Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Is it true or Photoshopped?


thewilliam 6 4.8k
13 Jul 2014 9:51PM
There's one point that you're missing, Keith.

I'm a professional photographer and, from time to time, I'm called upon to produce evidence pictures to be used in criminal (so far always for the defence) or civil cases. A professional's responsibility is to read the rules and abide by them. If the evidence gets thrown out because of an irregularity on the photographer's part, he/she would be sued and in some civil cases, there's a lot of money at stake.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

keithh e2
11 23.4k 33 Wallis And Futuna
13 Jul 2014 10:01PM
That's not the same, William, is it. You're hardly going to be called to produce anything that is likely to require a continuity report or to prove that you did not delete any photo taken or that you downloaded your evidence into secure Worm storage or that you can produce an audit trail for that image from on site production.

That is low level image production in line with the photos taken by shift officers. And yes, I do know all the guidelines, procedures and policies produced by the Home Office, NPIA, ACPO and a good many of the local LPAs.
llareggub 4 756 United Kingdom
14 Jul 2014 7:17AM

Quote:are you really suggesting that this app will be used anywhere in the evidential system to decide whether something will or will not be put in front of a jury?

When did I or anyone else suggest that?

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

You now accept that the need exists.

You simply have to go one further and accept that people who don't have access to the same facilities as police and others will use a website like this. To them, it's not useless.



Just because I have accepted that folk would use it doe not mean you can make the leap that I concede that there is a need, as I have stated people use nonsense that there is no need for all the time particularly online!

This is a simplistic application that is of no use to anyone as far as I am concerned, anything online that you pull of the web will almost certainly be named as questionable by this app as it will have been compressed or resized for web use and as such it will be modified. It is only useful for detecting a SOOC JPEG and given the evidence suggested by the limited testing done by folk on this thread it is pretty crap at that too.

There are applications for all sorts of specialist stuff, that does not necessarily mean that any of them are useful to the wider population!
Chris_L e2
1.5k United Kingdom
14 Jul 2014 12:44PM

Quote:Just because I have accepted that folk would use it doe not mean you can make the leap that I concede that there is a need, as I have stated people use nonsense that there is no need for all the time particularly online


Brian, you miss the point somewhat, which is the principle, you started off with "I genuinely have no idea what positive benefit can be gained from knowing an image is a sooc JPEG", that's what you said regardless of the availability of any particular application so forget about that particular app, with all of it's shortcomings, or any similar app and concentrate on the principle. Even if foolproof software were available you don't see a need.


Quote:There are applications for all sorts of specialist stuff, that does not necessarily mean that any of them are useful to the wider population!
Why would that matter? I think sensor cleaning kits are useful for some photographers but are not useful to the "wider population". There's still a need which manufacturers try to satisfy!

Even an app that can't always verify an image was sooc (if it doesn't have those common signatures ) can still be useful. If I was assessing insurance claims I'd run people's photos of their damaged carpets etc through the apps, the ones that passed would continue through the process the ones that didn't (particularly any that had been saved with Photoshop) I would scrutinize more carefully. The alternative being toss a coin.
llareggub 4 756 United Kingdom
14 Jul 2014 1:19PM

Quote:Just because I have accepted that folk would use it doe not mean you can make the leap that I concede that there is a need, as I have stated people use nonsense that there is no need for all the time particularly online

Brian, you miss the point somewhat, which is the principle, you started off with "I genuinely have no idea what positive benefit can be gained from knowing an image is a sooc JPEG", that's what you said regardless of the availability of any particular application so forget about that particular app, with all of it's shortcomings, or any similar app and concentrate on the principle. Even if foolproof software were available you don't see a need.

There are applications for all sorts of specialist stuff, that does not necessarily mean that any of them are useful to the wider population! Why would that matter? I think sensor cleaning kits are useful for some photographers but are not useful to the "wider population". There's still a need which manufacturers try to satisfy!

Even an app that can't always verify an image was sooc (if it doesn't have those common signatures) can still be useful. If I was assessing insurance claims I'd run people's photos of their damaged carpets etc through the apps, the ones that passed would continue through the process the ones that didn't (particularly any that had been saved with Photoshop) I would scrutinize more carefully. The alternative being toss a coin.



I still maintain that there is no need to know whether an image is a SOOC JPEG which is pretty much all this app is doing, it is utterly pointless, knowing whether an image has been manipulated or altered to either enhance or reduce or remove information is very different to knowing whether something came out of the camera in its native format.
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
21 Jul 2014 11:53PM
thewilliam 6 4.8k
22 Jul 2014 6:01PM
Even if the picture is a true representation, it can only show what happened within the frame at the instant of exposure: about as futile as extracting a few words from a witness's testimony and thinking that it's the whole truth.
Chris_L e2
1.5k United Kingdom
22 Jul 2014 6:39PM
People aren't using this kind of thing so they can think "this photograph shows nothing but the whole truth", they are using it to help them make a decision. Imagine you have two photographs and one is a fake but you don't know which one, rather than flipping a coin it's useful to know which have been into Photoshop and which appear to be straight out of a camera. My sister used that site the other day to check some images a seller emailed her of an object.
23 Jul 2014 4:04PM
I have to agree with llareggub's comments. People will use the app, but it doesnt really provide any great service to anyone other than those that want to bleat on about their picture being sooc, and to belittle any edited/modified shot as being 'fake'.

Personally, as a digital artist/graphic designer, its always amusing to watch folk argue about whether a 'sooc' image with faults is better than a slightly edited (but otherwise 'perfect') image, then throw it into the same pile as a manipulation piece
Chris_L e2
1.5k United Kingdom
23 Jul 2014 4:13PM
Grin you can always tell well someone skim reads the first part of a thread before commenting Grin
23 Jul 2014 4:16PM
I'm assuming you mean me. Reminds me why i left the forums for a long while in the first place. If someone doesnt agree, they cant have read it right... hmmm
Chris_L e2
1.5k United Kingdom
23 Jul 2014 4:30PM

Quote: it doesnt really provide any great service to anyone other than those that want to bleat on about their picture being sooc, and to belittle any edited/modified shot as being 'fake'.



Try thinking outside the box.
23 Jul 2014 4:43PM

Quote:Try thinking outside the box.


I am thinking outside the box.

I dont think many people would use it for its 'intended' use (as described in the opening post). Yes, some will, but i think many ebayers, FB users, etc wouldnt know about the software or care about it that much. Competition judges 'may' use it, but since many photographic competitions allow minor manipulation or, indeed, ask that the images are saved at a certain resolution/size it would largely be deemed useless. I alsoccant see the app being used in any professional/legal capacity

This leads me to believe that its 'main' use would be for people to 'prove' that there shot is 'sook' or another's is 'fake' at a petty squabble level, where really, it doesnt matter
Chris_L e2
1.5k United Kingdom
23 Jul 2014 5:22PM
If I was judging a competition where no manipulation was allowed I'd have that app in my toolbox. If needbe I'd ask for original file to see how much modification had been done on submitted image and I'd check that original file didn't show signs of modification. Rather than toss a coin.

App doesn't answer simply A or B as people seem to assume.

There are levels such as

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.

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.

No Trust: Our forensic analysis reveals clear signs of manipulation in this image.

There's an API for webdevs, ideal for online dating sites, auction sites etc. A dating site could automatically question images if it detects that photo has been Photoshopped. An second hand or auction site could offer a high degree of trust that the image photographed is the real deal.

Sites like CNNís iReport could check before images are even published that the image from the news event is likely to be an original, untouched photograph rather than carrying out zero checks at all...
23 Jul 2014 5:51PM
Beginning to sound like a salesperson there, Mr Kennedy Wink


Quote: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.

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.



I have to question the necessity of these levels. Neither of them prove (nor claim to prove) that an image is modified (or not modified, for that matter). With the main purpose of this app aiming at trying to prove if an image has been modified or not, what purpose do these non-specific middle-grounds serve?

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.