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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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