Newsmaker: A picture worth a thousand lies

(continued from previous page)

Is the use of the Internet, sites like Flickr, contributing to the rise of faked images?
Krawetz: The Internet has a good amount to do with it, yes. It takes virtually no effort to modify--to cut and paste an image, to smooth things out. Even things like red-eye reduction--that's an image modification.

One of the things that surprised me is that when people render pictures--you know, a completely computer-generated picture--they usually don't just render it. They render it, then they bring it up in Photoshop to do digital manipulations to it. So it's not that it's just a computer-generated picture; it's an enhanced computer-generated picture.

If they screw up on skin, they pretty much always screw up on skin until they learn to do it better.

Is that to bring in more textures?
Krawetz: Yes. To fix coloring. Maybe to paste in a background that's better than the one they rendered. Buzz Aldrin is a hybrid. The background is really from a NASA moon shot.

Images are composed of layers. I take it that each layer can be manipulated and put back together. Do the tools used leave behind any digital fingerprints?
Krawetz: You may not be able to track a tool to a person, but you can track a tool to a skill set. Tools definitely leave fingerprints. In fact, the last tool used is usually the easiest to identify.

Because the last tool used is the least manipulated?
Krawetz: Exactly. Photoshop stands out like a sore thumb. It's not that it's common, it's that it does some very distinct changes to the pixels before it saves them to a JPEG. That's not going into things like quantization tables or metadata information. Metadata can lie.

Fingerprinting--analogous to what you talked about at Black Hat last year?
Krawetz: Yes, analogous. My research is on antianonymity technology. I may not be able to tell you who someone is, but I can tell you about them. Last year, I was telling you about the words they use. This year, I'm telling you about the pictures they use. There are some repeating themes.

If they screw up on skin, they pretty much always screw up on skin until they learn to do it better. If they like to use Photoshop to put in particular edges or paste things in a particular way, you can actually see that sort of pattern. If you see a picture that is attributed to Photoshop for the Macintosh, then you know they're probably using a Macintosh and not a Windows box.

Going back to Buzz Aldrin and the British soldier in Iraq, is it the responsibility of the publications to guard themselves against manipulated images? If so, what can be done?
Krawetz: In my talk, I actually give some pointers for the mass media like Reuters. If they really want to publish pictures that have been unmodified, here's how you can tell. One way is to use quantization table fingerprinting.

If the picture claims to be from a digital camera, and the quantization tables, which are used for compressing the image, don't match the camera, then you know that it's been manipulated. If Reuters had done that, it would have caught the fake photos. 

More Newsmakers

[Marcus Westrup]

I remember that moon picture

That one goes back waaay before photoshop. There was quite the fuss made at the time.

[Look at the leg shadows reflected in the helmet: they don't match the shadow on the ground]

[juser_bogus]

the shadows are fine

because the link in this article (currently) IS the real (original) picture of Buzz on the moon

[n3td3v]

Neal Krawetz has no credibility in the security industry

after the crap he posted to the funsec mailing list about n3td3v he has absolutely no credibility in the security indsutry, every time he comes on full-disclosure mailing list everyone makes a fool of him.
neal krawetz will be haunted by what he said about n3td3v for the rest of his career. everyone will remember him for what he said about n3td3v and no one will take anything he has to say seriously ever again.

[Dalkorian]

I missed that

What was it he said about you that made you so angry with him?
Inquiring minds want to know; don't just slam him without any
supporting evidence, give us a link showing your point of view.

[juser_bogus]

Bad Research!!

the current link to the Buzz picture (http://news.com.com/2300-11397_3-6197224-10.html)
IS the real original picture. the artist's rendition that is referred to can be seen here
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2006/03/22/render-a-man-unto-the-moon/

[juser_bogus]

better link

http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=323480

[TogetherinParis]

How about working on the JFK photographs?

Why don't you enhance some of those photographs taken in Dealy
Plaza during the JFK assassination showing the "Watergate"
plumbers and umbrellaman George H. W. Bush? One plumber
didn't even change his oddball haircut from 1963 to 1972 (see mug
shot).

[theflamingpoptart]

so what if they used photoshop?

This article ignores valid uses of photoediting software. I don't expect any publication I read to only publish photos that have not been cropped or adjusted for color cast, lightness/darkness, etc.
A workable solution to the problem of "faked" photographs would be for each publication to do photography "in-house" or with a partner and pick photagraphers with integrity.
In other news, the public should give a picture far less worth than a thousand words (cliches notwithstanding). A little bit of healthy skepticism wouldn't hurt in this aspect.

[Pooua]

What An Odd Article

As best as I can tell, the premise of the article is that a photograph in its native state is virtually identical visually to the object photographed, and any change from that raw state is dishonest manipulation. That seems such an absurd premise that I wonder if that is really what the authors intended to convey? The reality is, all photographs are modifications of the original visual scene; it is unavoidable. Each time another processing step is added--such as printing the photograph--more modification of the photo takes place.

Actually, by including obviously humorous trick photos with photos that misrepresent serious situations, the article shows too broad a scope and subverts any serious discussion of the subject.

Ironically, back in the infancy of photography, some artists rejected the medium, because they felt it was not sufficiently subject to human interpretation. Artists have portrayed battle scenes and human portraits for many centuries before photograph became common, but no one complains that those photos are less than perfect representations of the scenes.

I have trouble feeling concern about a photo portrait that straightens someone's teeth or adjusts the lighting in a scene. Most people don't walk around with yellow skin or red eyes. Likewise, a picture need not be taken absolutely literally, any more than ordinary speech must always be absolutely literal.

[NoVista]

a first?

I seem to recall National Geographic had a cover shot of Egypt's Valley of the Kings -- such that the apparent view was literally impossible.

No link, my bad.

This topic cropped up a few years ago when NG had a photo contest, then announced they would reject any 'digital photos'. LOL. And to get tarred with another brush, one of their photographers was guest speaker at the infamous International Library of Photographers conference -- a site going for a dozen years, a vanity publisher really but most of the people that've been burnt call it a scam.