If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
In article , Alfred
Molon wrote: Superficially the EXIF for both appears identical, including ?Date Time Digitized? and ?Date Time Original?. So far so good. Then digging a little deeper into the metadata evidence of the tampering reveals itself, and the actual date/time of DSCF5181.JPG is shown to be July 16, 2017, 03:07:04 PM, not the June 22, 2017 at 11:05:49 AM of the original. I'm by no means an expert, but can't you set the metadata and timestamps of an image to whatever you like them to be? yep, but most people don't cover their tracks completely, or at all. I'd be very surprised if that wasn't possible. After all, it's just bytes of data, which in the worst case you could edit with a hex editor. Or is that data encrypted? it's not encrypted. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On Jul 17, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com): In iganews.com, Savageduck says... Superficially the EXIF for both appears identical, including ?Date Time Digitized? and ?Date Time Original?. So far so good. Then digging a little deeper into the metadata evidence of the tampering reveals itself, and the actual date/time of DSCF5181.JPG is shown to be July 16, 2017, 03:07:04 PM, not the June 22, 2017 at 11:05:49 AM of the original. I'm by no means an expert, but can't you set the metadata and timestamps of an image to whatever you like them to be? Sure you can. However, while that might be enough to fool a casual viewer, or to syncronize a GPS logger, when it comes to handing the SD card, or forwarding online to the photo editor of a news agency such as Reuters, the deception is likely to be uncovered very quickly. I'd be very surprised if that wasn't possible. After all, it's just bytes of data, which in the worst case you could edit with a hex editor. Or is that data encrypted? No encryption involved, but a professional PJ could be risking his/her credentials. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
In article .com,
Savageduck says... Sure you can. However, while that might be enough to fool a casual viewer, or to syncronize a GPS logger, when it comes to handing the SD card, or forwarding online to the photo editor of a news agency such as Reuters, the deception is likely to be uncovered very quickly. How? -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On 2017-07-17 17:37:21 +0000, Alfred Molon said:
In article .com, Savageduck says... Sure you can. However, while that might be enough to fool a casual viewer, or to syncronize a GPS logger, when it comes to handing the SD card, or forwarding online to the photo editor of a news agency such as Reuters, the deception is likely to be uncovered very quickly. How? There are digital photography forensic tools available to news agencies, law enforcement, and other agencies which the average user is either unaware of or couldn't afford. There are also some online tools available. The very first thing to appear as a tell-tale would be detection of a signature of EXIF Image software. An unedited SOOC JPG would be negative, an in-camera edited JPG would show the particular camera manufacturer as the software, eg. Canon, Fujifilm, Oly, etc. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On 7/17/2017 2:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2017-07-17 17:37:21 +0000, Alfred Molon said: In article .com, Savageduck says... Sure you can. However, while that might be enough to fool a casual viewer, or to syncronize a GPS logger, when it comes to handing the SD card, or forwarding online to the photo editor of a news agency such as Reuters, the deception is likely to be uncovered very quickly. How? There are digital photography forensic tools available to news agencies, law enforcement, and other agencies which the average user is either unaware of or couldn't afford. There are also some online tools available. The very first thing to appear as a tell-tale would be detection of a signature of EXIF Image software. An unedited SOOC JPG would be negative, an in-camera edited JPG would show the particular camera manufacturer as the software, eg. Canon, Fujifilm, Oly, etc. I'm thinking something as simple as an embedded checksum(s) would make casual changes to the file easily detectable. I don't know if they do employ such things but if so then that would be one answer to 'How?' -- == Later... Ron C -- --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
In article 201707171106021393-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says... There are digital photography forensic tools available to news agencies, law enforcement, and other agencies which the average user is either unaware of or couldn't afford. There are also some online tools available. The very first thing to appear as a tell-tale would be detection of a signature of EXIF Image software. An unedited SOOC JPG would be negative, an in-camera edited JPG would show the particular camera manufacturer as the software, eg. Canon, Fujifilm, Oly, etc. Yes, but if you use the camera JPEG engine to process the images (the same which the camera uses to generate the OOC JPEGs), there shouldn't be any difference in the JPEGs. -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On Jul 17, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com): In article201707171106021393-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck says... There are digital photography forensic tools available to news agencies, law enforcement, and other agencies which the average user is either unaware of or couldn't afford. There are also some online tools available. The very first thing to appear as a tell-tale would be detection of a signature of EXIF Image software. An unedited SOOC JPG would be negative, an in-camera edited JPG would show the particular camera manufacturer as the software, eg. Canon, Fujifilm, Oly, etc. Yes, but if you use the camera JPEG engine to process the images (the same which the camera uses to generate the OOC JPEGs), there shouldn't be any difference in the JPEGs. The big question should be; If your career as a PJ depended on your integrity, and the immediacy of your work, why cheat to circumvent the policy of the agency paying you? -- Regards, Savageduck |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
Alfred Molon:
Yes, but if you use the camera JPEG engine to process the images (the same which the camera uses to generate the OOC JPEGs), there shouldn't be any difference in the JPEGs. OK, we've heard (repeatedly) that you don't know how it's done. But it is doable. A simple search will turn up a number of forensic laboratories that can analyze a digital image for edits. -- 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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
In article .com,
Savageduck says... The big question should be; If your career as a PJ depended on your integrity, and the immediacy of your work, why cheat to circumvent the policy of the agency paying you? What you can also do with the E-M1 II is to set it up to do white balance bracketing or art filter bracketing (or exposure bracketing, there are more bracketing modes). Then you choose which OOC JPEG is best for the particular scene. No "cheating" at all... -- Alfred Molon Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
A Different take on Post Processing
On Jul 17, 2017, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com): In iganews.com, Savageduck says... The big question should be; If your career as a PJ depended on your integrity, and the immediacy of your work, why cheat to circumvent the policy of the agency paying you? What you can also do with the E-M1 II is to set it up to do white balance bracketing or art filter bracketing (or exposure bracketing, there are more bracketing modes). Then you choose which OOC JPEG is best for the particular scene. No "cheating" at all... ....and that is probably a much better way to go about things. Agreed, no cheating at all, and I have a similar feature with my Fuji X-T2 & X-E2. I use bracketing for different reasons, mostly Fujifilm “Film simulation” bracket (probably similar to your “art filter”), and exposure brackets. I usually avoid WB bracketing, by relying on auto WB. I can also make appropriate intentional adjustments to the SOOC JPG in my “Q” or quick menu where I have 7 custom presets. There I can apply the sort of adjustments I might have made in-camera before I take the shot. Also, no cheating at all. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
post processing | Nige Danton[_2_] | Digital Photography | 170 | March 19th 14 09:00 PM |
Does anyone know how much post processing goes on at DPreview? | Alien Jones | Digital SLR Cameras | 59 | October 7th 08 01:18 PM |
Filters vs Post processing | M[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 7 | January 3rd 08 04:57 AM |
Post-Processing RAW vs Post-Processing TIFF | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 54 | January 30th 05 08:26 AM |
Post Processing & Printing | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | December 23rd 04 02:12 PM |