Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  • Jump to page:
    #1
  1. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Regular (2000 - 2499 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,102
    Rep Power
    1767

    Has that image been "photoshopped" ?


    FWIW...

    I ran across this program and thought some here might find it interesting or useful...
    JPEGsnoop

    This free app. analyzes images and will tell you if an image has been altered and will also tel you the program used..as well as plenty of other data...

    it can also extract jpeg images from .avi files and PDFs...

    Comments on this post

    • Skipt agrees
  2. #2
  3. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Intermediate (1500 - 1999 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Francisco Bay
    Posts
    1,939
    Rep Power
    1313
    Sorry, I'm a bit skeptical.
    If the compression signature matches Photoshop, then you can be pretty sure that the photo is no longer an original! This type of analysis is sometimes referred to as Digital Image Ballistics / Forensics.
    Really? I "photoshop" (gimp, actually) pretty much all pictures from my camera before sending them out; that's just to reduce them to a reasonable size. Can it distinguish between that and other forms of editing? The way I understand it, the program has to recompress the image no matter what operation you did, even if it's just to resize it. Is that wrong?

    Comments on this post

    • gimp agrees : Gimp? Gimp?
  4. #3
  5. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Regular (2000 - 2499 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,102
    Rep Power
    1767
    I just started using the APP so I have hardly mastered it...

    from what I have seen...if the image has been resized it will tell you "processed/edited" if it recognizes the signature it will state it...from what I gather if it does not specify a "software" program but still says it's "processed/edited" I am supposing that said processing/editing was done by the camera application...??

    here is a page that explains some things

    http://www.impulseadventure.com/phot...ed-photos.html

    FWIW...I usually use irfanview to resize images and it has worked flawlessly in identifying images that were resized and those that were not...
  6. #4
  7. Devshed God 1st Plane (5500 - 5999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,964
    Rep Power
    4852
    I don't know what the program can or can't do. Aside from that, I'm with Lux here. Digital manipulation doesn't necessarily make a photo "fake" any more than darkroom manipulation made film photos "fake."

    I've been in photography a long time and had my own darkroom. There are lots of things one does routinely. Pushing and pulling during development, messing with contrast and brightness during development and enlargement. Burning, dodging. Correcting color and unwieldy dynamic range while taking the photo, as well as afterwards.

    Most of the great photographers made their own developers that would be suited to the particular conditions under which they were planning to conduct a shoot. Some made their own emulsions.

    Even the best photographer is unlikely to get the perfect tonal range or color SOOC. That's WHY they did their own processing rather than dropping it off at the drugstore or kiosk in the mall parking lot.

    Digital photographs taken by serious photographers are EXPECTED to be post processed. A really serious photographer doesn't GET jpeg from the camera. He or she gets RAW and post processes it.

    Regardless of the tool used, those photos have been processed in the digital lab/darkroom, not "shopped."
    "Shopped" as in misleading or otherwise faked is bad, of course. It happened many times before the days of digital. As a matter of fact there's a controversy right now over the authenticity of some photos taken during the Spanish Civil war.

    Again, that's not to denigrate what this software might or might not be able to do. Given my interest in photography, I'm definitely going to download it and futz around.

    I just get sick of all the dumbasses that comment on photo forums and such yelling, "Shopped! Shopped!"

    Side note for any serious photographers. Kodachrome, the best dam' color film ever made, is no more.

    Comments on this post

    • medialint agrees
    • SimonJM agrees : No more Kodachrome .. has anyone told Paul Simon?
    Last edited by sizablegrin; July 30th, 2009 at 09:27 PM.
    Write no code whose complexity leaves you wondering what the hell you did.
    Politically Incorrect DaWei on Pointers Grumpy on Exceptions
  8. #5
  9. Type Cast Exception
    Devshed Supreme Being (6500+ posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    OAKLAND CA | Adam's Point (Fairyland)
    Posts
    14,954
    Rep Power
    8617
    I never upload anything to the web without first running it through paintshop pro (my "photoshop" of choice) to downsize it and maybe do color or contract/brightness correction. I mean the photos my camera takes are 12MB each.

    Does that mean the photo was actually "altered" ... of course not.

    And I'd be curious if it correctly identifies what I used in the attached. Give it a try?

    (edit: actually it might tell you it was 'shopped in facebook since I know FB actually compresses it again most of the time)

    (edit 2: oh I skipped over the post where you said it doesn't identify the app ... oh well, it was photogene on the iPhone anyhoo)
    Attached Images
    Last edited by medialint; July 30th, 2009 at 09:43 PM.
    medialint.com

    “Today you are You, that is truer than true. There is no one alive who is Youer than You.” - Dr. Seuss
  10. #6
  11. No Profile Picture
    Banned
    Devshed Demi-God (4500 - 4999 posts)

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    4,982
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally Posted by sizablegrin
    I've been in photography a long time and had my own darkroom. There are lots of things one does routinely. Pushing and pulling during development, messing with contrast and brightness during development and enlargement. Burning, dodging. Correcting color while taking the photo, as well as afterwards.
    I love B&W. I own two nice Canon SLRs. I used to spend hours and hours in the darkroom at the local community college (when they still had one), and made some beautiful images, almost alway manipulated in the darkroom.

    I started out shooting with Tri-X but discovered Ilford mad a film that produced incredibly warm b&w images (but used a process similar to color to develop, so I had to use a commercial lab to do the film). Ilford makes some great paper as well.

    Comments on this post

    • medialint agrees : I had a darkroom in high school too, and dated a photographer for many years that taught me a lot. I love my Canon SLR too, except for it breaking on its own and costing $250 to repair and two trips to Canon to get it done
    • sizablegrin agrees
    • Skipt agrees
  12. #7
  13. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Beginner (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Midnight Train Going Anywhere
    Posts
    1,153
    Rep Power
    1593
    Originally Posted by Lux Perpetua
    Sorry, I'm a bit skeptical. Really? I "photoshop" (gimp, actually) pretty much all pictures from my camera before sending them out; that's just to reduce them to a reasonable size. Can it distinguish between that and other forms of editing? The way I understand it, the program has to recompress the image no matter what operation you did, even if it's just to resize it. Is that wrong?
    Yeah, it has to be re-compressed regardless of what you do to it.

    I too was rather sad to hear about kodachrome.

    Comments on this post

    • medialint agrees : Not nearly as sad a Paul Simon
  14. #8
  15. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Regular (2000 - 2499 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,102
    Rep Power
    1767
    I agree with all the comments...it was just a new tool/toy I found and thought I'd share...I'm not a photography or a graphics expert by any means...

    even if I did take a photo of bigfoot and it was not perfectly clear I would use irfanview (or maybe PS) to clean, size and clear it up...BUT...after finding this program I would keep the original especially if it (JPEGsnoop) stated that it "was original" ...not that it would prove anything 100% but it is something...
  16. #9
  17. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Regular (2000 - 2499 posts)

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,102
    Rep Power
    1767
    And I'd be curious if it correctly identifies what I used in the attached. Give it a try?
    Searching Compression Signatures: (3327 built-in, 0 user(*) )

    EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match?
    ------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- --------------
    CAM:[NIKON ] [E2500 ] [FINE ] No
    CAM:[Nokia ] [N73 ] [ ] No
    CAM:[OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD ] [C2000Z ] [ ] No
    CAM:[OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD ] [C3040Z ] [ ] No
    CAM:[PENTAX ] [PENTAX Optio 550 ] [ ] No
    CAM:[Research In Motion ] [BlackBerry 8100 ] [ ] No
    CAM:[SEIKO EPSON CORP. ] [PhotoPC 3000Z ] [ ] No
    SW :[IJG Library ] [085 ]
    SW :[Picasa ] [085 (Normal) ]
    SW :[ZoomBrowser EX ] [medium ]

    The following IJG-based editors also match this signature:
    SW :[GIMP ] [085 ]
    SW :[IrfanView ] [085 ]
    SW :[idImager ] [085 ]
    SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [085 ]
    SW :[NeatImage ] [085 ]
    SW :[Paint.NET ] [085 ]
    SW :[Photomatix ] [085 ]
    SW :[XnView ] [085 ]
  18. #10
  19. Null Pointer Exception
    Devshed Loyal (3000 - 3499 posts)

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    america
    Posts
    3,355
    Rep Power
    1579
    I remember reading about something similar a few months back, where the program would compare certain "patterns" in one part of a graphic with another. ie if the pattern on a person in a photograph is different than the background, then it would be an indicator that the person was photoshopped into the scene.

    Not exactly sure how it works, but I imagine something along those lines would be more useful for the purpose of identifying fake pictures.

    Comments on this post

    • Skipt agrees
  20. #11
  21. Contributing User
    Devshed Frequenter (2500 - 2999 posts)

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    outside Washington DC
    Posts
    2,642
    Rep Power
    3699
    Originally Posted by medialint
    I never upload anything to the web without first running it through paintshop pro ....Does that mean the photo was actually "altered" ... of course not.
    Long ago, I used to take a fair number of photos with my Nikon F. Say five to ten rolls per day. Usually black and white. I had my own darkroom, and would crop and adjust the print exposure for *all* of the prints.

    For most, I'd adjust the contrast in the printing (polycontrast paper is wonderful). And for some, I'd dodge or burn parts as needed.

    The idea of not doing that, or its equivalent today, is insane.

    Slightly OT: I don't grok why cameras have all sorts of algorithms (sharpening, color temp adjust, etc.) inside. Why not just assume that users have something like PSP, Gimp, photoshop, etc.?

    Comments on this post

    • sizablegrin agrees
  22. #12
  23. Devshed God 1st Plane (5500 - 5999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,964
    Rep Power
    4852
    The stuff in the camera is for the absolutely huge number of snapshooters who have no photo editing software on their computers.

    They don't know that their highlights are blown out. Or dull. They don't know that the full range of tones is squeezed like a dam' accordion. If the kid is cute or the cleavage looks good or whatever, they're good to go.
    Write no code whose complexity leaves you wondering what the hell you did.
    Politically Incorrect DaWei on Pointers Grumpy on Exceptions
  24. #13
  25. Contributing User
    Devshed Frequenter (2500 - 2999 posts)

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    outside Washington DC
    Posts
    2,642
    Rep Power
    3699
    Originally Posted by sizablegrin
    The stuff in the camera is for the absolutely huge number of snapshooters who have no photo editing software on their computers.
    OK, I can see that. And I can see people being scared of spending many hundreds of bucks for Photoshop (tm) on a computer that costs $400.

    But there are lots of free programs, such as Gimp and there are webased editors.

    I guess I've been using computers too long.
  26. #14
  27. No Profile Picture
    Contributing User
    Devshed Beginner (1000 - 1499 posts)

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Midnight Train Going Anywhere
    Posts
    1,153
    Rep Power
    1593
    Originally Posted by fishtoprecords
    OK, I can see that. And I can see people being scared of spending many hundreds of bucks for Photoshop (tm) on a computer that costs $400.

    But there are lots of free programs, such as Gimp and there are webased editors.

    I guess I've been using computers too long.

    People that know what they are doing is a very small part of the market for camera companies.

    If all you want is good pictures to email to your relatives, and you know nothing about computers, do you want a camera that needs you do fiddle around with finding and installing some other software that you've never heard of, or do you want one that takes good photos without any extra programs?
  28. #15
  29. Devshed God 1st Plane (5500 - 5999 posts)

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    5,964
    Rep Power
    4852
    This has been a "lotsa people" month, what with July 4th, a birthday party with 70 attendees, and a camping trip.

    Tons of photos were taken with everything from cell phones through point-n-shoots to high-dollar SLRs. Of all these clickers, I'm probably the only one with real photo-processing software (Paintshop). The rest have whatever editing happens to come incidentally with the free organizers that came with their camera or with some other piece of software (i.e. printer driver).

    Those with high megapixel cameras learn to resize because their correspondents screech about the huge pictures they email around. Along the way they get whatever compression happens to be he default. That's it.

    It isn't that they are computer illiterate. They are surprisingly computer literate in many cases (particularly in areas affecting their daily lives, which might be spreadsheets or whatever).

    Having a computer (or even being an expert in the field) doesn't make one a photographer or a mechanic or a chef. If you happen to notice, it can make you a better one. Most people don't happen to notice.

    Comments on this post

    • Skipt agrees
    Write no code whose complexity leaves you wondering what the hell you did.
    Politically Incorrect DaWei on Pointers Grumpy on Exceptions
Page 1 of 3 123 Last
  • Jump to page:

IMN logo majestic logo threadwatch logo seochat tools logo