Newsmaker: A picture worth a thousand lies

A picture may be worth a thousand words, but are they authentic?

In April of 2003, the Los Angeles Times ran a dramatic image of a British soldier urging Iraqi civilians to safety. The credited photographer, Brian Walski, was later fired for combining separate photos to create the image. It was a compelling shot, but it was also a lie.

Such trickery is not news to security researcher Neal Krawetz, founder of Hacker Factor. At last year's Black Hat conference, Krawetz presented his research into exposing malicious-software writers through their keyword use and word choices.

Krawetz is interested in the ways our use of technology reveals us, even when we think we're being anonymous. This year, Krawetz is turning his attention toward revealing the secrets buried within images. For example, Krawetz recently attempted to determine--based on the images alone--who might have leaked the contents of the final Harry Potter book onto the Internet.

It's one thing to have the tool; it's another thing to have the talent to actually use it right.

On Wednesday, Krawetz will be among the first presenters at this year's Black Hat conference, where he plans to further discuss the various ways images can be manipulated. CNET News.com spoke with Krawetz a few days before his Black Hat presentation.

Are these fraudulent images mostly on the Internet?
Krawetz: Some images are on the Internet, some have made the newspaper. There was a graphic picture rendered of Buzz Aldrin walking on the moon. It won an award from the Computer Graphics Society. (In my talk) I actually dissect the image and show how it was likely made. This picture--to the human eye--is photo-realistic. It's made the cover of magazines.

Does photo-realistic image manipulation require special hardware? Or can one use off-the-shelf software?
Krawetz: Buzz Aldrin was created using (Autodesk's) 3ds Max and Combustion, and (Adobe Systems') Photoshop, which are all off-the-shelf software programs. But it's one thing to have the tool; it's another thing to have the talent to actually use it right. Anyone can use a ray tracer, but that doesn't mean you can create something that is photo-realistic.

Unfortunately, most people out there are not experts. And if you're not a graphics expert, and you had to paste Hillary Clinton's head on some body, it stands out where the head has been cut out.

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.

Speaking of Sen. Clinton, the 2008 presidential elections are gearing up. Are we likely to see photo-realistic images in the upcoming campaign?
Krawetz: Likely is an understatement. I think we've already seen some. Take USA Today. Every now and again, they put up pictures of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And they will modify the pictures.

(Editors' note: CNET News.com failed to contact USA Today for a response to this allegation prior to the publication of this interview. Reached after publication, a representative said, "Any suggestion that USA Today intentionally manipulates photos or other images in a manner intended to distort the news is defamatory and without any basis in fact.")

I'm not sure who's modifying the pictures--whether it's the photographer submitting it or the intern who's putting them together or someone else at USA Today--but they'll modify it to increase the brightness, for example, on Hillary.

When you increase brightness on a picture, you bring out all the things like wrinkles that really aren't attractive. And they'll soften the picture on Barack Obama to make it look better. Editorially, this can be taken too far. You saw that in the case of O.J. Simpson, (whose mug shot looked very different on the front covers of Newsweek and Time).

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.