Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Is it true or Photoshopped?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Chris_L
Chris_L e2 Member 871 forum postsChris_L vcard United Kingdom
12 Jul 2014 - 3:56 PM

Intrigued by the website that claims to sort a Photoshopped image from a "genuine" one, "proving" non-Photoshopped images are "real".

Some fun to be had with this I imagine Smile

http://www.izitru.com/

Rely on izitru whenever the truth matters:

Social Media
Your photo's not manipulated, so make sure people know it.
Citizen Journalism
You captured an important moment. Now give it the credibility it deserves.
Photographic Evidence
Whether for an insurance claim or a legal dispute, an authenticated photo is better documentation.
Online Auctions
Increase trust by demonstrating that your photos aren't hiding anything from buyers.
Photo Contests
Leave no doubt that your incredible shot was captured in-camera.

Last Modified By Chris_L at 12 Jul 2014 - 3:57 PM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
12 Jul 2014 - 3:56 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Jestertheclown
12 Jul 2014 - 4:39 PM

Presumably, this will only work properly with shots that were taken as Jpegs?

I've just tried it with a Jpeg. that I'd converted from a raw original, with all that that entails and it came up as "potentially having been worked upon" which sounds like a get out clause!

Chris_L
Chris_L e2 Member 871 forum postsChris_L vcard United Kingdom
12 Jul 2014 - 4:48 PM

From their FAQ

"JPEG is the standard file format used by all digital cameras, and our service is designed to identify original digital camera files. Thus, several of our forensic tests focus specifically on characteristics that are unique to JPEG format files.
Some professional-level cameras offer the option to capture raw files instead of JPEG. Unlike JPEG's, raw files generally can't be edited without saving out to a different format, so they already serve as sufficient proof of what the camera captured. Of course, some photographers would prefer not to send their client their original, raw captures. If you prefer to work with raw files, but you'd still like to use our site to certify your images, we suggest you set your camera to the raw+JPEG setting. You can then use the raw file to create your final, enhanced image, but upload the camera JPEG to izitru as evidence of what was originally captured by the camera."

thewilliam
12 Jul 2014 - 5:27 PM

Whenever I produce evidence photographs, I include my photographic credentials and a statement of that the pic hasn't been manipulated in any way. This is consistent with what any expert witness would do. There's never been a problem with any of my pix.

The photograph is effectively illustrating my sworn testimony. Raw files are archived and so available for the Court to scrutinize.

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014137 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
12 Jul 2014 - 5:28 PM

Just tried a shot that is straight off my camera phone:

http://izitru.com/yxYw0

Medium Trust: Though this image did not pass all of our forensic tests, we did not find compelling evidence that this is not an unmodified original file from a camera.

so then I tried something modified:
http://izitru.com/RCX4S

Potential file modification
Our forensic tests suggest this file has been re-saved since initial capture. Because this file is not a camera original, it is possible that it was modified.


So its possible that either was modified Wink
wonder what you have to do to get a trusted image!?

Jestertheclown
12 Jul 2014 - 5:41 PM


Quote: wonder what you have to do to get a trusted image!?

Wonder indeed.

This is an untouched Jpeg. downloaded from my trusty old Fuji S5700.

It's a straight-from-the-camera-shot taken on a school trip to Kentwell Hall, quite some time ago.

It's one of about a dozen that I saved in a folder, which I'd intended to finish but never got around to so doing.

Chris_L
Chris_L e2 Member 871 forum postsChris_L vcard United Kingdom
12 Jul 2014 - 5:49 PM

I THINK I MIGHT HAVE THEM FOOLED! Grin

http://izitru.com/Ae6TH

12-07-2014-17-48-50.jpg

lobsterboy
lobsterboy Site Moderator 1014137 forum postslobsterboy vcard United Kingdom13 Constructive Critique Points
12 Jul 2014 - 7:25 PM

Looks like a human checks it aftewards:

Changed trust level from 'High' to 'None'. After a closer inspection, changed rating to No Trust. Our automated tests do not currently test for photos of photos, but there were clear signs that's what this is when inspected with other methods. Of course, you probably don't need us to tell you that this one is a fake.

Chris_L
Chris_L e2 Member 871 forum postsChris_L vcard United Kingdom
12 Jul 2014 - 7:32 PM

Hahahahah, the software did the job properly, the file I uploaded was a jpeg direct from camera, good to see a human checks them. (Perhaps when they have a lot of incoming hits from a site like epz) Smile

I did that without a tripod and without matching shutter speed to monitor refresh or optimising brightness of monitor etc and using an obvious fake photo that was one of the first to come up doing a websearch for Photoshopped animals. However, I can clearly see how I could beat the system.

Last Modified By Chris_L at 12 Jul 2014 - 7:33 PM
Jestertheclown
12 Jul 2014 - 7:45 PM

It s unable to tell that my Kentwell Hall shot was genuine though.

llareggub
llareggub  4698 forum posts United Kingdom
12 Jul 2014 - 10:03 PM

I genuinely have no idea what positive benefit can be gained from knowing an image is a sooc JPEG, just more nonsense taking up part of the vast space on the interweb as far as I am concerned!

Jestertheclown
12 Jul 2014 - 11:00 PM


Quote: I genuinely have no idea what positive benefit can be gained from knowing an image is a sooc JPEG

I wondered that.

thewilliam
12 Jul 2014 - 11:03 PM

If the pic is central to a case, the other side will want to be able to cross-examine the photographer. Photographs on their own don't constitute evidence.

Jestertheclown
12 Jul 2014 - 11:20 PM


Quote: If the pic is central to a case, the other side will want to be able to cross-examine the photographer. Photographs on their own don't constitute evidence.

I can understand that but if there's a question of whether or not an image is a sooc Jpeg., and for whatever reason, proof is required, this programme won't be any good.
At least, not as far as my images are concerned.

Chris_L
Chris_L e2 Member 871 forum postsChris_L vcard United Kingdom
13 Jul 2014 - 12:50 AM


Quote: I genuinely have no idea what positive benefit can be gained from knowing an image is a sooc JPEG

If you're an editor of a newspaper or news website you would probably feel more confident in publishing the 'scoop' that someone has emailed you if the tool says it's probably genuine, might also be handy in cases of kidnap and blackmail to know that the image you received is most likely Photoshopped.

There'll be people who use it.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.