how to detect for image doctoring or editing

[Sachin V]

Hi everyone,

How to find out the original image digital image is edited or the directly from the camera, like original without edit.

Many photographers edit the pictures after clicking for better result. But some times the extra editing (not retouching) damages the original tones like brightness, contrast, color saturation and sharpness. I am working with newspaper company, where in we edit it as per web offset print requirements. It is difficult to reedit if it is already edited.

I want to know after clicking the digital picture with camera the EXIF information is getting saved in it as a tag. If i am not wrong, please correct me if i am wrong. The capture timing is resisted in EXIF.

Is there any thing to find out original clicked timing and the last image modified timing?

The file info (Adobe Photoshop) some times shows the traces of software, application used for modification in advanced tab, but it is not specific information.

From the image image itself shows if it is extra edited, but i want the information data to prove it for non technical users. How to do it or find out?

Checked with online sites like forensic but not much specific. Please advise with expert comments.

 

[Tom Axford]

Hi everyone,

How to find out the original image digital image is edited or the directly from the camera, like original without edit.

Many photographers edit the pictures after clicking for better result. But some times the extra editing (not retouching) damages the original tones like brightness, contrast, color saturation and sharpness. I am working with newspaper company, where in we edit it as per web offset print requirements. It is difficult to reedit if it is already edited.

I want to know after clicking the digital picture with camera the EXIF information is getting saved in it as a tag. If i am not wrong, please correct me if i am wrong. The capture timing is resisted in EXIF.

Is there any thing to find out original clicked timing and the last image modified timing?

The file info (Adobe Photoshop) some times shows the traces of software, application used for modification in advanced tab, but it is not specific information.

From the image image itself shows if it is extra edited, but i want the information data to prove it for non technical users. How to do it or find out?

Checked with online sites like forensic but not much specific. Please advise with expert comments.

The EXIF data can always be faked by someone with the appropriate skills, so you can never rely on it 100%.

It is rather harder to fake a raw image, so it would be better to ask for both the final processed image and the raw original.

 

[JJMacks]

A RAW file Camera Sensor data is not altered when the image is posted processes and converted into an RGB Image. Raw data is not a useable image it needs to be post-processed and converted into a useable image. RAW data is light measurements with an array of colored filters above the light sensors. There is one value for each pixel. The Image is more a mosaic of Red, Green and Blue tiles. There are twice as many green tiles then there are blue and red tiles.

Processed images do not have RAW data all are processed images.

--
JJMack

 

[gordonpritchard]

Hi everyone,

How to find out the original image digital image is edited or the directly from the camera, like original without edit.

Many photographers edit the pictures after clicking for better result. But some times the extra editing (not retouching) damages the original tones like brightness, contrast, color saturation and sharpness. I am working with newspaper company, where in we edit it as per web offset print requirements. It is difficult to reedit if it is already edited.

I want to know after clicking the digital picture with camera the EXIF information is getting saved in it as a tag. If i am not wrong, please correct me if i am wrong. The capture timing is resisted in EXIF.

Is there any thing to find out original clicked timing and the last image modified timing?

The file info (Adobe Photoshop) some times shows the traces of software, application used for modification in advanced tab, but it is not specific information.

From the image image itself shows if it is extra edited, but i want the information data to prove it for non technical users. How to do it or find out?

Checked with online sites like forensic but not much specific. Please advise with expert comments.

You can ask that the staff photographers shoot RAW+jpeg. The RAW contains the original data as shot. The jpeg is what goes to press. Most staff photographers for newspaper either won't know how to edit an image for a better result, or the newspaper has a published policy against image manipulation.

I don't know what is done at your place to prepare images for the press, but in N America the images are placed in a page layout application, that is saved as a PDF and the PDF then goes through a "RIP". The RIP converts the RGB images into CMYK. If already in CMYK they are reseparated to CMYK using a device link profile. In both cases the images are optimized by the RIP for color, contrast, sharpness, etc. Then the RIP halftone screens the files and burns the printing plates.

BTW, I've trained publishers on these issues. One of my clients - a daily newspaper:









--
My photos: http://www.gordonpritchard.blogspot.com/

 

[Sachin V]

Thanks for the help.

 

[StoryInPictures]

There were a number of news stories not so long ago when several high-profile photojournalists were caught faking images.

Reuters Issues a Worldwide Ban on RAW Photos

Reuters has implemented a new worldwide policy for freelance photographers that bans photos that were processed from RAW files. Photographers must now

petapixel.com

 

[gordonpritchard]

There were a number of news stories not so long ago when several high-profile photojournalists were caught faking images.

https://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/

Reuters doesn't appear to know much about digital photography.

 

[Toermalijn]

Hi everyone,

How to find out the original image digital image is edited or the directly from the camera, like original without edit.

Many photographers edit the pictures after clicking for better result. But some times the extra editing (not retouching) damages the original tones like brightness, contrast, color saturation and sharpness. I am working with newspaper company, where in we edit it as per web offset print requirements. It is difficult to reedit if it is already edited.

I want to know after clicking the digital picture with camera the EXIF information is getting saved in it as a tag. If i am not wrong, please correct me if i am wrong. The capture timing is resisted in EXIF.

Is there any thing to find out original clicked timing and the last image modified timing?

The file info (Adobe Photoshop) some times shows the traces of software, application used for modification in advanced tab, but it is not specific information.

From the image image itself shows if it is extra edited, but i want the information data to prove it for non technical users. How to do it or find out?

Checked with online sites like forensic but not much specific. Please advise with expert comments.

You can ask that the staff photographers shoot RAW+jpeg. The RAW contains the original data as shot. The jpeg is what goes to press. Most staff photographers for newspaper either won't know how to edit an image for a better result, or the newspaper has a published policy against image manipulation.

I don't know what is done at your place to prepare images for the press, but in N America the images are placed in a page layout application, that is saved as a PDF and the PDF then goes through a "RIP". The RIP converts the RGB images into CMYK. If already in CMYK they are reseparated to CMYK using a device link profile. In both cases the images are optimized by the RIP for color, contrast, sharpness, etc. Then the RIP halftone screens the files and burns the printing plates.

BTW, I've trained publishers on these issues. One of my clients - a daily newspaper:







--
My photos: http://www.gordonpritchard.blogspot.com/

Nice series of images, Gordon. Yes, that's how it's mostly done, also in Europe.

 

[Sachin V]

Thanks Sir for the information.

But my point is similar, from the digital photo one can see the alteration or changes made but the modification record does not appear in EXIF data clearly (in JPEG format.).

There are online websites which verifies the photo and gives the report but its not specific.

 

[Sachin V]

I know it gives wide scope to post process with RAW Image files, but our workflow is with JPEG files, could not disclose more details, sorry.

I follow your website (http://the-print-guide.blogspot.com/) for Prepress information.

Thanks again.

 

[Steve Bingham]

As all cameras process jpg differently I am amazed at their policy. In fact, some smartphones go even further with their jpgs - often times adding some very interesting effects. This policy will indeed speed up their process but it can't help in other areas.

I think this is an economical issue with Reuters - they win.

 

[Sailor Blue]

Define doctoring or editing.

Is it when you composite images? Is it when you correct the exposure?

One is an easy answer, the other not.

Out Of Camera (OOC) JPGs are created by the camera's software from the RAW image. Every camera has a different sensor so every one produces a different RAW file as a starting point for producing the JPG.

Every camera brand uses different software and starts with a different RAW file so it will produce a slightly different looking image of the exact same subject shot from the exact same position at the exact same camera settings.

Each different lens will also have an effect on the images even if they are the same focal length.

Exposure correction and contrast changes are applied to all OOC JPGs by the built in software. Is that doctoring or editing?

Of course there is also the whole problem of RAW files and creating an image from them using post processing software. All this does is move the problem from the OOC JPG to the Out Of Post Processing Software JPG.

Every digital image starts out as a RAW file that has to be modified in one or more ways to produce an usable image. There is no such thing as an undoctored or unedited image.

EXIF data has been used to detect modified images but it is no big deal to edit the EXIF data.

There is artificial intelligent software that claims to be able to detect images that have been modified but I suspect that they are more hot air than reality.

Compositing is easy enough to detect, adjusting the exposure isn't.

Photojournalism is one of the professions that relies on undoctored or unedited images. The reality is that it all depends on the photographers honesty.

 

[gordonpritchard]

Define doctoring or editing.

I think the concern is to avoid misrepresentations like the infamous Feb 1982 cover of National Geographic:



Where the horizontal image was altered to fit the vertical cover by shifting the two pyramids closer together.

Shooting RAW+jpeg enables editors to use the jpegs for daily use in the newspaper. If there are any questions about the veracity of an image then referring to the RAW image and comparing it to the submitted jpeg will reveal what alterations, if any, were made.

There's an interesting site with samples of altered news photos here: http://www.alteredimagesbdc.org/



--
My photos: http://www.gordonpritchard.blogspot.com/

 

[Lan]

Hi everyone,

How to find out the original image digital image is edited or the directly from the camera, like original without edit.

This is almost impossible as it stands. Lazy/bad work will be obvious, but I'm pretty certain I could edit a photograph and no-one would be aware that I'd done so. I know there are people here whose work you wouldn't be able to spot.

RAW files are harder to edit than JPEG, but it's still possible.

Checked with online sites like forensic but not much specific. Please advise with expert comments.

I must say this is something I find odd. I would have expected that at least one of the major camera makers would have marketed a professional encrypted camera system for the law enforcement agencies, where the files were encrypted in camera, but that does't seem to be the case?

In the back of my mind I have a feeling that someone used to make one (Fuji or Panasonic perhaps?), but I can't find anything about it now. The camera would be obsolete by this stage anyway. I had a feeling it was a dSLR with external electronics.

 

[gordonpritchard]

RAW files are harder to edit than JPEG, but it's still possible.

How would you alter a RAW file and save it/export it as a RAW file with those alterations

 

[Steve Bingham]

RAW files are harder to edit than JPEG, but it's still possible.

How would you alter a RAW file and save it/export it as a RAW file with those alterations

Exactly!

 

[Johnw12]

RAW files are harder to edit than JPEG, but it's still possible.

How would you alter a RAW file and save it/export it as a RAW file with those alterations

 

[Lan]

RAW files are harder to edit than JPEG, but it's still possible.

How would you alter a RAW file and save it/export it as a RAW file with those alterations

Well at the simplest, you could use DNG, which (really stupidly IMO) allows you to save demosaiced data in a format people believe to be RAW. That gives you something that appears to be a "RAW" file, but can actually contain whatever data I wish to put in it. Not strictly editing the RAW file, but can give the appearance of doing so unless you know what you're looking for.

Editing actual mosaic RAW data is less easy, but still eminently doable IMO just use a hex editor.

Unless the camera encrypts the image in some way, if the format is understood, the image can be edited.

It may be difficult to edit, but that doesn't make it uneditable!

 

[gordonpritchard]

RAW files are harder to edit than JPEG, but it's still possible.

How would you alter a RAW file and save it/export it as a RAW file with those alterations

Well at the simplest, you could use DNG, which (really stupidly IMO) allows you to save demosaiced data in a format people believe to be RAW. That gives you something that appears to be a "RAW" file, but can actually contain whatever data I wish to put in it. Not strictly editing the RAW file, but can give the appearance of doing so unless you know what you're looking for.

Editing actual mosaic RAW data is less easy, but still eminently doable IMO just use a hex editor.

Unless the camera encrypts the image in some way, if the format is understood, the image can be edited.

It may be difficult to edit, but that doesn't make it uneditable!

Difficult for sure. I tried and failed :-(

But it doesn't matter anyway.

If a submitted RAW file is tagged anything other than the camera maker's extension ( e.g. DNG tags it "Example.RAW") then the image is suspect - especially if the camera brand is known by the publisher.

Unless, for example, you know a way to take my "Example.ARW" RAW image, edit it and then save the edited version back out as "ExampleEdited.ARW" RAW image.

 

[Steve Bingham]

Shhhh. That's supposed to be a secret. I have friend that submits to national publications (monthly) using this same technique. They have yet to catch on!

RAW files are harder to edit than JPEG, but it's still possible.

How would you alter a RAW file and save it/export it as a RAW file with those alterations

Well at the simplest, you could use DNG, which (really stupidly IMO) allows you to save demosaiced data in a format people believe to be RAW. That gives you something that appears to be a "RAW" file, but can actually contain whatever data I wish to put in it. Not strictly editing the RAW file, but can give the appearance of doing so unless you know what you're looking for.

Editing actual mosaic RAW data is less easy, but still eminently doable IMO just use a hex editor.

Unless the camera encrypts the image in some way, if the format is understood, the image can be edited.

It may be difficult to edit, but that doesn't make it uneditable!