A picture tells a thousand lies

Hi there everyone,

New Scientist will have the following article in the next issue. It may be an interesting read considering that such a topic pops up now and then as a discussion.

"Tampering with digital images is commonplace, so can we always trust what we see? Hany Farid thinks not, and that's why he has invented a system to weed out the fakes".

Cheers and have a good day from the land Down Under!
Rob.

Tampering with *any* kind of image is commonplace, not to mention creative composition can represent or misrepresent a scene just as easily. No, you cannot trust a photograph - digital or otherwise, to "tell the truth" on its own. Your trust should take into account the reputation of the source, and the context the image is used in.
Writing software to identify manipulated images is a waste of time for any practical purpose, but I suppose there's some entertainment value in it.

Guy

"Writing software to identify manipulated images is a waste of time for any practical purpose, but I suppose there's some entertainment value in it.

Guy"

I beg to differ on that one Guy. In my line of work we use photographs as legal evidence on a daily basis. At present we can't submit digital images in court as it is impossible to prove that they've not been manipulated, adjusted or are composits. This software could just turn this around.

It might also be useful for verifying digital images in competitions - BG Wildlife Photographer rules stipulate that digi pix must not be manipulated in any way. Again this software could offer greater protection to the integrity of the competition.

As the recent post on the kingfisher pic published in NG would suggest, not all photographers have integrity. Anything in the armoury that helps weed them out is very useful IMO.

A

Andrew,
What you're describing is a dangerous situation. Traditional photographs can be manipulated by chemical and optical means just like digital ones. If I were representing anyone who stands to be convicted based on a photograph, I'd take the opposition to task to prove the neg/print was not manipulated.
Also - if this software is anything less than perfect, it will probably be as inconclusive as a polygraph test - tough to fool, but not good enough to make for conclusive evidence.

Guy

Andrew Forsyth wrote:As the recent post on the kingfisher pic published in NG would suggest, not all photographers have integrity. Anything in the armoury that helps weed them out is very useful IMO.

I believe the allegations were that that picture was staged, not manipulated. It was a film shot, not digital. I think digital is getting a bad rap for being manipulatable...

-Paul

Well, to a certain very small degree, manipulated images do not bother me as long as they are so marked.

I become bothered when someone is trying to pass off an "original" when it is not. Also bothersome is when an image is unmarked as so, but leads to more questions about fakery than statements about artistic quality. The recent "kingfisher' issue comes to mind. I have had little or no luck so far catching Kingfishers on film on my many trips to the Texas coast. Thus, I am very suspicious of that mentioned Kingfisher image.

Previous photos?? The breaching GW Shark supposedly going after the person dangling on the line under a helicopter.

I just hope that more people will be honest when submitting work and also, that the many photo editors are able to catch them in advance.

Just my $.02 worth..

Cheers,

Mark in Austin

For the 1Ds, Canon has a program - hardward or softward, I'm not sure - that will "prove" that a shot has not been altered in any way. Only downside: it costs an extra $1,500+, I believe.

Rich

"I believe the allegations were that that picture was staged, not manipulated. It was a film shot, not digital. I think digital is getting a bad rap for being manipulatable... "

Paul - indeed, but the point was that the photographer lacked integrity. Anything that helps weed this out (whether it is done by digital and/or conventional means) has value IMO.

Guy - are (conventional or otherwise) photos not used regularly in US courts? Happens over here day in day out. Surely it's impossible to prove a negative (ha ha, that's a photographic pun ) so the onus would be on you to prove that it had been manipulated. In which case software that can detect digital alteration becomes a really useful tool....!

I rest my case, m'lord

a

Andrew,
I'm not a lawyer (but married to someone who soon will be) so this is just my layperson understanding. In criminal cases, the test here is usually "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". If one side can show reason to doubt a piece of evidence, there's a chance it will be thrown out or that it cannot be used as the sole incriminating artifact.
Also, we don't call anyone "lord" here, other than the dude who supposedly created this wretched mess we live in

Guy

All images, except for projected slides or slides on a light table are manipulated. Even negative film is manipulated because the processor makes a judgement on what it should look like and then manipulates the color balance to get the print. Today's digital cameras and scanners are incapable of rendering an image that is sharp or correctly colored without sharpening and color space manipulation.

As for the legal thing, shoot in RAW and submit the RAW file - today there is no way to manipulate the RAW file.

EJ - even a light table is not accurate. Film manipulates color as well, and as I mentioned - some creative composition can omit important elements, lens selection can create all sorts of visual effects etc. and the image may be"authentic" and still completely misrepresent the "truth".

All things failing - I can always make a good large print of a manipulated image, then make an unmanipulated photograph of that print. Let's see a software that can figure that one out

Guy

..

Geo: that's what I meant by trusting an image based on its source and the context of its use. A crime scene shot made by a police photographer if a lot more trustworthy than an identical shot made by a random passer-by.

Guy

..