How to determine if a digital photograph has been manipulated

I am frequently tasked with providing an expert opinion on whether
photographs have been digitally manipulated or not. A simple
examination can often reveal some limited information, but to get more
accurate results, we need to look beyond a simple visual examination.
Looking at a photograph, there are things to look out for when
determining if it's been digitally manipulated. If the photograph is
one of a series taken in burst mode, there may be inconsistencies
between the set, such as light/tone variations, or pixel aspect ratio.
In saying this, though, this isn't conclusive, and a more in-depth
analysis is... [Continue Reading]

http://feeds.betanews.com/~r/bn/~3/gHUji893hdY/

--
Eduardo
Sorocaba SP Brasil
www.alt119.net

“Acreditamos no sonho e construÃ*mos a realidadeâ€�
- Roberto Marinho

On 2016-10-20 00:16:27 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:20:19 -0200, JEMM
wrote:

I am frequently tasked with providing an expert opinion on whether
photographs have been digitally manipulated or not. A simple
examination can often reveal some limited information, but to get more
accurate results, we need to look beyond a simple visual examination.
Looking at a photograph, there are things to look out for when
determining if it's been digitally manipulated. If the photograph is
one of a series taken in burst mode, there may be inconsistencies
between the set, such as light/tone variations, or pixel aspect ratio.
In saying this, though, this isn't conclusive, and a more in-depth
analysis is... [Continue Reading]

http://feeds.betanews.com/~r/bn/~3/gHUji893hdY/

This photo was submitted to a historical society's calendar
competition and was rejected as one that was excessively digitally
manipulated. I spoke with the judge about this, and he thought that
the car had been added to the photograph. That was the only reason it
was rejected.

The car was not added. The car was in the driveway and was one the
garage had been working on. Nothing was done regarding the car.

There was some digital manipulation done. You're free to try to
figure out what I manipulated.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...15-21-B-X2.jpg

It could be my refurbished eyeballs, but I believe there has been some
clone/patch done work to the lower wall area to the right of the car,
just below the boarded up window.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 17:44:00 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-20 00:16:27 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:20:19 -0200, JEMM
wrote:

I am frequently tasked with providing an expert opinion on whether
photographs have been digitally manipulated or not. A simple
examination can often reveal some limited information, but to get more
accurate results, we need to look beyond a simple visual examination.
Looking at a photograph, there are things to look out for when
determining if it's been digitally manipulated. If the photograph is
one of a series taken in burst mode, there may be inconsistencies
between the set, such as light/tone variations, or pixel aspect ratio.
In saying this, though, this isn't conclusive, and a more in-depth
analysis is... [Continue Reading]

http://feeds.betanews.com/~r/bn/~3/gHUji893hdY/

This photo was submitted to a historical society's calendar
competition and was rejected as one that was excessively digitally
manipulated. I spoke with the judge about this, and he thought that
the car had been added to the photograph. That was the only reason it
was rejected.

The car was not added. The car was in the driveway and was one the
garage had been working on. Nothing was done regarding the car.

There was some digital manipulation done. You're free to try to
figure out what I manipulated.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...15-21-B-X2.jpg

It could be my refurbished eyeballs, but I believe there has been some
clone/patch done work to the lower wall area to the right of the car,
just below the boarded up window.

There, and just above the horizontal slats of the garage door on the
left, where they meet that panel above. I don't know what that panel
is.

On 20/10/2016 01:16, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:20:19 -0200, JEMM
wrote:

I am frequently tasked with providing an expert opinion on whether
photographs have been digitally manipulated or not. A simple
examination can often reveal some limited information, but to get more
accurate results, we need to look beyond a simple visual examination.
Looking at a photograph, there are things to look out for when
determining if it's been digitally manipulated. If the photograph is
one of a series taken in burst mode, there may be inconsistencies
between the set, such as light/tone variations, or pixel aspect ratio.
In saying this, though, this isn't conclusive, and a more in-depth
analysis is... [Continue Reading]

http://feeds.betanews.com/~r/bn/~3/gHUji893hdY/

This photo was submitted to a historical society's calendar
competition and was rejected as one that was excessively digitally
manipulated. I spoke with the judge about this, and he thought that
the car had been added to the photograph. That was the only reason it
was rejected.

The car was not added. The car was in the driveway and was one the
garage had been working on. Nothing was done regarding the car.

There was some digital manipulation done. You're free to try to
figure out what I manipulated.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...15-21-B-X2.jpg


The building sides at the extreme left and right are suspiciously
perpendicular to the bottom edge of the photo?

--
Cheers, Rob

On 10/19/16 PDT 11:17 PM, RJH wrote:
On 20/10/2016 01:16, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:20:19 -0200, JEMM
wrote:

I am frequently tasked with providing an expert opinion on whether
photographs have been digitally manipulated or not. A simple
examination can often reveal some limited information, but to get more
accurate results, we need to look beyond a simple visual examination.
Looking at a photograph, there are things to look out for when
determining if it's been digitally manipulated. If the photograph is
one of a series taken in burst mode, there may be inconsistencies
between the set, such as light/tone variations, or pixel aspect ratio.
In saying this, though, this isn't conclusive, and a more in-depth
analysis is... [Continue Reading]

http://feeds.betanews.com/~r/bn/~3/gHUji893hdY/

This photo was submitted to a historical society's calendar
competition and was rejected as one that was excessively digitally
manipulated. I spoke with the judge about this, and he thought that
the car had been added to the photograph. That was the only reason it
was rejected.

The car was not added. The car was in the driveway and was one the
garage had been working on. Nothing was done regarding the car.

There was some digital manipulation done. You're free to try to
figure out what I manipulated.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...15-21-B-X2.jpg


The building sides at the extreme left and right are suspiciously
perpendicular to the bottom edge of the photo?

Good one. I agree, a bit of perspective correction. The panels above the
left door look a bit suspicious, but not something I'd pick out if not
looking for something.

--
John McWilliams

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be
depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring
them the real facts, and beer.

~ Abraham Lincoln

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

JEMM:
I am frequently tasked with providing an expert opinion on whether
photographs have been digitally manipulated or not. A simple
examination can often reveal some limited information, but to get
more accurate results, we need to look beyond a simple visual
examination. Looking at a photograph, there are things to look out
for when determining if it's been digitally manipulated. If the
photograph is one of a series taken in burst mode, there may be
inconsistencies between the set, such as light/tone variations, or
pixel aspect ratio. In saying this, though, this isn't conclusive,
and a more in-depth analysis is... [Continue Reading]

http://feeds.betanews.com/~r/bn/~3/gHUji893hdY/

This photo was submitted to a historical society's calendar
competition and was rejected as one that was excessively digitally
manipulated. I spoke with the judge about this, and he thought that
the car had been added to the photograph. That was the only reason
it was rejected.

The car was not added. The car was in the driveway and was one the
garage had been working on. Nothing was done regarding the car.

There was some digital manipulation done. You're free to try to
figure out what I manipulated.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...15-21-B-X2.jpg

The entire garage door has been cloned many times to appear closed, which is
also why the car looks out of place.

I'm going to assume the garage door was slightly open, and the part of the
garage door that could be cloned has been cloned to cover the entire area,
which is why it doesn't line up in the upper part. I.e. in the original the
garage door was perhaps 20% open, but only the lower half of that area were
clean enough to be cloned, so masking the car and moving that part to the
bottom and the cloning it up to the upper part is what makes it crooked.

--
Sandman

John McWilliams Wrote in message:
On 10/19/16 PDT 11:17 PM, RJH wrote:
On 20/10/2016 01:16, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:20:19 -0200, JEMM
wrote:

I am frequently tasked with providing an expert opinion on whether
photographs have been digitally manipulated or not. A simple
examination can often reveal some limited information, but to get more
accurate results, we need to look beyond a simple visual examination.
Looking at a photograph, there are things to look out for when
determining if it's been digitally manipulated. If the photograph is
one of a series taken in burst mode, there may be inconsistencies
between the set, such as light/tone variations, or pixel aspect ratio.
In saying this, though, this isn't conclusive, and a more in-depth
analysis is... [Continue Reading]

http://feeds.betanews.com/~r/bn/~3/gHUji893hdY/

This photo was submitted to a historical society's calendar
competition and was rejected as one that was excessively digitally
manipulated. I spoke with the judge about this, and he thought that
the car had been added to the photograph. That was the only reason it
was rejected.

The car was not added. The car was in the driveway and was one the
garage had been working on. Nothing was done regarding the car.

There was some digital manipulation done. You're free to try to
figure out what I manipulated.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...15-21-B-X2.jpg


The building sides at the extreme left and right are suspiciously
perpendicular to the bottom edge of the photo?

Good one. I agree, a bit of perspective correction. The panels above the
left door look a bit suspicious, but not something I'd pick out if not
looking for something.

I did apply some lenscorrecton to the file and the weirdness
disappered. My guess is that the lense used was subpar with heavy
pincushion distortion. I could upload later if TC
approves...
--
Bats can't tell us apart!


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Tony Cooper:
It seems that Sandman has the sharpest eye for manipulation...

In critical cases one never need to worry about sharp eyes. An Adobe
engineer told my Mac user group that Adobe employs forensic techniques
that can determine whether so much as one pixel of an image has been
altered from the state in which it came from the camera.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 2016-10-21 14:23:30 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:16:27 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:20:19 -0200, JEMM
wrote:

I am frequently tasked with providing an expert opinion on whether
photographs have been digitally manipulated or not. A simple
examination can often reveal some limited information, but to get more
accurate results, we need to look beyond a simple visual examination.
Looking at a photograph, there are things to look out for when
determining if it's been digitally manipulated. If the photograph is
one of a series taken in burst mode, there may be inconsistencies
between the set, such as light/tone variations, or pixel aspect ratio.
In saying this, though, this isn't conclusive, and a more in-depth
analysis is... [Continue Reading]

http://feeds.betanews.com/~r/bn/~3/gHUji893hdY/

This photo was submitted to a historical society's calendar
competition and was rejected as one that was excessively digitally
manipulated. I spoke with the judge about this, and he thought that
the car had been added to the photograph. That was the only reason it
was rejected.

The car was not added. The car was in the driveway and was one the
garage had been working on. Nothing was done regarding the car.

There was some digital manipulation done. You're free to try to
figure out what I manipulated.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...15-21-B-X2.jpg


It seems that Sandman has the sharpest eye for manipulation. Here is
the cropped version before the manipulation steps and rendering to
black and white.

https://photos.smugmug.com/AUE-Photo...-21-rpd-X2.jpg

The oil drum removal was the sloppiest effort. The bricks have a
different appearance where I removed the drum. The difficulty in
removing the drum was the three different surfaces behind it, so it
had to be done in four steps. (Two steps for the window area and two
more for the brickwork.)

The open garage door was the biggest challenge. While Sandman used
"cloned", I didn't use the clone tool. I think he used "cloned"
generically, though, and meant that I had copied part of something and
added it somewhere else. I think the only actual cloning I did was
the red sign above the car.

Actually, I made a selection of the available door, copied it, and
pasted it several times to close the door using layer masks and
painting out where it wasn't needed. The tricky part was masking
around the car.

The panels above the door were not altered, but some here think they
were.

The judge and I went over the print after the judging. As I said,
he's a friend of mine. He, too, noticed the drum removal and door
closing. He didn't when he judged the photo, but when he knew there
were alterations he looked at it closer and the changes were then
obvious. When you know you're looking for alterations, you look at the
print differently.

This was done back in April, and I really don't remember if I made any
perspective changes before this version. The lens was a kit Nikon
18/55.

Oh well, at least my eyeballs didn't fail me on the one sector with the
drum removal, but totally let me down with the garage door. All-in-all,
a pretty good edit, which is aided in the coverup by the B&W treament.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2016-10-21 16:03:19 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:22:33 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-10-21 14:23:30 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 20:16:27 -0400, Tony Cooper
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 18:20:19 -0200, JEMM
wrote:

I am frequently tasked with providing an expert opinion on whether
photographs have been digitally manipulated or not. A simple
examination can often reveal some limited information, but to get more
accurate results, we need to look beyond a simple visual examination.
Looking at a photograph, there are things to look out for when
determining if it's been digitally manipulated. If the photograph is
one of a series taken in burst mode, there may be inconsistencies
between the set, such as light/tone variations, or pixel aspect ratio.
In saying this, though, this isn't conclusive, and a more in-depth
analysis is... [Continue Reading]

http://feeds.betanews.com/~r/bn/~3/gHUji893hdY/

This photo was submitted to a historical society's calendar
competition and was rejected as one that was excessively digitally
manipulated. I spoke with the judge about this, and he thought that
the car had been added to the photograph. That was the only reason it
was rejected.

The car was not added. The car was in the driveway and was one the
garage had been working on. Nothing was done regarding the car.

There was some digital manipulation done. You're free to try to
figure out what I manipulated.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Current/i...15-21-B-X2.jpg


It seems that Sandman has the sharpest eye for manipulation. Here is
the cropped version before the manipulation steps and rendering to
black and white.

https://photos.smugmug.com/AUE-Photo...-21-rpd-X2.jpg

The oil drum removal was the sloppiest effort. The bricks have a
different appearance where I removed the drum. The difficulty in
removing the drum was the three different surfaces behind it, so it
had to be done in four steps. (Two steps for the window area and two
more for the brickwork.)

The open garage door was the biggest challenge. While Sandman used
"cloned", I didn't use the clone tool. I think he used "cloned"
generically, though, and meant that I had copied part of something and
added it somewhere else. I think the only actual cloning I did was
the red sign above the car.

Actually, I made a selection of the available door, copied it, and
pasted it several times to close the door using layer masks and
painting out where it wasn't needed. The tricky part was masking
around the car.

The panels above the door were not altered, but some here think they
were.

The judge and I went over the print after the judging. As I said,
he's a friend of mine. He, too, noticed the drum removal and door
closing. He didn't when he judged the photo, but when he knew there
were alterations he looked at it closer and the changes were then
obvious. When you know you're looking for alterations, you look at the
print differently.

This was done back in April, and I really don't remember if I made any
perspective changes before this version. The lens was a kit Nikon
18/55.

Oh well, at least my eyeballs didn't fail me on the one sector with the
drum removal, but totally let me down with the garage door. All-in-all,
a pretty good edit, which is aided in the coverup by the B&W treament.

The black and white conversion wasn't a cover-up. The submissions
were required to be in black and white.

Perhaps "coverup" was a poor choice of word. Let's just say the B&W
assisted in your creation of your scene.

I don't feel badly about not having an image chosen for the calendar.
There were over 200 submissions and 12 were chosen. I went to the
reception where the 12 were shown, and the judging panel made some
good choices.

The subject matter was a bit ordinary and expected, though. Most of
them were the "usual suspects" of the city's historical landmarks. I
knew, for example, that certain landmarks would be represented and
tried to avoid the usual with mine. It's a small town just north of
Orlando, and there's not that much choice of historical sites.

I was quite impressed, though, with the post-processing. Some very
nicely done black and white conversions. Very sharp. Better than
I've been doing.

It is good to see that there are some challenges out there.

So, since we are on the subject of manipulation, try this for size.
I will post a side-by-side comparison with the unaltered original once
there are a few comments.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Demo/DNC_8018.jpg



--
Regards,

Savageduck