Photos will soon no longer be admissible in court.

[Dave]

Okay, that's not exactly what the video is about, but watching this makes me think that as bad as it is now to know if an image is doctored or not, it's going to be getting even worse. Like right now I can't work photoshop to save my life, but this new tool would allow me to do these things, too. Pretty scary stuff.

 

[Krisken]

Wow, that is incredible. I look forward to (more) conspiracies involving shopped images

 

[GasBandit]

Yeah, when I first saw that I was absolutely jazzed. Still am. But very odd things happen when you try to use content-aware fill to remove a woman's clothes...

 

[Krisken]

Maybe it thinks that is what you want to see?

 

[Dave]

I saw that link, too. But I couldn't link on it here at work because I just wasn't sure what it would lead to.

 

[Soliloquy]

Sheesh... looks like watermarks are a thing of the past.

 

[Espy]

Holy crap. This would save me so much time in so many situations.

 

[bhamv3]

 

[PatrThom]

Heh. You mean you hadn't seen those videos yet, Dave? They were everywhere just before CS5 was released.

Also...

--Patrick

 

[Matt²]

don't photoshop programs force the image to carry a digital signature to tell you it's been modified? I was under the impression that they cannot be submitted in a legal situation without them due to fear of manipulation in photoshop and other programs?

 

[SpecialKO]

I'm guessing this will lead to smaller jurisdictions choosing to avoid using photos as evidence, since they won't have the money/facilities to determine authenticity one way or the other in a timely fashion.

 

[Azurephoenix]

don't photoshop programs force the image to carry a digital signature to tell you it's been modified? I was under the impression that they cannot be submitted in a legal situation without them due to fear of manipulation in photoshop and other programs?

I believe you are correct... or it may be that the signature added by the digital camera becomes changed when a photoediting program is used to fiddle with it.

 

[drifter]

don't photoshop programs force the image to carry a digital signature to tell you it's been modified? I was under the impression that they cannot be submitted in a legal situation without them due to fear of manipulation in photoshop and other programs?

Well, EXIF data carries time stamps for creation date and modification date, but I think you can strip and replace EXIF data with a hex editor. I would presume that any photo being used as a "smoking gun" would need to undergo forensic analysis anyway.

 

[Soliloquy]

Heh. You mean you hadn't seen those videos yet, Dave? They were everywhere just before CS5 was released.

Also...*magazine cover*
--Patrick

"Clubbing seal pups -- the other side of the story"

All right, now I need to read that article.

 

[Azurephoenix]

don't photoshop programs force the image to carry a digital signature to tell you it's been modified? I was under the impression that they cannot be submitted in a legal situation without them due to fear of manipulation in photoshop and other programs?

Well, EXIF data carries time stamps for creation date and modification date, but I think you can strip and replace EXIF data with a hex editor. I would presume that any photo being used as a "smoking gun" would need to undergo forensic analysis anyway.[/QUOTE]

This is true too... and you're right about the forensic analysis thing for an important photo.

Even though those chopped pictures we see look pretty good to our eyes... there are still multitudes of ways for computer savvy techs to determine that they have been doctored.

 

[Fun Size]

Heh. You mean you hadn't seen those videos yet, Dave? They were everywhere just before CS5 was released.

Also...*magazine cover*
--Patrick

"Clubbing seal pups -- the other side of the story"

All right, now I need to read that article.[/QUOTE]

That's the one where we find out that seal pups are right bastards, all grabbing on your woman and talking shit about your mom. Little fuckers have it coming to them.