ptodd

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Sep 16, 2005

Comments

Total: 75, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

ptodd: I think even a raw file isn't necessarily much stronger evidence than any other type. Theoretically someone could easily make a tool for manipulating RAW image data, so in the absence of any stronger objective measure it ultimately comes down to trust / judgement anyway.

As such, I'd say editors would do well to be wary of allowing the presence of a raw file to sway their judgement too much - in much the same way as naive viewers innately trust photographs. If they want to do something analogous to requiring writers to provide their notes, a case could be made for requesting entire image sets - raw or otherwise. It would surely be a much harder problem to consistently doctor a number of images than it would to shoe-horn manipulated image data into "raw" format.

p.s. I guess if there was a particular desire to make raw files forensically reliable, camera firmware could potentially write some kind of cryptographic hash that could then be verified with another tool.

I agree it'd still not be impossible to spoof, but then few security mechanisms are ever perfect. I'm not sure exactly what the best approach to designing a hash that was easy to verify but hard to spoof should be, but I reckon something fairly robust could probably be devised.

Of course, there is still the separate problem of dishonestly staged scenes. I suppose this may be somewhat mitigated by requiring sets of images as evidence in relevant cases.

This may all seem trivial, but future generations would likely thank us if we manage to establish the most robust historical records we can.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 07:02 UTC
In reply to:

Sirandar: Like in all aspects of life, trying to detect cheating after the fact only selects for people better at cheating.

Pithy soundbite, and I largely agree; in the case of something like documentary photos for National Geographic, a reasonable degree of trust etc is probably mostly adequate...

Having said that though, it turns out that in many aspects of life, it is still worth trying to detect cheating. No computer networks are impenetrable, but that doesn't mean administrators just throw up their hands and don't bother trying to secure them... it doesn't *only* have the effect of selecting for people better at hacking, mostly it reduces the amount of hacking that is likely to be done.

It's a matter of balance. My front door lock probably wouldn't be all that difficult to pick - that doesn't mean that I am about to either invest in some bank-level security or just leave it open for maximum convenience thinking that if someone wanted to break in they would anyway.

It could be potentially beneficial to society if there were a system in place allowing reasonable confidence of the validity of photos.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 22:41 UTC

I think even a raw file isn't necessarily much stronger evidence than any other type. Theoretically someone could easily make a tool for manipulating RAW image data, so in the absence of any stronger objective measure it ultimately comes down to trust / judgement anyway.

As such, I'd say editors would do well to be wary of allowing the presence of a raw file to sway their judgement too much - in much the same way as naive viewers innately trust photographs. If they want to do something analogous to requiring writers to provide their notes, a case could be made for requesting entire image sets - raw or otherwise. It would surely be a much harder problem to consistently doctor a number of images than it would to shoe-horn manipulated image data into "raw" format.

p.s. I guess if there was a particular desire to make raw files forensically reliable, camera firmware could potentially write some kind of cryptographic hash that could then be verified with another tool.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 22:01 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
On article Adobe details OS support for next version of Lightroom (229 comments in total)
In reply to:

dgeugene1: Is this really necessary? I seem able to make good pictures with stone age software.

To be fair, it is possible to use the free DNG converter to use files from new cameras with older versions of LR... complicates the import process though.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2015 at 22:48 UTC
On article Ricoh announces WG-30W and WG-30 rugged compacts (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

rjx: Why do all the brands insist on making their "rugged" camera lines with crummy colors and odd looking shapes? Can't they just make a rugged camera that looks more like a traditional camera?

I was very happy with my Panasonic FT1. It was a fairly bright blue colour (which I liked and could be helpful to avoid losing it), but with simple styling rather than the awful 'sporty' looking designs so many of these things feel compelled to go for.

It was also quite handy being able to say "have you seen my blue camera?" and people understanding which I meant.

Normally I weight technical aspects far above other factors when choosing something like a camera, but I'd have a hard time convincing myself to even consider something looking like this.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2014 at 14:15 UTC
On article Centr captures 360-degree video at 4K resolution (37 comments in total)
In reply to:

LensBeginner: Another proprietary file format...
no need for that, thanks

They could embed some metadata in a standard image file; no need for unwieldy sidecar files.

They're mostly interested in video rather than stills it seems. The same thing should still more-or-less apply, though.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2014 at 15:16 UTC

When I brought the desktop screen I'm looking at now (a NEC EA231WMi, 23" 1920x1080), conventional wisdom seemed to have it that 1680x1050 was an appropriate resolution for screens around 22" and higher would be overkill. I've always been keen on reasonably high pixel densities and at that time was frustrated by how hard it was to find laptops and non-giant screens with nice high resolution... but come on; 2560x1440 is pretty workable on a 27" screen...

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2013 at 12:33 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: I hope none of those screen were running Windows Vista

There might be more compute power in the camera that took the photos, let alone the laptop...

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2013 at 14:47 UTC
On article 17 signs that you were alive before digital photography (149 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mr Fartleberry: Real Dark Ages stuff. Loading your own bulk film is like rolling your own cigarettes to save money.

I'm missing the radioactive negative brush though.

I don't smoke anymore, but do you realise that rollies are much much nicer than straights, as well as cheaper?

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2013 at 13:06 UTC
On article What the new Nexus 7 tablet means for photographers (95 comments in total)
In reply to:

johnny 99: I don't get the demand for a micro-SD card slot. Once you start storing apps on the micro-SD card (like almost all Android users do), you cannot remove the micro-SD and expect the device to keep working. Having the memory sealed into the device makes it sturdier and thinner.

A full sized SD card slot would be nice, but it is easy enough to plug a card reader into the micro-USB port (using an OTG cable).

I think people like to have the option of a cheap semi-permanent memory upgrade, especially given the premium that device manufacturers (Apple especially) tend to charge for storage. I know I appreciated that on my old phone and miss it on my new one.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2013 at 09:13 UTC

My very favourite thing I've ever read on DPR was a thread on the Pentax SLR forum, where someone said they'd given in to temptation and splurged on a load of expensive Limited prime lenses.

They proceeded to post lots of pictures taken with the kit lens at appropriate focal lengths, receiving lots of comments about what a good "investment" it was, and how the quality really shines through etc... Of course eventually they spilled the beans.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2013 at 09:35 UTC as 19th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

ironcam: It seems to me that many people don't know that, although it produces the image of a 85/1.8, it still has the light capture capability of a f0.95.

The chase of for extreme shallow dof is just silly imo. Portraits where only the eyelashes are in focus are getting boring.

They mean that the actual amount of light reaching the sensor will be the same, as will the other characteristics of DOF and FOV. It's just condensing approximately equivalent light into a smaller area.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2013 at 19:05 UTC
On article Spinpod aims to set your smartphone spinning (12 comments in total)
In reply to:

ptodd: Smartphones can use their accelerometer / gyroscope as a spirit level.

This was meant as a reply to Ron Co, but for some reason I can't seem to get the appropriate button to come up on my mobile device...

Hmmm, I can reply to this, though...

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 23:43 UTC
On article Spinpod aims to set your smartphone spinning (12 comments in total)

Smartphones can use their accelerometer / gyroscope as a spirit level.

This was meant as a reply to Ron Co, but for some reason I can't seem to get the appropriate button to come up on my mobile device...

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 23:42 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies
On article Canon patent describes novel liquid lens design (77 comments in total)
In reply to:

nathantw: Carrying around a bunch of hardened sand is heavy enough. Can you imagine carrying around a bunch of liquid?

AFAIK no-one is intending for big fast lenses use this, at least in the short term.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2013 at 09:16 UTC
Total: 75, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »