This topic is in the Computer Help discussion forum.  (rss)


Photography Analysis.




Topic started on 19-7-2008 @ 03:02 PM by ProTo Fire Fox


Hey you'll. I'm considering pursuing a career in photo analysis. I was wondering if any of the people here could help me out. So can anyone give me any files to read, programs or anything else.

Fox



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 19-7-2008 @ 04:36 PM by tep200377


I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want to learn how to use Photoshop and Data analysis software to determine if an image is tampered with or anything?

What is you goal as to analyze photos?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-7-2008 @ 07:00 AM by watch_the_rocks


You can't exactly read a few books, learn how to use a few programs, and automatically be an expert at forensic image analysis. Most people in the field have spent decades looking at images, mostly professionally I would think.

Here's a little test. Nothing serious, but it'd sure be interesting to see what you get: Fake or Foto?

First time I tried this, I got a single image wrong on the final part of the test.

This sort of stuff isn't easy.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-7-2008 @ 11:18 AM by ProTo Fire Fox


I want to learn to see if the images are modified, as in if a UFO was placed in an image instead of being taken. Any help ?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-7-2008 @ 01:50 PM by ArMaP


reply to post by ProTo Fire Fox



I don't know if there is any way of detecting tampering automatically, but there are some signs for which you could look for to see if there was any tampering, like slightly different shades of the colours and different levels of JPEG compression in some areas of the image (when an image with a higher compression is used over an image with less compression), but I think the best is to practise.

You can try a test with two photos I have, one of these two was altered, the other was not, try to see if you can find which of the images was altered and what was the part of the image that suffered the alteration.

Image 1

Image 2



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-7-2008 @ 02:52 PM by ProTo Fire Fox


reply to post by ArMaP



Thank you for that little bit of information there. I belive that it is the coloring on a tile that is incorrect. I have highlighted it here.

Fox



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-7-2008 @ 03:08 PM by ArMaP


No, that tile is really like that, it was a fault in the making of the tile.

Do you want to try again before I tell which is the altered photo and show you how it really was before I gave it my "treatment"?



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-7-2008 @ 03:12 PM by ProTo Fire Fox


reply to post by ArMaP



I'm not sure then, i thought it was the tile. I guess i need more practise.

Fox



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-7-2008 @ 03:41 PM by ArMaP


reply to post by ProTo Fire Fox



Do you want me to show you the altered image before the alteration?

If you do I will send you a U2U, so the original image can stay unpublished to be used in other occasions.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 20-7-2008 @ 03:55 PM by tep200377


After a quick look, the keyboard seems to be a bit of the track.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 06:23 AM by watch_the_rocks


I think the non-keyboard one has been altered.

The brown strip going across the top clearly reflects the pattern of the wall tile towards the right, but this is impossible given that the tile has already been reflected on the white part near the rear of the machine, and the brown strip is angled down meaning that it simply cannot see that wall tile.
Also, the front of the far left edge of the brown strip is quite sharp, but as you look back it blurs noticeably, which is usually evidence of a cut-and-paste that someone has tried to mask with the clone tool, etc.
The light is too uniform along the front of the machine in general, but there are light splodges visible along the entire wall if you don't examine the image too closely, and there is a noticeable track of bright light going into and beyond the left hand corner from the top rear edge of the machine. In the shadow areas around the left corner noise is also very visible, which usually isn't the case unless an image has been lightened in post processing.

If I'm wrong, then ignore the above

The keyboard image is kinda confusing. You've dragged the shutter to create the minor blur, evident on some of the keys too the left, but the shadows of the paper, etc to the far left of the image don't match up with the shadows the keyboard casts. But I don't believe the keyboard was shopped in, so I really don't know on the keyboard one.

If I had to, I'd say the machine is the faked one.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 06:51 AM by tep200377


The obvious thing would to have Min , Normal, Max and then Stop on the left side.. But there is no obvious fault in the image compression. When the JPEG compresses the image it makes different sizes of cubic compression blocks. And at times they are so "horrible" that they may look altered.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 02:53 PM by ArMaP


If anyone wants to know the truth about those two photos just send me a U2U and I will show the altered photo before it was altered.

I only ask not to divulge the unaltered photo, so it can be used in other occasions, it took me some hours (more than four but maybe closer to six) to do it, but it was great fun.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 21-7-2008 @ 04:10 PM by ProTo Fire Fox


Well now fella, that was a shock when you showed me what it did look like, i wont say it here, don't want to spoil the surprise, but people - for god sake U2U its defiantly out-there

Fox



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 22-7-2008 @ 08:42 AM by ignorant_ape


reply to post by watch_the_rocks



pah - i got 9 out of ten right

the one i got wrong - i just jumped to the ` its real ` conclusion - looking @ the rest the devil was indeed in the details



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 23-7-2008 @ 11:07 AM by Cyprex



Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
You can't exactly read a few books, learn how to use a few programs, and automatically be an expert at forensic image analysis. Most people in the field have spent decades looking at images, mostly professionally I would think.

Here's a little test. Nothing serious, but it'd sure be interesting to see what you get: Fake or Foto?

First time I tried this, I got a single image wrong on the final part of the test.

This sort of stuff isn't easy.


Same, just got 9/10

I got the diamonds incorrect.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 










Top Topics Right Now:



Active Topics Right Now:



ATS MIX Podcasts:











Newest Topics:










































ATS Server: www4.theabovenetwork.com
Powered by AboveTop:Board v2.3
Header data processed in 0.002 seconds
Page processed in 0.101 seconds
6 total database queries (1)









The Below Top Secret General Discussion Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

Documents



thread
Forums Directory