Reading mode: Light Dark

Cropped? How to know?

Go to last post
I simply pointed out the irrelevance of the issue relating to the original post and questioned the aggressive attitude, given that Bali_Mirage seemed intent on 'confronting' the supplier of the pictures in any event, with or without proof.

My position regarding the importance of cropping, either before or after the fact, remains unchanged, is unequivocally correct (in a practical sense as well as legal), agreed by most other contributors to this thread and has nothing to do with hairs, split or otherwise.
--
Get busy living, or get busy dying...
 
The OP asked a question - period.

For insurance/ legal purposes the OP obviously needs the images uncropped and wants to ascertain if they have been cropped; so the point isn't in fact moot. These are the OP's requirements. You may not think it's important; however, his insurance company may consider it important and the OP may well want to avoid any issues that could potentially arise out of using cropped images. So, framing the original photograph in favor of a particular cause could possibly be arguable; however, cropping images later may well be seen as a malicious or deliberate intent to deceive - who knows? Not us, but the OP...

I think if you refer back to the original post, the 'confrontation' was to ascertain if the images had been cropped (for whatever reason, unknown to others on the forum). The OP obviously suspects that they may have been cropped. This may well be contrary to a contract/ agreement/ stipulation of which the photographer was complicit.

It really isn't difficult to understand. So, it would be more beneficial to answer the OP's original question and avoid pedantic, hair-splitting remarks that appear to be engineered to rally some support from the remaining and somewhat overly defensive members of the forum and turn the thread into a witch hunt. In fact, many posters here have chosen to assume the worst and launch several personal attacks, none of which have been any benefit. In fact, some of the reactions defy all common sense.

Christian
aardvark7 said:
I simply pointed out the irrelevance of the issue relating to the original post and questioned the aggressive attitude, given that Bali_Mirage seemed intent on 'confronting' the supplier of the pictures in any event, with or without proof.

My position regarding the importance of cropping, either before or after the fact, remains unchanged, is unequivocally correct (in a practical sense as well as legal), agreed by most other contributors to this thread and has nothing to do with hairs, split or otherwise.
--
Get busy living, or get busy dying...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.christianhough.com
 
Quite, but it the original images would have to first go through primary and secondary Disclosure (CPIA 96) prior to being enlarged or cropped to prove (or disprove) any defence or prosecution case. Obviously the job for the legal experts and not the photographer!

Best
Christian
Bill McLeod said:
Bill McLeod said:
Bali_Mirage said:
riddell said:
Cropping is most definitly not considered image manipulation in any shape or form.
Click to expand...
It is if you're dealing with images being used in a legal or insurance case.
Click to expand...
Ahhhhh....Only a RAW file is admissible in a court of law ( here in the UK at least) as they can't be doctored or manipulated!
As I've said, ask to see the original files!
Click to expand...
Interesting. I have been involved in legal cases in Canada before when photographing crime scenes, accidents, and fatalities. Cropping and manipulation to more easily see what was shown in the imagery was very much allowed as long as I was prepared to testify about what I had done to the images.

It would defeat the purpose to not be able to manipulate the images to show contrast if you were trying to show a fingerprint in clear detail, for example. Which I have done.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.christianhough.com
 
Because often times the reason something is needed affects the answer(s).
JulesJ said:
Jay Bean said:
Bali_Mirage said:
Ok.....a photographer just sent me 160 photos resized but still with the exif information.........the problem is, while they are all the exact same size, maybe 15 look like they might have been cropped. Is there anyway to tell for certain from the exif as to whether or not they've been cropped? I'd like to know before I confront him over this.

Thanks!

Corey

BTW, I can post the complete exif (from JPEGsnoop) from a suspect file if needed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Wouldn't it be great is the ESC key on PCs did something?
Click to expand...
 
The difficulty in understanding does not rest with me.

The question, which you imply to be precise and clear, was anything but. Indeed, the OP actually says the pictures had been resized, but were the same size!!!???

Furthermore, the point I made is still perfectly valid: did the pictures fulfil the requirement? It may well be that one such stipulation was for the files to be exactly as taken (but how were we to know?). In which case, the only question should be directed towards the photographer as to his workflow, not to us. After that the OP needs to decide whether he trusts the photographer or not...period.

As far as legal issues go, which only came up later in the thread, all that is required is for the photographer to demonstrate that the pictures taken are an accurate representation of the scene or subject. He will be under oath in that respect and, like all evidence, is subject to scrutiny and doubt.

--
Get busy living, or get busy dying...
 
Wow, very heated conversation!

I can see where you might be concerned if the photos were taken, as you say, for legal or insurance purposes.

My first thought was also, "What harm in cropping"?? But then, as you mentioned the legal aspect, it dawned on me.

I work in a hospital and pictures are taken of abuse victims. What if a photographer were to crop the photos after the fact, and by doing so, eliminate important parts of the image. the case against the abuser might turn out very differently.

I see why you are concerned, and hope you do get an answer to your question.

With the vast improvements in photoshopping and image manipulation software these days, it's near impossible to believe any image unless you, yourself created it! I am still a newbie with a DSLR, and will continue to read the meaningful responses to this thread and hope to learn something as well.

Good luck to you...
 
Just what are you pontificating about? The OP asked a question, probably because he sought independant guidance as to whether he would be able to ascertain if the images had been cropped, so he could then direct that question to the photographer. He obviously has some doubts about the photographer, which is why he posted the original question. I guess its a little too late for him to decide on trust once the images have been taken.

Anybody can be 'under oath', but perhaps it is best to be certain of the veracity of the images/ evidence prior to getting that far. Hence the original question.

However, I see by the points you are raising below, that you've now grasped why the original question wasn't moot, but would still like to go round in circles debating hypothetical questions.

Christian
aardvark7 said:
The difficulty in understanding does not rest with me.

The question, which you imply to be precise and clear, was anything but. Indeed, the OP actually says the pictures had been resized, but were the same size!!!???

Furthermore, the point I made is still perfectly valid: did the pictures fulfil the requirement? It may well be that one such stipulation was for the files to be exactly as taken (but how were we to know?). In which case, the only question should be directed towards the photographer as to his workflow, not to us. After that the OP needs to decide whether he trusts the photographer or not...period.

As far as legal issues go, which only came up later in the thread, all that is required is for the photographer to demonstrate that the pictures taken are an accurate representation of the scene or subject. He will be under oath in that respect and, like all evidence, is subject to scrutiny and doubt.

--
Get busy living, or get busy dying...
Click to expand...
 
You might check in with Emil Martinec at U Chicago. It is just an educated guess, but if you know the camera that was used, there might be a characteristic noise signature that can be recognized. Since noise (and the distribution thereof) in DSLR sensors is scale dependent, there might be difference in the signatures between cropped and uncropped frames. Also there may be global properties. The D3 sensor for example is made from two equal halves, whose presence can sometimes be revealed through DSP methods.

Luke
 
Would the photographer really have to tell you whether something was cropped or not? Frankly it is none of your business if you are getting the photographs a photographer was contracted to provide. A photographer can choose the right crop during the capture or during post-processing. What difference does it make? Most photographers are not out to pull something over on you... we just want to provide you with photographs that we feel are the best that they can be. Sometimes that means cropping a shot to remove a distraction, to tighten the focus on the intended subject, to make the composition more appealing, or to simply provide a different aspect ratio for printing at 8x10, 5x7, etc.

Now if you think his/her camera captured something that he/she deliberately cropped out in order to skew evidence in a civil or criminal dispute that is something to discuss with your attorney and with the authorities. It might take a subpoena though. If the photographer would have a reason to tamper with evidence, then he/she must be part of an interesting web of intrigue! Fun as that sounds, most of us here are just photographers and not private detectives or legal professionals (I'm sure some are though). If that's not the case, just simply ask the photographer if any images were cropped. If you share your reason, or politely ask, he/she may be willing to provide you with the un-cropped original compositions.

I personally would not provide the un-cropped version of a photo if I thought the cropped version was a significant improvement; but most of the time my crops are for slight compositional changes or to remove a distraction. For those I would provide the originals if someone asked and had a good reason. But in general I would rather show the originals rather than provide them. If the customer really wanted it I would mostly likely provide a copy. I also reserve the right to edit out any photos I do not feel are up to standard. I have never shown a client all of the photos that were taken.
 
The OP was anything but clear. I have been precise and accurate throughout. The only reason I posted again is because I took great exception to the comments and accusation made by JulesJ.

As to you expressing yourself, you could barely have made yourself less intelligible and I see no purpose other than mischief.

Furthermore, you appear to have completely misrepresented my views in that the original question of the thread, was, is and remains, entirely moot, irrespective of the final purpose of the photographs.

Given your apparent intention to troll, I will not reply again.

--
Get busy living, or get busy dying...
 
Hi all,
To the OP-

If I understand you correctly you have a legal issue and you wish to admit photographs as evidence, but you are concerned that the judge/jury/legal system may say something about the fact the photograph may have been cropped and might therefor be misleading. I don't know if you wish to prove or disprove the photos in question, but since the photographer sent you over 100 photos, I assume you wish to use them in court in your favour. If this is the case, I can relate some legal precedent for you:

a. Digital cropped photographs (and altered in many other ways) have been used in court the world over. Google photos have been used (as in lifted off Google Earth by a creative lawyer - who also broke copyright to do it, but that's another story), jpegs and RAW don't really matter, as it is rare in court (in Canada at least) for anyone - prosecutor, defence or judge - to question what a photo shows.

b. If you have questions about the photos, the quick answer, as you can see by the four pages of replies, is that there is no easy way to determine if the photos have been cropped - the only way to know that is to ask for the actual memory card. As far as getting the photos admitted, as long as they are relevant, the court will most likely admit them as evidence.

c. That means that the only way you could prove/disprove the photographic evidence if it gets admitted as is (i.e. without the memory card) would be to have the photographer take the stand to explain what alterations he did to the photos. This is NOT common practice. Usually you'll have your photos and whatever weight they are given will be countered by either testimony or perhaps other photos from the other side.

Photos in court are not "bullet-proof" and won't alone win your case. My advice then would be to simply ask the photographer if he/she has altered the images in any way, and if he/she says yes, and doesn't want you to have the memory card for whatever reason, ask if they would be prepared to write down in a document how the images have been altered if they have been. You should be talking to a lawyer about this to make sure everything is covered, and to be sure the resulting document is also admissible.
Hope that helps,
Bill

--
http://www.billcurry.ca

 
but that's usually the case, as threads get hijacked by people who drone on and on with arguments and insults, while the OP has long quit the thread. The OP was vague in his initial post, and it took his fourth, and last post, to finally say it was for insurance purposes. His 2nd and 3rd posts were a bit smarmy, IMO, and that seemed to generate a firestorm of jabs, insults, and arguments. Note that he hasn't returned, so he either got the answer he wanted or got the message that the thread was going nowhere...typical of so many threads here...and that's a shame.
 
Wrong he was as clear as water.
He had been sent some images.
They were all the same size.
But some of them looked as though they had been cropped.
I can understand that 100%.
Where is your difficulty whith it aardvaark?

Pictures can look like they've been cropped or not cropped. I can see that. He then asks if there is any way to rtell from the Exif file if there is any way he can actually tell if they have been cropped. To me it is as clear as a bell. But then whe i read things i actually think about what I'm reading. perhaps you should try this before you start barking like a hyena. Lol.
jules
aardvark7 said:
The OP was anything but clear.
Click to expand...
 
I agree Sam, but sometimes it's fun to try and help someone with their difficulties (reading and understanding in this case.) Please ignore the thread if it bores you. And i don't blame you if it does, but it's raining outside here and this is a little respite and excuse for me not to building my new kitchen and have a well deserved cup of coffee! lol.
jules
samuel49 said:
but that's usually the case, as threads get hijacked by people who drone on and on with arguments and insults, while the OP has long quit the thread. The OP was vague in his initial post, and it took his fourth, and last post, to finally say it was for insurance purposes. His 2nd and 3rd posts were a bit smarmy, IMO, and that seemed to generate a firestorm of jabs, insults, and arguments. Note that he hasn't returned, so he either got the answer he wanted or got the message that the thread was going nowhere...typical of so many threads here...and that's a shame.
Click to expand...
--
Wouldn't it be great is the ESC key on PCs did something?
 
Wrong. he said they looked like they had been cropped. This was the whole point of his question. Pleasee do not cloud this great discussion with incorrect facts. Trying to get to the bottom of this one is difficult enough as it is!
Jules
JensR said:
JensR said:
PenguinPhotoCo
Click to expand...
You missed that the OP had said that the images had been resized. They all had (much) less than the original file size and probably all even had the same dimensions.

--

'Well, 'Zooming with your feet' is usually a stupid thing as zoom rings are designed for hands.' (Me, 2006)
My Homepage: http://www.JensRoesner.de
Click to expand...
--
Wouldn't it be great is the ESC key on PCs did something?
 
They weren't court files. Inadmissable evidence I'm afraid.
Jules
Tom Bennett said:
Is this ass hole week? just answer the man
Court files should not be altered in any way
Click to expand...
by cropping.
Tom Bennett said:
If the file was dubed to a second layer in PS then resized and flatten to the same size as original. You will not know if it is altered.

If you compair two files taken of the same area by inlarging 300 percent in PS you will see more distortion in the cropped or adjusted file if the size has been altered a great amount
If it has been altered a tiny amount you will not see it.
Click to expand...
--
Wouldn't it be great is the ESC key on PCs did something?
 
And what is a burglar got photographed breaking into your house. You wouldn't want to use them as evidence I suppose? Doh.
Jules

FoFoF wrote:
Photographs are entertainment and have no place in a court of law.
FoFoF said:
--
Click to expand...
--
Wouldn't it be great is the ESC key on PCs did something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top