Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software

Adobe Tackles Photo Forgeries 158

Posted by kdawson
from the vanished-commisars dept.
Several readers wrote in with a Wired story about the work Adobe is doing to detect photo forgery. They are working with Canon and Reuters (which suffered massive bad publicity last year over a doctored war photo) and a professor from Dartmouth. (Here is Reuters's policy on photo editing.) Adobe plans to produce a suite of photo-authentication tools based on the work of Hany Farid (PDF) for release in 2008.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Adobe Tackles Photo Forgeries

Comments Filter:
  • how are you going to detect forgeries when there is an editorial decision to use a forgery to present biased news (see al-ruters) ? shouldnt this be something the general public should hae to put a check on the mainstream media.
    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by Goaway (82658)
      I am sorry, but the world inside your head is not actually visible to other people. We are thus unable to "see" it, as per your request.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Well said. I also note the error in the Slashdot article in which "doctored photos" is used in the singular. Anybody who read anything in the past couple of years knows that Al Reuters and AP REPEATEDLY used fraudulent photos to support their agendas. And when called on it, as they were REPEATEDLY, they either ignored it or denied it.

      The dumbest students in any university are in the School of Education. The second-dumbest and the most opinionated go into the School of Journalism. Those of us in enginee
  • Linky (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    PDF is boring. HTML is awesome. Here's the work of Hany Faid [72.14.253.104] in HTML, courtesy of Google.
    • And now Google gets the page views instead of the people who actually published the document. I mentioned that because the number of page views they get might matter to them. On the other hand, I had no intention of clicking on that PDF file; but I actually looked at the article since there was an HTML version.
  • Why not... (Score:4, Funny)

    by brian.gunderson (1012885) * on Thursday March 08, 2007 @10:56AM (#18276134) Journal
    Warning : The photo you are trying to open may have been altered. Allow / Cancel?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by foniksonik (573572)
      It's Cancel or Allow... the Apple commercials always say "Cancel or Allow?"
  • by AmIAnAi (975049) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:00AM (#18276168)
    I can't help thinging that matching images to individual cameras will be a dangerous step, particularly for those working in less 'democratic' counties. I hope this will be an option that can be turned off, but I expect it will not.
    • You mean, like the test page they made with every typewritter in the USSR?
      • I was stunned... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by encoderer (1060616) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @12:26PM (#18277296)
        Anyone that wants a glimpse of how industry & life worked in the USSR should check out the book Armageddon Averted by Stephen Kotkin.

        He describes in that book how typewriters were more closely controlled in the USSR than assault weapons.

        Another interesting--but totally unrelated tidbit--is that the factories were rewarded based on tonnage produced. So all the steel companies would only produce 1" thick steel plating. There was a dearth of thin steel sheeting.

        So car companies would have to buy the thicker steel and mill it down to a workable thickness..

        There's hundreds of anecdotes like that. It blew my mind.
    • by Joe Decker (3806) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:30AM (#18276540) Homepage
      Too late, It's already done. The Exif information [wikipedia.org] from the cameras I use already includes the camera serial number. (Not that I'm disagreeing with your point.)
      • by bustersnyvel (562862) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:56AM (#18276864) Homepage

        Too late, It's already done. The Exif information from the cameras I use already includes the camera serial number. (Not that I'm disagreeing with your point.)

        Of course, EXIF contains a lot of information about your camera. However, the data is digital, and can thus be edited. You are free to remove any identifying data from the EXIF headers before you publish your images.

        • by JazzLad (935151) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @12:08PM (#18277046) Homepage
          Yeah, we're gonna be in REAL trouble when they learn to embed cameras' serial numbers in a digital photo non-digitally ... for one thing, they'll be a ***** to transport ;)
        • Maybe not EXIF related, but there is an alternative solution [slashdot.org].
        • You are free to remove any identifying data from the EXIF headers before you publish your images.
          And watch publishers reject photos with no EXIF or with altered EXIF out of due diligence. Once digital camera makers start shipping cameras that sign each photo's pixels and EXIF info with a key pair unique to each camera, your editor will demand access to these signed negatives as evidence against dishonest use of Photoshop software.
          • by richlv (778496)
            ...and this will be cracked in a couple of weeks.

            i acknowledge the problem of modified photos, but i can't think of a solution to this... i mean, drm-like solutions will fail (i hope we don't have to repeat why :) ).
            then there's a possible software that tests for image details that might be altered - but that's an uphill battle as it would be just a matter of re-running this software until all the supicious places are worked out.

            so is there a way to actually detect that image is authentic ?
            maybe only by dec
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Tophe (853490)
        Only jpg files support Exif so saving the picture as a png (or other format) will eliminate the Exif data very quickly and easily.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          All RAW formats I know of do as well, as do Adobe's various ones.

          Regardless, EXIF is easily edited and tells us little to nothing about the original image's authenticity.

      • There are means to actually match photos to the sensor that took the photo even if that EXIF information was removed, and I think that's what is being suggested.
    • by c_forq (924234)
      Isn't there already technology that does this with printers? I seem to remember reading that printers put a certain pattern of yellow dots detectable to anyone with a good scanner, and that at least the FBI had access to a database connecting the pattern to the printer.
      • by nahdude812 (88157) *
        It's accessible to anybody with a blue light or decent eyes. Blue LED's work pretty well. Typically it's just a code representing the manufacturer and the serial number for the printer, laid out as a repeating grid of yellow dots across the image in binary. Print an all white sheet and shine a blue light and they'll pop out pretty clearly.

        Here's a list of printers that do this:
        http://www.eff.org/Privacy/printers/list.php [eff.org]
    • by Flibz (716178)
      I assumed this meant matching particular noise patterns/compression/levels etc to particular ccd/body configurations, not this is camera x12345 owned by Paranoid of Pilkington
  • Staged Photographs (Score:5, Informative)

    by Detritus (11846) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:00AM (#18276170) Homepage
    Besides image manipulation, there is also the problem of staged photographs, as seen in some of the photographs from the recent war in Lebanon. This can't be solved with technology.
  • Bad Control (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bdrees (1015815) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:01AM (#18276188)
    Thats fine that Adobe's creating this software, but the bottom line is poor control with reuters. When reuters can prove their internal controls will stop altered images from making it to press, thats when their integrity may start to come back.
  • Forgeries? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Grashnak (1003791) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:02AM (#18276194)
    Is such a thing possible? Could it be that my meticulously gathered and maintained gallery of explicit photos of Star Trek personnel is less than authentic? Why was I informed of this earlier?
  • It begins (Score:4, Interesting)

    by inviolet (797804) <slashdot@ideasmat[ ].org ['ter' in gap]> on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:02AM (#18276202) Journal

    Thus begins another arms race.

    If there is a tool for detecting forgeries, then the forgery tools will evolve to defeat it. With its help.

    Welcome, Ape Lords, to the Information Age. You'll find that your cultures, mores, traditions, rituals, and sensibilities are woefully outdated. But please, don't let that stop you from legislatively forcing your old argrarian peg into this very new, very round hole.

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      Thus begins another arms race.

      If there is a tool for detecting forgeries, then the forgery tools will evolve to defeat it. With its help.

      I agree, but Reuters and the AP aren't trying to stop l33t haxxors, they're trying to stop journalists.

      A serious part of the problem with the status quo is that there are no controls.

      The technology may have all the effectiveness of security theater, or it may be as effective as Sarbanes-Oxley. Either way, once it is in place the parent corporation will pass blame to the jo

    • Furthermore, it should only require the feeding of a good battery of test and control images through the software with various types of manipulations (heck, for statistically reliable numbers it could even be automated) to essentially reverse-engineer Adobe's "authenticity" algorithms by experimentally determining what triggers the "suspect" flag.

      I give it a few weeks at most, really.
    • by ElephanTS (624421)
      You nailed it really. This game never ends - there is always the counter-measure. I used to study evolution and you can go back millions of years watching the 'arms races' between insects and plants for instance. Plant evolves poison, insect evolves immunity, plant modifies poison, insect changes immunity. There is always a short term gain though - that's the pressure the drives the evolution. Computer strategies evolve so quickly I find it fascinating. 4 years ago WEP was a perfect solution for WiFi securi
  • by Hal_Porter (817932) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:06AM (#18276254)
    Is to build a Trusted Imaging Infrastructure. DRM in the camera will sign the pictures as being genuine with a public key. This will obviously need a new image file format, .TII. This will be proprietary and tied down with patents, and the patent licenses will force licensees to not re sign edited images. Obviously this will mean that cameras and computers will need to implement a Trusted Imaging Infrastrusture too, to make sure that people are unable to resign images after editing them. Unsigned images or images in legacy file formats will be downsampled and POSSIBLY FAKE will be watermarked across them when they are shown on compliant operating systems. Trusted images will be handled by a protected part of the operating system. Possibly CPU maufacturers will add support for trusted image editing functionality in the form of efuses that cause the CPU to self destruct when asked to edit a TII file.

    I propose a TII licensing authority composed of Adobe, various camera manufacturers, Microsoft and Apple to arrange the NDAs and licenses. Obviously illegal legacy image editing tools like GIMP will be imported from non TII approved countries, but they must be seized under the DMCA and their owners sent to Gitmo.
    • Couldn't the camera just place the signature in the Exif data. That way we could know that the photo in question came directly from the camera with serial number XYZ?

      Of course i can doctor my photo, print it and then rephotograph it. Damn analog hole.
      • by Joe Decker (3806)
        Of course i can doctor my photo, print it and then rephotograph it. Damn analog hole.

        Recording the lens used with the camera and an estimate of the focus distance (which Canon already does in their DSLRs, although not all of their lenses return distance information yet), and then using that as part of any cryptographic hash data verification would give you a little more protection.

        • by grahamsz (150076)
          I dont think it would be too hard to overcome that. With some lens mount converters you could leave your real lens dangling off camera but with all the electrical connections in place when you've really got a manual focus lens pointing at the image.

          • by Joe Decker (3806)
            Sure, although that wouldn't leave you with the right lens information in place. Obviously, like any one-way has sort of security all of this is only as good as the ability of people to reproduce the hash.
        • This comment contains trade secrets owned by the TII LA. Additionally, by reading this post, your brain is emulating an algorithm protected by patents, and thus violating them.

          I hereby request that slashdot be shut down under DMCA, and the Trusted Infrastructure Patented Algorithm Protection Act.
      • Of course i can doctor my photo, print it and then rephotograph it. Damn analog hole.

        Not really, TII images will be downsampled, or possibly replaced with clip art of a terrorist if you print them. Unless you have a TII compliant printer of course, then they'll have a watermark which will cause scanners to request a license for editing from the TII key repository and replace them with clipart of a terrorist if one can't be found due to network problems. TII researchers are working on Goedel sequences in wat
    • As long as you can view it, you can fake it - copy the picture (printscreen, etc) - edit the picture - print out the picture - take a picture of it you have a signed picture ! I hope something like this will be used on reuters! * insert funny genuine(TM) pictures of popes,presidents,.. *
  • With as much wireless technology as there is at our disposal, wouldn't it be possible to create a program that would automatically generate authenticity verification files as soon as a camera was hooked up to the computer (and sent to a server)? Better yet, a version of photoshop for people in the news industry that has manipulative tools locked. Wouldn't something like that be more feasible?
    • by Yoozer (1055188) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:26AM (#18276510) Homepage

      Better yet, a version of photoshop for people in the news industry that has manipulative tools locked. Wouldn't something like that be more feasible?
      As feasible as glued-shut DVD players and self-destructing iPods with a removed clickwheel. Whatever you can see or hear, you can duplicate; whatever shows up on the screen or goes through an output can be captured.
  • Let me take a guess (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Hoi Polloi (522990) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:07AM (#18276280) Journal
    Will it involve digital micro dots [pffc-online.com]?
  • by s31523 (926314) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:09AM (#18276310)
    If digital cameras did some sort of "unbreakable" digital signature via steganography or checksum or something when pictures were snapped. In this day and age I think that would be great. You snap a picture, and bam the pixels are embedded with something such that an alterations to the picture could be detected.
    • by Joe Decker (3806) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:25AM (#18276494) Homepage
      Canon's DSLRs do checksum the data, there's a verification tool [dpreview.com] as well. Of course that only works with the original uncropped data, but it does give you a fairly firm reference to which you can compare any derivative versions.
    • by maxume (22995)
      If you develop a trusted tool chain, from end to end, it reduces the question from 'What did the photographer do to the photo?' to 'Is my tool chain secure and did the photographer use it?'; if the tool chain is not secure, you have no way of knowing if it was used. In some(many?) situations, it might be easier to issue a camera with trust level X to a random photographer than to find a photographer with trust level X. The secure tools don't remove trust assumptions from the equation, but they allow you to
    • Now what? The data will match perfectly yet what you see will have been doctored.
  • by SengirV (203400) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:13AM (#18276362)
    How is Adobe going to find other faked war photos like these?

    http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/r1891896 384.jpg [zombietime.com]
    http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/r3577351 291.jpg [zombietime.com]

    or the woman who shows up to cry over every and all bombed buildings in Reuters' world

    http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/beirutwo man2.jpg [zombietime.com]

    Source - http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/ [zombietime.com]
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      How is Adobe going to find other faked war photos like these?
      They aren't.
      Editors will still have to do their jobs.

      Either way, these measures will never regain the trust of some people.
      Partisanship has cut too deeply these last few years.

      Some people felt the truthiness of those pictures,
      while others wouldn't have cared if they really happened.
    • Those stuffed toys are suspiciously clean.
      • by SengirV (203400)
        That is kinda the point here. It's not a hezbullah headquarters that was bombed, it's obviously a day care center. At least that is what the AP/Reuters want you to believe.
  • by Big Nothing (229456) <big.nothing@bigger.com> on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:18AM (#18276428)
    So now they're making both Photoshop and Anti-Photoshop? Whon't those two take out each other? Like pasta and anti-pasta?

    • They can ask a few advices from McAfee.
    • by rrohbeck (944847)
      >So now they're making both Photoshop and Anti-Photoshop? Whon't those two take out each other? Like pasta and anti-pasta?

      Yup, they'll annihilate each other in a shower of hard gamma photons.
    • Obviously, you have a trust system like the others where you have to trust somebody.

      Technology will get to the point where you can't detect the altered photo, sound, or video.

      A digital photo of a crime can be submitted into court TODAY and never get expert review and eventually even the experts will get fooled.

      Devices should sign their data, users can optionally remove it (because somebody will figure that out if its not easy.) Editors should be able to sign it as well, so if you trust the editor, you can t
  • http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/publications .html [binghamton.edu]

    I'm familiar with some of her work. Specifically, the papers "Detection of Copy-Move Forgery in Digital Images", "Determining Digital Image Origin Using Sensor Imperfections", "Digital Bullet Scratches for Images", "Digital Camera Identification from Sensor Noise",

    However, the paper "Detecting Digital Image Forgeries Using Sensor Pattern Noise" from last year covers the topic of this article perfectly.
  • by Illbay (700081) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:29AM (#18276532) Journal
    These forgeries have become the stock-in-trade of the "stringers" used by "venerable" news agencies such as Reuters and AP. Many of these stringers are in fact confederates of terrorists and criminals, and their work is part of the disinformation campaign that is part of the GWOT.

    However, it is impossible for Reuters (known by many as "al-Reuters") or AP (a.k.a. Associated [with terrorists] Press) not to know that they're being "used." In fact, they are willing accomplices, for the old-line media are now and have been for three decades in league with any and every force arrayed against the United States of America, in the interest of "giving both sides of the story."

    Up next: a parade of "mainstream media" executive-types testifying before the U.S. Congress in favor of "the fairness doctrine," so they can gain their hegemony back through legal fiat, that they lost through their own arrogant duplicity.

    • balance... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Animaether (411575)
      between:
      the Red Cross claiming Israel shot a missile into one of their ambulances
      and
      U.S. intelligence agencies being adamant about Iraq having WMD's to get enough support to launch an invasion there

      I'd say things are just nicely balancing out.

      Only shame is that Shame it's a balance of lies rather than truths. Welcome to the status quo of the world since 'civilization' started, though.
      • by Dun Malg (230075)

        U.S. intelligence agencies being adamant about Iraq having WMD's to get enough support to launch an invasion there

        I'd say things are just nicely balancing out.
        I'd say you're an idiot. Two evils only add to the evil of the world, they do not "balance out". It's shitheads like you who believe in "sides" that cause the problem in the first place. Why don't you go drink a bottle of Drano and "balance out" the crap coming out of your mouth.
      • It wasn't just the US intelligence community claiming this. It was EVERY intelligence community. Saddam had them at one time, that's undisputed fact. But he refused to offer any evidence that he got rid of them. We (the UN) gave him more than enough time to demonstrate his compliance with the resolutions, be he never even bothered to try. We warned him once. We warned him twice. We warned him a third and a fourth time. We tried every available option before invasion. Then when we did used the last option, n
    • by db32 (862117)
      So, I notice you didn't weigh in on when the other side does the same thing? I don't disagree that there have been numerous problems with this type of thing, but you seem to leave out the pro-war side's shenanagins. I think you are quick to jump on the right wing bandwagon of calling some of these outlets terrorist organizations, it has FAR more to do with money and ratings than it does any kind of support on either side. When your readers/viewers are primarily left wingers, you play anti-war up bigtime
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by TigerPlish (174064)

      These forgeries have become the stock-in-trade of the "stringers" used by "venerable" news agencies such as Reuters and AP. Many of these stringers are in fact confederates of terrorists and criminals, and their work is part of the disinformation campaign that is part of the GWOT.

      Ask for a refund for your tinfoil hat. I think it is broken.

      Photo manipulation has been around since the beginning of photography. Proving a photograph has been diddled with can be quite difficult.

      So now you say AP and Reuters work for the "other side". That "stringers" are in the employ of terrorists and criminals. Proof? Sources? Or is it that you don't like to see photographs critical of our policies and actions here and abroad?

      I mean, that's what photojournalism is for -- to show Joe and Jane Six

      • that's what photojournalism is for -- to show Joe and Jane Sixpack things they normally wouldn't see.
        Even when the reason they wouldn't otherwise see it is that it didn't really happen?
  • well (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mastershake_phd (1050150) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:35AM (#18276608) Homepage
    If you were able to figure out how the software works you might be able to make undetectable forgeries. At the very least, if you had a copy, you could use it to see if your changes will be detected.
  • Same problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:45AM (#18276732) Homepage
    This is a technical solution to a social problem. The problem is that journalists wish to change the world, and they can change it by slanting the news to conform with their personal beliefs. Also, journalists who merely report what goes on are derided as "police blotter reporters" or worse. It's expected that they'll go out of their way to make a story where none existed before. The idea that fraud detection will eliminate photo forgeries is naive, because they will always happen.
    • And to an even greater extent the problem is that we aren't sure how much manipulation to allow before we call a particular shot a forgery.

      Here [loc.gov] is an original scan of a negative from the FSA photo project, a Jack Delano shot.

      Here [loc.gov] is the scan of the print.

      Obviously we aren't talking about some massive fakery here, no people have been edited in or out, no machine gun nets have been added. But the print is definitely different from the negative. what if this were done with smoke coming from a building, or bloo
  • A suite of photo-authentication tools under development by Adobe Systems could make it possible to match a digital photo to the camera that shot it, and to detect some improper manipulation of images, Wired News has learned.

    Am I the only one that found this sentence in the introduction more than a little scary?

    Say, Tom takes a picture of his friend Mary and posts it online. Some time later, they cease being friends, and Mary does something terribly wrong. Police find the picture of Mary and find out that Ca
    • by Tokimasa (1011677)
      You don't think this technology exists? Look at some of the papers I linked to in a previous comment from SUNY Binghamton.
    • You should get a tin foil hat if you're seriously worried about the police going through the records of everything you've ever done without any probable cause because someone you used to be friends with committed a crime that you obviously weren't involved in. Being able to identify pictures you took with this camera is entirely irrelevant to that kind of paranoia; who's to say the police won't just come to your house and take all of your photo albums and negatives along with getting all of your credit car
      • Well, the way I outlined means that one can be even more thoroughly investigated WITHOUT being aware that they're being investigated. The way that you outlined, one is aware of what's occuring, and can demand to know why they're being investigated, can have a lawyer question why such and such might be considered evidence, etc.
  • by LoudMusic (199347) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @11:59AM (#18276910)
    Using their example image ...

    The clone stamp detection tool highlights areas of the image where there is improbable sameness, revealing the cloned section and its origin. The very small area highlighted in the clouds are the sameness/pattern created by nature.
    You'll only get "sameness" if you're using the clone stamp at or near 100% opacity. I use about 20% opacity and clone stamp from multiple locations to avoid visible "sameness". This technique overlaps multiple patterns at various strengths to create a new unique pattern. Anyone who's any good at photo-manipulation would do at least the same thing.

    The real power of such an application would be finding where elements have been added to the photograph. And unfortunately Adobe has made such a great product in Photoshop that blending edges of cropped in objects is pretty darn easy too. I do it all the time adding in blue skies to my pictures. The difficulty would be in getting shadows to line up the same and have the same intensity. Or detecting color balance inconsistencies where two images were mapped together starting with different levels of blue, for instance. Or maybe finding different JPG blockiness levels in different areas of a photograph.

    But pretty much anything that software can attempt to detect, other software and careful editor diligence could defeat.
    • by Tokimasa (1011677)
      You are forgetting about the noise pattern. Any kind of editing will alter the noise pattern. If you know what camera took the image, you can see if the entire image matches the camera's noise pattern. If not, editing happened. I highly doubt people interested in forging images will go through the trouble of editing the noise pattern for the camera.
    • by Dogtanian (588974)

      I use about 20% opacity and clone stamp from multiple locations to avoid visible "sameness".
      Whilst this may avoid the detection method described, it will also have the effect of averaging out noise- maybe not visibly, but very possibly noticeable if someone is trying to determine if an image has been forged.
  • Doctoring? Yes. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by toddhisattva (127032) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @12:03PM (#18276972) Homepage
    Yes, Adnan Hajj's unfortunate images were "doctored" as in "given too much medicine," the medicine being dust & scratch removal.

    But it was not faked, nor was image content "cloned" with that tool.

    This Image Is Not Faked [rr.com]

    The next step, if someone was paying me for this, would be to try to replicate the disaster using some readily-available dust & scratch removal software, like Sane [rick.free.fr] for the GIMP.

    If Hajj's lawyer or Reuters were laying appropriate bucks at my feet, I would explore the problem through SciPy and PIL.

    Hajj's disastrous image is an example of the kinds of errors we will have to get used to recognizing.

    In the olden days, we would correct scratches by putting a drop of light mineral oil on the negative and putting glass over that. The oil filled in the scratches similar to the way the DCTs fill in the scratches nowadays.

    Reuters deserved some reputation damage, as Hajj's photos aren't all that great and quite obviously Reuters's photo editor was asleep at the switch.

    But accusing them of publishing faked photos is in this case fakery itself: pretending to knowledge that nobody has.

    (Claimer: I was a photojournalist for various school organs for about a decade. I've done DSP professionally several times, and love doing it in my free time as well. If you count my PWM synth for the Apple ][, I've been doing DSP since 1979.)
    • Re:Doctoring? Yes. (Score:4, Informative)

      by phlinn (819946) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @01:44PM (#18278308)
      Not convincing. You glossed over the upper left section of smoke, among other things. There was nothing there before hand, it was added, and the same pattern on the left side is obviously repeated. There are obvious buildings added in the editing photo that aren't there in the original. You point to a building at 2c and 2d in your file which is cloned to 3a and 3b. However, the one at 3a and 3b can be seen in the original, but was moved down to the lower section. More importantly, it's not at quite the same relative postion within your gridlines. Shifting down a bit, and over half as much is very plausible, and since it's not actually regular, your argument is completely unconvincing.

      The whole lower half of the original appears to have been copied, sharpened, copied back in lower and to the left, and the smoke added in a vain attempt to cover it up, then cropped to hide the lower right corner which didn't have anything in it. The contrast was increased as well, which definitely makes for a more jarring image.
      • MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Insightful)

        by vyrus128 (747164)
        Grandparent is full of shit. First of all, the replicated images are NOT AT THE SAME PLACE relative to the gridlines as the original. That totally negates all the bullshit about humans not editing in powers of two. Secondly, there's no way that dust/scratch removal would stretch the column of smoke upwards in the way it was done in the doctored image. An entire section of the image was displaced upwards, including a whole giant mess o' 16x16 areas. Explain to me what business scratch removal software has do
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by BlueStraggler (765543)

      Methinks thou dost protest too much. This image is faked to a degree that only an incompetent human being could fake. The technical minutiae of the particular method of fakery is beside the point - to my eyes it looks more like a pattern fill than a clone stamp (due to the regular repetition you note), but we could argue about that all day. The dead give-away that unscrupulous human beings are to blame are to be found at the edges of the doctored areas. No general-purpose algorithm is going to expand th

    • Re:Doctoring? Yes. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Radon360 (951529) on Thursday March 08, 2007 @04:40PM (#18280530)

      And apparently you've never used a large clone brush with the source pointer overruning the modified result.

      Here's a simple test. Set your clone brush to 100 pixels or so in size. Click the source point for cloning. Start cloning a 100 or so pixels away and drag the brush roughly inline with source point and clone brush centers. What happens? The pattern repeats itself at perfect intervals. Do this with a large, rectangular-shaped, hard-edge brush and you will get exactly the results in the doctored image.

      You are correct that this is not an instance of a non-aligned clone process (i.e. clicking multiple points on the screen with the same clone source) in which it would introduce irregularities in the spacing. But the resulting image is quite evident of a clone brush "recloning" what it just did as it passed over the area it previously covered with the cloned area.

      The excuse that this is an overzealous use of the dust/scratch removal is silly. If this guy were so concerned about the slight imperfection of dust on the orginial image, don't you think he'd notice that image had changed drastically after the application of this tool?

    • Proof that.. (Score:3, Informative)

      by Skadet (528657)
      experience is a necessary but insufficient condition for expertise. Look at the second picture, also by your good friend Hajj: http://zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/ [zombietime.com]

      You know, the one with the cloned "missles" that were actually flares?

      Oops.

      He's done it before, you'd be blind not to think he did it again with this photo.
  • Is an Air Force publication and falls under their rules and Air Force rules with regard to photo alteration. We crop; we adjust levels and curves; and we saturate between 10-15 percent to compensate for the color you lose when you transition from the digital image to paper. If security requires, we'll "black out" license plates, ID cards, etc., in such a way that it's clear we've altered the photo for security purposes. Anything else gets the image labeled as a photo illustration -- and the "anything els

    • and falls under their rules and Air Force rules

      Should have been, "falls under DOD and Air Force rules ..." Shows what I get for not using "preview."

  • This is slightly off topic, but it seemed like a good question to ask.

    I ran into an unexpected hangup a few months back, when I needed to scan a few US dollar bills for use in a TV advertisement. The scanning program worked just fine, but when I opened it up in photoshop, it told me that the file contained counterfietable image data (or something to that extend), and wouldn't allow me to open the file. Does anyone know how and when Adobe started implementing a procedure that would check to see if paper mone
  • I'm not trolling or trying to be funny but I think this will be a great tool for the so called UFOlogists who try to ascertain whether UFO pictures are faked or not.
  • The only way I could see a workable system in place for ensuring authenticity of a photo, would be to create a specialized database that all "certified" image editors will be required to contact at every point where it is launched, opens a file or saves to a file. The software in question would then upload a low-resolution snapshot of the image for every changed state to the original image that is saved. The image files themselves would then have to be encoded in such a way that they are linked to particula
  • If Adobe release some kind of program to detect doctored images, I anticipate a new trend for artistically-minded geeks: reverse-Photoshopping. Instead of forum contests to produce realistic-looking fakes in Photoshop, people will be out with their cameras trying to capture unrealistic-looking originals in efforts to "beat" Adobe's tool and have it label a real photo 'doctored', purely to gain kudos from fellow photographers.
  • Maybe now we'll finally see an end to those photoshopped nude photos of celebrities.

    "The following nude photos of Neve Campbell are VERIFIED REAL by Adobe!"

    suh-weeet!

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Working...