Software application that lets you know if a jpeg has been manipulated.

Would this also pick up on things like RAW processing?
 
I'd be interested to know how well this actually works. I'm sure there are ways to get round and confuse it.
 
alxxx said:
looks good, I'm giving it a go on a couple of my images just to see.
nice find:thumbs:
Click to expand...

We are all waiting:).....so how did it do ?
 
I'm at work so I can't download this and give it a try but I don't understand how it would work. Isn't a JPG just a snapshot of how the image looks at the point you hit save. I didn't know any of the historical information was saved in a JPG. If it works then it could be a very useful tool. I can't wait to either hear some feedback on it or to give it a try myself.
 
One of the latest features in JPEGsnoop is an internal database that compares an image against a large number of compression signatures. JPEGsnoop reports what digital camera or software was likely used to generate the image. This is extremely useful in determining whether or not a photo has been edited / tampered in any way. If the compression signature matches Photoshop, then you can be pretty sure that the photo is no longer an original! This type of feature one of several sometimes referred to as Digital Image Ballistics / Forensics.
Click to expand...

Looks like it just checks what the image is saved with.

I'm sure there must be a way around it.
 
TheCrow said:
Looks like it just checks what the image is saved with.

I'm sure there must be a way around it.
Click to expand...

There is if you will have enough skills to write your own JPEG encoder and make it copy quantisation matrices for one particularly chosen application (say Photoshop). The problem is, you would need to examine a quite a few images with various JPEG quality settings to see all possible variants and re-use them. It's not going to deter the most determined and some hackers but it is a reasonably good method for majority of cases. I find it a very clever way of establishing image authentity...
 
Funny - if it has been processed in Photoshop it isn't considered the original image. They obviously think every picture going through Photoshop has had all kinds of work done to change it rather than a simple sharpening job
 
I thought the interesting bit was that it told you how it had been manipulated (claim in the OP), but it seems it doesn't do that at all.
 
AndyB said:
Funny - if it has been processed in Photoshop it isn't considered the original image. They obviously think every picture going through Photoshop has had all kinds of work done to change it rather than a simple sharpening job
Click to expand...


agree witht he photoshop thingy

all I do with my images is run them though a batch in PS to resize, border and watermark, i guess none of which re the originals according to this lol

most exif readers show what software was used/camera and settings anyway so it sounds to me like something that is alreqady in place elsewhere
 
dalex_257 said:
There is if you will have enough skills to write your own JPEG encoder and make it copy quantisation matrices for one particularly chosen application (say Photoshop). The problem is, you would need to examine a quite a few images with various JPEG quality settings to see all possible variants and re-use them. It's not going to deter the most determined and some hackers but it is a reasonably good method for majority of cases. I find it a very clever way of establishing image authentity...
Click to expand...

Or you could just save as a TIFF which it doesn't support. (although your method sounds more fun :)) Wayne
 
so it can tell if you cloned out a dust bunny or that annoying football that was in the wrong place? - photos never lie? - they always have and always will (imho)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top