or get your subject to hold said pet/toy in front of their face.
If you need to discuss already-taken work for a retrospective post, with no opportunity to replace subjects with toys...
In that case you could blur or black out for privacy & just upload a jpg, with potentially a link to a full single-layer TIFF. No-one could unscramble from either of those if you solidly blacked out the faces - but see Secure way of masking out sensitive information in screenshots? from our sister site Security SE, for caveats if your information is highly sensitive [though I'd usually assume that in most cases no-one would be bothered to go to such lengths]
It's possible to offer potential fixes/cures even from a JPG or TIF by running them through Photoshop or Camera RAW etc after the fact. The changes will not be as detailed as from the original RAW, but they can guide you towards how to make the changes yourself from your original image.
Here are some questions & answers I've personally participated in where advice was gained by using only JPGs posted here & further work could be done by the OP.
None of these had any element of privacy they were overtly concerned about, but the same 'tutorial' approach could easily be taken with hidden faces etc.
What causes this dark halo around the sun? - my own question, the answer helped me find how to fix it, even though I had to do the fix myself.
How can I create this 'medieval look' using an entry-level camera like the Nikon D3300? - the answer to this was done using soft toys, so the OP could copy the techniques later to real subjects.
How could I edit armpit stains out of a photograph? - quick fix to demonstrate the technique, that the OP could then apply themselves to the original.
How to make the signature/watermark look better?
&
How do I correct the huge blue-shift in these images?
- again, rough re-jigs done on JPGs that could be emulated by the OP.
Late Edit:
This one took me a while to find, but this is dependant on being able to read a RAW file using the same software as it was designed to be viewed on. Why does the histogram of an image depends on the software that opened it?
answered 2 hours ago
Tetsujin
6,57721739
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
When you "edit" a raw image, you're not really editing the raw data. You're editing the set of instructions on how that data should be used to produce a viewable image. The actual raw data is not altered.
When you look at a 'raw' image on a screen, you're not really looking at "THE raw image", either. You're looking at one possible interpretation among a (practically infinite) number of equally valid interpretations of that data.
If someone else opens a raw image file that you have "edited" to blur or black out faces, your edit will only be used and the faces blurred or blacked out if the application the other party uses to open the raw file:
- Understands the instructions you added with your previous edit. This usually means the same application is used to by both you and the other party
and
- The application on the second user's device is set to use those instructions, rather than some other set - such as another default set - to open the file.
Even then, the user could easily reverse your blurring edit to see the faces without the blur.
If the raw file is opened by a different application than the one you used to blur or black out the faces, it is nearly impossible that the faces will be blurred or blacked out in the image displayed on the screen.
I was wondering if there was a way to actually obscure or delete the information in some pixels in the raw data.
If the original raw data is unaltered by every commercially available raw editing/viewing application, the answer should be fairly obvious: "No."
I suppose you could create an application that could convert the monochrome luminance values of each pixel in a raw file to some other raster format, apply gamma correction (so that you can see what you are doing instead of trying to work on a black blob of nothingness), mask out the faces, and then convert the gamma corrected values back to linear values and re-encode that into whatever particular raw file format your images use (NEF, CR2, etc.). But to the best of my knowledge, no such product is commercially available.
answered 4 hours ago
Michael Clark
121k7136335
1
This does not answer my question, I was wondering if there was a way to actually obscure or delete the information in some pixels in the raw data.
– lijat
4 hours ago
1
@lijat If the raw data is unaltered by every commercially available raw editing/viewing application, the answer is obviously "No." Please see the addition to the answer.
– Michael Clark
4 hours ago
thanks, with the addition the question is answered thou not in the direction I hoped
– lijat
4 hours ago
The software wouldn't necessarily need to re-encode or reverse gamma — it'd just apply its obfuscation to the selected area in the data.
– mattdm
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
When you "edit" a raw image, you're not really editing the raw data. You're editing the set of instructions on how that data should be used to produce a viewable image. The actual raw data is not altered.
When you look at a 'raw' image on a screen, you're not really looking at "THE raw image", either. You're looking at one possible interpretation among a (practically infinite) number of equally valid interpretations of that data.
If someone else opens a raw image file that you have "edited" to blur or black out faces, your edit will only be used and the faces blurred or blacked out if the application the other party uses to open the raw file:
- Understands the instructions you added with your previous edit. This usually means the same application is used to by both you and the other party
and
- The application on the second user's device is set to use those instructions, rather than some other set - such as another default set - to open the file.
Even then, the user could easily reverse your blurring edit to see the faces without the blur.
If the raw file is opened by a different application than the one you used to blur or black out the faces, it is nearly impossible that the faces will be blurred or blacked out in the image displayed on the screen.
I was wondering if there was a way to actually obscure or delete the information in some pixels in the raw data.
If the original raw data is unaltered by every commercially available raw editing/viewing application, the answer should be fairly obvious: "No."
I suppose you could create an application that could convert the monochrome luminance values of each pixel in a raw file to some other raster format, apply gamma correction (so that you can see what you are doing instead of trying to work on a black blob of nothingness), mask out the faces, and then convert the gamma corrected values back to linear values and re-encode that into whatever particular raw file format your images use (NEF, CR2, etc.). But to the best of my knowledge, no such product is commercially available.
answered 4 hours ago
Michael Clark
121k7136335
1
This does not answer my question, I was wondering if there was a way to actually obscure or delete the information in some pixels in the raw data.
– lijat
4 hours ago
1
@lijat If the raw data is unaltered by every commercially available raw editing/viewing application, the answer is obviously "No." Please see the addition to the answer.
– Michael Clark
4 hours ago
thanks, with the addition the question is answered thou not in the direction I hoped
– lijat
4 hours ago
The software wouldn't necessarily need to re-encode or reverse gamma — it'd just apply its obfuscation to the selected area in the data.
– mattdm
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
When you "edit" a raw image, you're not really editing the raw data. You're editing the set of instructions on how that data should be used to produce a viewable image. The actual raw data is not altered.
When you look at a 'raw' image on a screen, you're not really looking at "THE raw image", either. You're looking at one possible interpretation among a (practically infinite) number of equally valid interpretations of that data.
If someone else opens a raw image file that you have "edited" to blur or black out faces, your edit will only be used and the faces blurred or blacked out if the application the other party uses to open the raw file:
- Understands the instructions you added with your previous edit. This usually means the same application is used to by both you and the other party
and
- The application on the second user's device is set to use those instructions, rather than some other set - such as another default set - to open the file.
Even then, the user could easily reverse your blurring edit to see the faces without the blur.
If the raw file is opened by a different application than the one you used to blur or black out the faces, it is nearly impossible that the faces will be blurred or blacked out in the image displayed on the screen.
I was wondering if there was a way to actually obscure or delete the information in some pixels in the raw data.
If the original raw data is unaltered by every commercially available raw editing/viewing application, the answer should be fairly obvious: "No."
I suppose you could create an application that could convert the monochrome luminance values of each pixel in a raw file to some other raster format, apply gamma correction (so that you can see what you are doing instead of trying to work on a black blob of nothingness), mask out the faces, and then convert the gamma corrected values back to linear values and re-encode that into whatever particular raw file format your images use (NEF, CR2, etc.). But to the best of my knowledge, no such product is commercially available.
answered 4 hours ago
Michael Clark
121k7136335
When you "edit" a raw image, you're not really editing the raw data. You're editing the set of instructions on how that data should be used to produce a viewable image. The actual raw data is not altered.
When you look at a 'raw' image on a screen, you're not really looking at "THE raw image", either. You're looking at one possible interpretation among a (practically infinite) number of equally valid interpretations of that data.
If someone else opens a raw image file that you have "edited" to blur or black out faces, your edit will only be used and the faces blurred or blacked out if the application the other party uses to open the raw file:
- Understands the instructions you added with your previous edit. This usually means the same application is used to by both you and the other party
and
- The application on the second user's device is set to use those instructions, rather than some other set - such as another default set - to open the file.
Even then, the user could easily reverse your blurring edit to see the faces without the blur.
If the raw file is opened by a different application than the one you used to blur or black out the faces, it is nearly impossible that the faces will be blurred or blacked out in the image displayed on the screen.
I was wondering if there was a way to actually obscure or delete the information in some pixels in the raw data.
If the original raw data is unaltered by every commercially available raw editing/viewing application, the answer should be fairly obvious: "No."
I suppose you could create an application that could convert the monochrome luminance values of each pixel in a raw file to some other raster format, apply gamma correction (so that you can see what you are doing instead of trying to work on a black blob of nothingness), mask out the faces, and then convert the gamma corrected values back to linear values and re-encode that into whatever particular raw file format your images use (NEF, CR2, etc.). But to the best of my knowledge, no such product is commercially available.
answered 4 hours ago
Michael Clark
121k7136335
edited 4 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Michael Clark
121k7136335
answered 4 hours ago
Michael Clark
121k7136335
answered 4 hours ago
Michael Clark
121k7136335
121k7136335
1
This does not answer my question, I was wondering if there was a way to actually obscure or delete the information in some pixels in the raw data.
– lijat
4 hours ago
1
@lijat If the raw data is unaltered by every commercially available raw editing/viewing application, the answer is obviously "No." Please see the addition to the answer.
– Michael Clark
4 hours ago
thanks, with the addition the question is answered thou not in the direction I hoped
– lijat
4 hours ago
The software wouldn't necessarily need to re-encode or reverse gamma — it'd just apply its obfuscation to the selected area in the data.
– mattdm
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
This does not answer my question, I was wondering if there was a way to actually obscure or delete the information in some pixels in the raw data.
– lijat
4 hours ago
1
@lijat If the raw data is unaltered by every commercially available raw editing/viewing application, the answer is obviously "No." Please see the addition to the answer.
– Michael Clark
4 hours ago
thanks, with the addition the question is answered thou not in the direction I hoped
– lijat
4 hours ago
The software wouldn't necessarily need to re-encode or reverse gamma — it'd just apply its obfuscation to the selected area in the data.
– mattdm
16 mins ago
1
1
This does not answer my question, I was wondering if there was a way to actually obscure or delete the information in some pixels in the raw data.
– lijat
4 hours ago
This does not answer my question, I was wondering if there was a way to actually obscure or delete the information in some pixels in the raw data.
– lijat
4 hours ago
1
1
@lijat If the raw data is unaltered by every commercially available raw editing/viewing application, the answer is obviously "No." Please see the addition to the answer.
– Michael Clark
4 hours ago
@lijat If the raw data is unaltered by every commercially available raw editing/viewing application, the answer is obviously "No." Please see the addition to the answer.
– Michael Clark
4 hours ago
thanks, with the addition the question is answered thou not in the direction I hoped
– lijat
4 hours ago
thanks, with the addition the question is answered thou not in the direction I hoped
– lijat
4 hours ago
The software wouldn't necessarily need to re-encode or reverse gamma — it'd just apply its obfuscation to the selected area in the data.
– mattdm
16 mins ago
The software wouldn't necessarily need to re-encode or reverse gamma — it'd just apply its obfuscation to the selected area in the data.
– mattdm
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Comments turned into an answer...
As has already been covered, you cannot blur the RAW, because edits to RAW are saved as 'sidecar' files & are entirely optional for any other person, app or computer viewing them to use or ignore as they see fit.
There's another downside to RAW - only you know what your intent was; anyone else opening it in disparate software won't even know your start-point. A TIF or JPG will at least look the same to everyone [within tolerance of their monitor, calibration etc]
Unless you really need to discuss skin tones, pets & stuffed toys make good test subjects with no fear of recognition or embarrassment. Or get your subject to hold said pet/toy in front of their face.
If you need to discuss already-taken work for a retrospective post, with no opportunity to replace subjects with toys...
In that case you could blur or black out for privacy & just upload a jpg, with potentially a link to a full single-layer TIFF. No-one could unscramble from either of those if you solidly blacked out the faces - but see Secure way of masking out sensitive information in screenshots? from our sister site Security SE, for caveats if your information is highly sensitive [though I'd usually assume that in most cases no-one would be bothered to go to such lengths]
It's possible to offer potential fixes/cures even from a JPG or TIF by running them through Photoshop or Camera RAW etc after the fact. The changes will not be as detailed as from the original RAW, but they can guide you towards how to make the changes yourself from your original image.
Here are some questions & answers I've personally participated in where advice was gained by using only JPGs posted here & further work could be done by the OP.
None of these had any element of privacy they were overtly concerned about, but the same 'tutorial' approach could easily be taken with hidden faces etc.
What causes this dark halo around the sun? - my own question, the answer helped me find how to fix it, even though I had to do the fix myself.
How can I create this 'medieval look' using an entry-level camera like the Nikon D3300? - the answer to this was done using soft toys, so the OP could copy the techniques later to real subjects.
How could I edit armpit stains out of a photograph? - quick fix to demonstrate the technique, that the OP could then apply themselves to the original.
How to make the signature/watermark look better?
&
How do I correct the huge blue-shift in these images?
- again, rough re-jigs done on JPGs that could be emulated by the OP.
Late Edit:
This one took me a while to find, but this is dependant on being able to read a RAW file using the same software as it was designed to be viewed on. Why does the histogram of an image depends on the software that opened it?
answered 2 hours ago
Tetsujin
6,57721739
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Comments turned into an answer...
As has already been covered, you cannot blur the RAW, because edits to RAW are saved as 'sidecar' files & are entirely optional for any other person, app or computer viewing them to use or ignore as they see fit.
There's another downside to RAW - only you know what your intent was; anyone else opening it in disparate software won't even know your start-point. A TIF or JPG will at least look the same to everyone [within tolerance of their monitor, calibration etc]
Unless you really need to discuss skin tones, pets & stuffed toys make good test subjects with no fear of recognition or embarrassment. Or get your subject to hold said pet/toy in front of their face.
If you need to discuss already-taken work for a retrospective post, with no opportunity to replace subjects with toys...
In that case you could blur or black out for privacy & just upload a jpg, with potentially a link to a full single-layer TIFF. No-one could unscramble from either of those if you solidly blacked out the faces - but see Secure way of masking out sensitive information in screenshots? from our sister site Security SE, for caveats if your information is highly sensitive [though I'd usually assume that in most cases no-one would be bothered to go to such lengths]
It's possible to offer potential fixes/cures even from a JPG or TIF by running them through Photoshop or Camera RAW etc after the fact. The changes will not be as detailed as from the original RAW, but they can guide you towards how to make the changes yourself from your original image.
Here are some questions & answers I've personally participated in where advice was gained by using only JPGs posted here & further work could be done by the OP.
None of these had any element of privacy they were overtly concerned about, but the same 'tutorial' approach could easily be taken with hidden faces etc.
What causes this dark halo around the sun? - my own question, the answer helped me find how to fix it, even though I had to do the fix myself.
How can I create this 'medieval look' using an entry-level camera like the Nikon D3300? - the answer to this was done using soft toys, so the OP could copy the techniques later to real subjects.
How could I edit armpit stains out of a photograph? - quick fix to demonstrate the technique, that the OP could then apply themselves to the original.
How to make the signature/watermark look better?
&
How do I correct the huge blue-shift in these images?
- again, rough re-jigs done on JPGs that could be emulated by the OP.
Late Edit:
This one took me a while to find, but this is dependant on being able to read a RAW file using the same software as it was designed to be viewed on. Why does the histogram of an image depends on the software that opened it?
answered 2 hours ago
Tetsujin
6,57721739
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Comments turned into an answer...
As has already been covered, you cannot blur the RAW, because edits to RAW are saved as 'sidecar' files & are entirely optional for any other person, app or computer viewing them to use or ignore as they see fit.
There's another downside to RAW - only you know what your intent was; anyone else opening it in disparate software won't even know your start-point. A TIF or JPG will at least look the same to everyone [within tolerance of their monitor, calibration etc]
Unless you really need to discuss skin tones, pets & stuffed toys make good test subjects with no fear of recognition or embarrassment. Or get your subject to hold said pet/toy in front of their face.
If you need to discuss already-taken work for a retrospective post, with no opportunity to replace subjects with toys...
In that case you could blur or black out for privacy & just upload a jpg, with potentially a link to a full single-layer TIFF. No-one could unscramble from either of those if you solidly blacked out the faces - but see Secure way of masking out sensitive information in screenshots? from our sister site Security SE, for caveats if your information is highly sensitive [though I'd usually assume that in most cases no-one would be bothered to go to such lengths]
It's possible to offer potential fixes/cures even from a JPG or TIF by running them through Photoshop or Camera RAW etc after the fact. The changes will not be as detailed as from the original RAW, but they can guide you towards how to make the changes yourself from your original image.
Here are some questions & answers I've personally participated in where advice was gained by using only JPGs posted here & further work could be done by the OP.
None of these had any element of privacy they were overtly concerned about, but the same 'tutorial' approach could easily be taken with hidden faces etc.
What causes this dark halo around the sun? - my own question, the answer helped me find how to fix it, even though I had to do the fix myself.
How can I create this 'medieval look' using an entry-level camera like the Nikon D3300? - the answer to this was done using soft toys, so the OP could copy the techniques later to real subjects.
How could I edit armpit stains out of a photograph? - quick fix to demonstrate the technique, that the OP could then apply themselves to the original.
How to make the signature/watermark look better?
&
How do I correct the huge blue-shift in these images?
- again, rough re-jigs done on JPGs that could be emulated by the OP.
Late Edit:
This one took me a while to find, but this is dependant on being able to read a RAW file using the same software as it was designed to be viewed on. Why does the histogram of an image depends on the software that opened it?
answered 2 hours ago
Tetsujin
6,57721739
Comments turned into an answer...
As has already been covered, you cannot blur the RAW, because edits to RAW are saved as 'sidecar' files & are entirely optional for any other person, app or computer viewing them to use or ignore as they see fit.
There's another downside to RAW - only you know what your intent was; anyone else opening it in disparate software won't even know your start-point. A TIF or JPG will at least look the same to everyone [within tolerance of their monitor, calibration etc]
Unless you really need to discuss skin tones, pets & stuffed toys make good test subjects with no fear of recognition or embarrassment. Or get your subject to hold said pet/toy in front of their face.
If you need to discuss already-taken work for a retrospective post, with no opportunity to replace subjects with toys...
In that case you could blur or black out for privacy & just upload a jpg, with potentially a link to a full single-layer TIFF. No-one could unscramble from either of those if you solidly blacked out the faces - but see Secure way of masking out sensitive information in screenshots? from our sister site Security SE, for caveats if your information is highly sensitive [though I'd usually assume that in most cases no-one would be bothered to go to such lengths]
It's possible to offer potential fixes/cures even from a JPG or TIF by running them through Photoshop or Camera RAW etc after the fact. The changes will not be as detailed as from the original RAW, but they can guide you towards how to make the changes yourself from your original image.
Here are some questions & answers I've personally participated in where advice was gained by using only JPGs posted here & further work could be done by the OP.
None of these had any element of privacy they were overtly concerned about, but the same 'tutorial' approach could easily be taken with hidden faces etc.
What causes this dark halo around the sun? - my own question, the answer helped me find how to fix it, even though I had to do the fix myself.
How can I create this 'medieval look' using an entry-level camera like the Nikon D3300? - the answer to this was done using soft toys, so the OP could copy the techniques later to real subjects.
How could I edit armpit stains out of a photograph? - quick fix to demonstrate the technique, that the OP could then apply themselves to the original.
How to make the signature/watermark look better?
&
How do I correct the huge blue-shift in these images?
- again, rough re-jigs done on JPGs that could be emulated by the OP.
Late Edit:
This one took me a while to find, but this is dependant on being able to read a RAW file using the same software as it was designed to be viewed on. Why does the histogram of an image depends on the software that opened it?
answered 2 hours ago
Tetsujin
6,57721739
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Tetsujin
6,57721739
answered 2 hours ago
Tetsujin
6,57721739
answered 2 hours ago
Tetsujin
6,57721739
6,57721739
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f101601%2fblur-faces-in-raw-images%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Unless you really need to discuss skin tones, pets & stuffed toys make good test subjects with no fear of recognition or embarrassment. Or get your subject to hold said pet/toy in front of their face.
– Tetsujin
3 hours ago
@Tetsujin my usecase was along the lines of, how can I rescue this Image (In this case I had problems getting exposure rigt for both the sky and the people and sand in the forground)
– lijat
3 hours ago
1
OK, for a retrospective post, then no soft toy available. In that case you could blur & just upload a jpg, with potentially a link to a full single-layer TIFF. No-one could unscramble from either of those if you solidly blacked out the faces - but see security.stackexchange.com/questions/184099/… for caveats if your information is highly sensitive [though I'd usually assume that in most cases no-one would be bothered to go to such lengths] (I should drop this in as a secondary answer to keep to the spirit of SE)
– Tetsujin
2 hours ago