|
Search this group's discussions
|
Image Forensics: Error Level Analysis
|
I found this here website that purports to digitally examine photographs and report whether or not they have been "altered."
errorlevelanalysis.com
You provide the site a link to a jpeg, hit "process," and seconds later it shows you a goofy side by side comparison that may (or may not) show where a photograph has been manipulated.
From the FAQ:
Error level analysis allows you see to see the difference in quality level, represented by brightness. Things which are very bright have been edited most recently, whilst duller parts have been resaved multiple times. This allows you to see not just which parts of the image have been changed, but in what order the changes occurred.
It shows all my pics have been manipulated, but not really in the right places. I chalk it up to flickr's compression algorithms. Of course, you can also use the site to impress your mom and/or win bar bets.
Anyhow, the site captivated me for a couple of minutes and I thought I'd share.
Originally posted at 1:13PM, 6 October 2010 PDT
(permalink)
Muzzlehatch edited this topic 20 months ago.
|
|
Cheers Mr Hatch!
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Did you win a bar bet yet?
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I really like the way it manipulated one of my images:
errorlevelanalysis.com/permalink/460978b/
(The original is part of a series showing image corruption after many small rotates.)
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
interesting! I'll try!
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
captivated me for a couple of minutes too.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
how's that going to work with an image that's been processed as a NEF (RAW file) in software like Capture NX2 before being saved to JPG?
Every single alteration made by NX2 (when working on a NEF file) is made right from scratch, ie. the whole file is reworked each time.
It gets saved to JPG once, then mashed by Flickr when it's uploaded, equally, all over.
Oh hang on, I keep forgetting, in the photo world, everyone uses Photoshop or they don't exist... silly me
edit: not criticising you, Muzz, btw
Originally posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
GranDadWoof edited this topic 20 months ago.
|
|
|
Same here... I shoot raw and only save the photo to jpeg once.
But, If I were to grab something off the internet and paste it into my picture, for instance (say, a picture of Julianne Moore laying next to me, having my baby), then the pasted in elements will be of a differing quality and that would show.
I'm sure there are other applications as well. For our photos, which are saved only once in their entirety, recompressed in their entirety by flickr, etc, it wouldn't be as helpful.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Why would anyone want to lie next to someone having their baby? The noise would be dreadful.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
But soooo worth it. 10 years ago.
Posted 20 months ago.
(permalink)
|
Would you like to comment?
Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).
|
|
FlickrCentral /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to FlickrCentral discussion threads
