Is it true? New service detects processed photos

I tried izitru and it just sat there saying "preparing upload" for 10 minutes. Then I closed it out.

Maybe we need a website to test to see if izitru is a real website.

By the way. It does say it will flag something yellow for being resaved if izitru doesn't have a proper profile yet for a certain camera model. Now, shouldn't they instead bring up the message: "Camera not yet profiled, can't verify" if that happens?

Every single image I have tried - regardless of how it's been modified, or not, an original jpeg or a converted raw - they all gave me the same yellow flag for being resaved. For fun I also tried one where I had added some fake water with Flood as well, filling 30% of the frame. Same result: it said it had been resaved, nothing else.

As long as a tool such as this could only find evidence of a photo being resaved, that should still give a green flag. Anything else makes no sense as to get verified it would force people to shoot jpegs and do all modifications in-camera rather than shooting raw and doing proper processing. Not to mention that the best way to prove a photo is real is to present the unadulterated raw file.

And, since all the examples I tried, from original to resaved and heavily modified, and izitru not picking up on neither the real nor the fake, I'd say it doesn't do its job.

this is much worse than i expected.
Check out my photo (you can even see that I didnt fix all the power cables on the right. Izitru didnt tell me anything except for resaved:
http://izitru.com/a4A2V

Now compare it to FotoForensics you can clearly see the rediculously bad heal job in the bottom (I wasnt trying to hide anything - its plain black :) )
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=a17ef19435fbcc553cbb523709232001f2db1bfa.3690818

So basically JPEGs straight out of the camera would likely pass. Never mind these jpegs straight out of the camera have lens distortion that affect people's faces, but a raw file that is corrected for lens distortion is less likely to pass.

So, I load a raw file into photoshop, process the heck out of it and then generate a high quality jpg?
Pass or fail?

i am just not seeing the use for this unless it can break down into specifics. otherwise what is the point?

that's like going to a restaurant and using a sophisticated state of the art algorythm to tell you if the food is cooked.

well, yes, no kidding it's cooked, but to what degree is it cooked and what method and is it cooked appropriately for the dish or not. identifying if it is cooked or not is not useful in the slightest bit.

Oh for heaven's sake. We already went through this with Neal Krawetz, who claimed the World Press Photo prizewinner was fake but turned out not to be. Collectors and art historians spend millions of dollars every year to try to determine if paintings are fake, and they can't agree. Why do we think a cheap or free app would be able to do what PhDs and forensic experts cannot?

I'd love to have access to the original test images. Its super easy to tell if an image has been edited - even expertly - as each layer of edits has its own signature.

Perhaps DPR should have a "Is It Fake?" challenge with 10 pictures, and see if we, as human beings, are better than the soul-less cloudy-cloud. We fill out a true / false form for each and whoever gets it right is put in a pool to win something.

EXIF data does not contain a non-repudiation mechanism and can be forged easily. Its a bad litmus test for both real and fake photos.

-- Bob

It seems that it only considers OOC images as unmodified, and even resizing throws a red flag, so on the consumer level it's not sufficiently flexible. But I doubt very much that their tests are of sufficiently high accuracy to be accepted as legal evidence by any court. Then what's the point of such a service?

The problem with this is the inability to distinguish between the sort of processing that has no effect on authenticity (white balance, colour profile, levels/curves) and significant modifications such as compositing.

For the verification to really be of use, you'd ideally need checkboxes that let you declare what changes you've made before evaluation (colour/contrast as above, conversion to black & white, JPEG conversion from RAW), and have the site confirm that nothing ELSE was done.

You may as well expect actresses and models not to wear makeup either.

The methods they seem to use look gimmicky at best. Must be a really slow news day in the photography world...

I'm pretty sure my customers will still prefer I capture RAW and process in PS. :)

It seems to accept, and trust, falsified EXIF info (via EXIFtool) with no problem, so my Pentax K-5 must actually be a 16MP Nikon D800? Not terribly sophisticated service...

Is this thing against RAW file format?

It didnt work.
I tried one unmodified JPEG out of camera, one processed raw file turned JPEG and one strongly modified JPEG manipulated with Photoshop.
In all 3 it said the photos were modified without further information.

The vast majority of photographs are processed. Especially portraits, in this day and age of "HD" images. So I don't see the point.

OOC jpegs are processed, all of them.

Not sure what to think of this service. I have used one of my 4x5" scans (yes - scan from a largo format film) and it was marked as potentially modified. Now that means that every image that originated on film was 'modified'.

Every half-decent image that is to be used professionally will have curves/contrast/colors adjusted in post processing - after all - there is no 'true' colour setting in any camera out there since whatever comes out of a scanner needs further adjustments.

I have expected that they test whether there have been pixel content modifications to the file like cloning etc. I have tested that too, but still get the same message. So to me this sort of testing is pretty much useless, since the result is too ambiguous.

Sorry guys - either do it right or do not do it at all.

USELESS.....

In show business what matters is anything that sells. That's where the dollars will come.

Original untouched? If it doesn't sell go fu*k yourself.

Useless, just pass by :D

So everything that is not OOC JPEG is potentially altered? I thought this service can detect if an image is a composite of several images or if the model in the photo has been altered to look slimmer or something like that.

I only see some sense if you need to prove that something is shown as is - like if you are documenting a crime scene or insurance claim. Then this function could supplement something like the image data verification data which Canon DSLR can add to any photo taken...

Good try. However, how would it judge JPEGs generated from RAW files, where the RAW files have changed white balance or other things? The end result depends on which RAW converter you use. If they can solve that, then it will be a very useful service indeed.

I've now tried "izitru" with lots of images. It didn't detect anything. Everything was inconclusive.

In other words, you would be better off moving closer to the screen and peering at an image for a few seconds. That would be both faster and more likely to spot edits!

No doubt they will charge for "the service" at some stage. There are plenty of fools with money, so why not :-)

They say on their site that it is to detect changes to images submitted for competition... "Leave no doubt that your incredible shot was captured in-camera."

Good luck with trying to win any serious photo contest with an image that hasn't gone through some cropping, enhancement or other post processing. :)

sorry, french only :
http://www.exomakina.com/eXo_maKina/Tungstene.html

Ok, I gave this a try...
You can only upload jpeg images. So if you shoot RAW or Tiff, you have to convert your images to jpeg first, so it will always flag them up as modified...

The real kicker is that a service that is dedicated to verifying 'authenticity' of images then allows you to (wait for it...) CROP the image you just uploaded and had verified.. and display a CROPPED version of your 'verified' image...
Excuse me? How is this not totally conflicting with the service you aim to provide?

optimize file = ok
manipulate file = ko

I can't imagine how this isn't completely useless. And so what about processing? Are we going to give Ansel Adams' great works a "Don't trust" rating because they have been post-processed? haha.