A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

tag for edited file



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 17th 20, 10:21 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing
dale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default tag for edited file

What about a tag in an image file indicating it is not the original?

Taking it further, what about including each edited image in the file?


--
Minister Dale Kelly, Ph.D.
https://www.dalekelly.org/
Board Certified Holistic Health Practitioner
Board Certified Alternative Medical Practitioner
  #2  
Old July 17th 20, 11:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 263
Default tag for edited file

On 17/07/2020 23.21, dale wrote:
What about a tag in an image file indicating it is not the original?


And how would you mandate it being obeyed?


Taking it further, what about including each edited image in the file?


making the file huge.

However, that's an history file. The Gimp saves images that way, undo works.


--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #3  
Old July 18th 20, 04:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing
Martin Brown[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default tag for edited file

On 17/07/2020 22:21, dale wrote:
What about a tag in an image file indicating it is not the original?


Utterly pointless. Anyone that understands the file formats can tell if
something has been through one of the common image editing programs and
many cameras include enough meta information and use custom quantisation
tables in their JPEGs to effectively have signed the original image.

You cannot stop someone producing a convincing edited fake that looks
entirely authentic using already existing tools.

Taking it further, what about including each edited image in the file?


If you want the file size to grow exponentially then why not?

Strangely NASA have a bug in their workflow that means sometimes they
publish images which contain two or three identical thumbnails with a
brace of original images concatenated. Unclear how or why they do it.

Mickeysoft Word does that sometimes to corporate documents where users
drag and drop images into report templates originally written in a
legacy version. The document grows exponentially in size each time it is
edited with different versions of Word as more and more orphaned image
data accumulates in the file with each iteration.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #4  
Old July 18th 20, 04:37 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23,840
Default tag for edited file

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 17/07/2020 23.21, dale wrote:
What about a tag in an image file indicating it is not the original?


And how would you mandate it being obeyed?


the bigger problem is preventing its removal.

the correct way to indicate an image original and never modified is to
cryptographically sign it, which is what some cameras do.

Taking it further, what about including each edited image in the file?


making the file huge.


only if done incorrectly.

However, that's an history file. The Gimp saves images that way, undo works.


saving the undo history in the image is silly. is that gimp's lame
attempt at non-destructive editing because they refuse to do it
correctly? if so, that's laughable.
  #5  
Old July 21st 20, 02:03 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 263
Default tag for edited file

On 18/07/2020 17.37, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

On 17/07/2020 23.21, dale wrote:
What about a tag in an image file indicating it is not the original?


And how would you mandate it being obeyed?


the bigger problem is preventing its removal.

the correct way to indicate an image original and never modified is to
cryptographically sign it, which is what some cameras do.


Interesting.


Taking it further, what about including each edited image in the file?


making the file huge.


only if done incorrectly.


No way. Say the original is 10 Mb. Each modification saved is another 10 Mb.



However, that's an history file. The Gimp saves images that way, undo works.


saving the undo history in the image is silly. is that gimp's lame
attempt at non-destructive editing because they refuse to do it
correctly? if so, that's laughable.


Ha ha. They are doing it correctly. You are biased.


--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #6  
Old July 21st 20, 03:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23,840
Default tag for edited file

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


Taking it further, what about including each edited image in the file?

making the file huge.


only if done incorrectly.


No way. Say the original is 10 Mb. Each modification saved is another 10 Mb.


that's doing it incorrectly.

the correct way to do it is by saving an edit list and replay it, not
saving a version of the entire image each time.

each step is *tiny*, measured in bytes and replaying is *fast*,
especially when rendered on a gpu.

However, that's an history file. The Gimp saves images that way, undo
works.


saving the undo history in the image is silly. is that gimp's lame
attempt at non-destructive editing because they refuse to do it
correctly? if so, that's laughable.


Ha ha. They are doing it correctly. You are biased.


nope. they aren't doing it at all and have no immediate plans to do so.

they now claim that it might be added in version 3.2 (a change from
their previous claim which was a flat 'no'), except they haven't
figured out how to do it, according to their own road map.

the gimp is a toy, lacking features photoshop had 30 years ago and
*significantly* slower on the same hardware.
  #7  
Old July 21st 20, 08:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing
Carlos E.R.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 263
Default tag for edited file

On 21/07/2020 16.13, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


Taking it further, what about including each edited image in the file?

making the file huge.

only if done incorrectly.


No way. Say the original is 10 Mb. Each modification saved is another 10 Mb.


that's doing it incorrectly.

the correct way to do it is by saving an edit list and replay it, not
saving a version of the entire image each time.


That's not what the OP said, and needs having the same application for
replaying the steps.


each step is *tiny*, measured in bytes and replaying is *fast*,
especially when rendered on a gpu.

However, that's an history file. The Gimp saves images that way, undo
works.

saving the undo history in the image is silly. is that gimp's lame
attempt at non-destructive editing because they refuse to do it
correctly? if so, that's laughable.


Ha ha. They are doing it correctly. You are biased.


nope. they aren't doing it at all and have no immediate plans to do so.

they now claim that it might be added in version 3.2 (a change from
their previous claim which was a flat 'no'), except they haven't
figured out how to do it, according to their own road map.

the gimp is a toy, lacking features photoshop had 30 years ago and
*significantly* slower on the same hardware.


Ha ha.


--
Cheers, Carlos.
  #8  
Old July 21st 20, 11:45 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23,840
Default tag for edited file

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

Taking it further, what about including each edited image in the file?

making the file huge.

only if done incorrectly.

No way. Say the original is 10 Mb. Each modification saved is another 10
Mb.


that's doing it incorrectly.

the correct way to do it is by saving an edit list and replay it, not
saving a version of the entire image each time.


That's not what the OP said,


he initially wanted a way to confirm that a photo had not been altered,
and the only way to do that is by signing it.

he mentioned including a snapshot at every step. that's a bad idea for
all sorts of reasons.

and needs having the same application for
replaying the steps.


not an issue, and other compatible apps can work.

However, that's an history file. The Gimp saves images that way, undo
works.

saving the undo history in the image is silly. is that gimp's lame
attempt at non-destructive editing because they refuse to do it
correctly? if so, that's laughable.

Ha ha. They are doing it correctly. You are biased.


nope. they aren't doing it at all and have no immediate plans to do so.

they now claim that it might be added in version 3.2 (a change from
their previous claim which was a flat 'no'), except they haven't
figured out how to do it, according to their own road map.

the gimp is a toy, lacking features photoshop had 30 years ago and
*significantly* slower on the same hardware.


Ha ha.


read their roadmap and do some comparisons.
  #9  
Old July 23rd 20, 08:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing
dale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default tag for edited file

On 7/17/2020 5:21 PM, dale wrote:
What about a tag in an image file indicating it is not the original?

Taking it further, what about including each edited image in the file?



some kind of signed image might also be a way to protect copyright

--
Minister Dale Kelly, Ph.D.
https://www.dalekelly.org/
Board Certified Holistic Health Practitioner
Board Certified Alternative Medical Practitioner
  #10  
Old July 23rd 20, 09:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23,840
Default tag for edited file

In article , dale
wrote:

some kind of signed image might also be a way to protect copyright


it is.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Getting my Nikon D50 to display pictures I edited and outside thecamera? Benjamin Slade Digital Photography 1 April 2nd 06 06:58 PM
UNDOING edited photos [email protected] Digital Photography 12 February 16th 05 03:16 PM
[SI] RULZ page - edited Alan Browne 35mm Photo Equipment 6 November 7th 04 11:36 PM
Saving edited pictures George E. Cawthon Digital Photography 2 October 29th 04 04:45 PM
Prints from scanned & edited photos Valerie2 Film & Labs 6 September 16th 04 11:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.