Join 3,561 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Worth a thousand.
August 5, 2006 5:15 PM   Subscribe

Does something in this picture look a little . . . off? At first glance, it's just a picture of smoke from damaged buildings from the conflict in the Mideast. At second glance, it's a fine example of how not to embellish news photos.
posted by Mikey-San (100 comments total) 5 users marked this as a favorite

 
Just in case it gets yanked, here's a screenshot.

Am I seeing things, or is the clone tool to blame here?
posted by Mikey-San at 5:17 PM on August 5, 2006


Wow, I'd be interested in their explanation for how and why they put their name on that picture.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:18 PM on August 5, 2006


...No, that's definitely the clone tool at work. Wow. Never thought it'd be that blatant - did whoever did this really think nobody would notice?
posted by wanderingmind at 5:18 PM on August 5, 2006


Could someone fill in a non-Photoshop person?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:19 PM on August 5, 2006


Well, someone's getting fired Monday. Not only did the photoshopper clone 3 times in a row, but the layer looks like it was pasted on.
posted by aye at 5:20 PM on August 5, 2006


The attribute says "Adnan Hajj/Reuters", would Adnan Hajj be the photographer then? Can we contact him/her directly and ask what happened to his photo?
posted by -harlequin- at 5:21 PM on August 5, 2006


Seize:

There's a tool in Photoshop called "clone stamp". Think of it as a paintbrush that is a live copy-paste tool.
posted by Mikey-San at 5:22 PM on August 5, 2006


SeizeTheDay: Look at the top of both of the smoke clouds. Real smoke doesn't make nicely repeating patterns like that, especially 10 or 11 times over in a honeycomb shape.
posted by wanderingmind at 5:22 PM on August 5, 2006


seizeTheDay:

THe repitition in the smoke clouds indicates that parts of the cloud of smoke have been cut and pasted to put much more smoke in the picture than was in the photo.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:22 PM on August 5, 2006


Ah, and those obvious patterns in the smoke are the clone stamps?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:23 PM on August 5, 2006


Thanks folks.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:23 PM on August 5, 2006


The clone tool lets you copy one area of a photo to another area. That's why all the smoke clouds have the same look about them.

I've never seen such poor photoshop work (apart from my own)
posted by bhnyc at 5:23 PM on August 5, 2006


OK, I can barely use Photoshop to resize jpegs. But in the lower left, right below the plume of some, I see what really looks like the same building twice, one about two blocks behind the other.

What other cues am I missing? (Other than the smoke pattern. I'm seeing that now.)

On preview: Or, what SeizeTheDay asked.
posted by Cyrano at 5:26 PM on August 5, 2006


Here is an interesting analysis (albeit from a conservative source) of photographic coverage of the bombings, including photographs by the same photographer linked to in the post.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:27 PM on August 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


Generous benefit of the doubt:

Something (such as a thumb :) was cropped out of the picture, leaving the wrong aspect ratio. To make the picture useable in a normal aspect ratio, a third more image was added to the top (the blank white sky) but the person sucked at putting in the smoke. Note that the clone patterns extend slightly below the horizon, which is unnecessary under this hypothesis, but given their extreme lack of skill, this may simply be the result of trying to merge the bottom of the fake cloud into the picture.

Non-generous benefit of the doubt:

Someone has been sexing up documents again. And once again, been too incompetent to not have it noticed.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:29 PM on August 5, 2006


dodge/burn/getfired
posted by matteo at 5:34 PM on August 5, 2006


Good catch. Bad photojournalist. His name is mud.
posted by TheGoldenOne at 5:38 PM on August 5, 2006


Maybe they were being shot at while they were working on cleaning up the photo and they had to send it as is before they could fix it to avoid being, you know, killed?

But yeah, it shouldn't have been published.
posted by fenriq at 5:40 PM on August 5, 2006




OmG my smok iz PASTEDE ON YAY!!1111!!




posted by Extopalopaketle at 5:42 PM on August 5, 2006


Unbelievably incompetent.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 5:43 PM on August 5, 2006


Yeah, that's really cheezy looking. Wow.
posted by delmoi at 5:46 PM on August 5, 2006


The evidence that the photographs at Qana were staged is so evident that the following photographers must be called to account for their conduct. Surely it is a crime to misuse their privileged media position to aid in propaganda. Adnan Hajj of Reuters; (scroll 99% down the page).
posted by nickyskye at 5:47 PM on August 5, 2006


dodge/burn/getfired

Like Charlotte Observer photographer Patrick Schneider for manipulating the color of a sunset sky (discussed in this MeFi thread].
posted by ericb at 5:49 PM on August 5, 2006


Patrick Schneider's alteration was purely artistic. Adnan Hajj's alteration gives the impression that the bombs caused greater destruction than they actually did. It's a hundred times worse.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 5:52 PM on August 5, 2006 [1 favorite]


From the page which claims that the photographers are milking the images of dead children - "The profession of photo-journalism thereby is sadly diminished by them, and the trust in those who took them and in those who carried them is misplaced. Truly, we are dealing with loathesome creatures."

Um...how loathsome is the photographer compared to the person who killed the children? He's using their images, but he didn't kill them.

I don't hold with altering images at all, but taking many photos of the same thing is standard photographic practice. All of them will be on the wire service so that news agencies / publishers can just choose which one they want. Either EU Referendum (a UK anti-Europe blog) doesn't know this, or they are being disingenuous. Considering I know this, and I'm both lazy and pretty dim, I'll go with being disingenuous.
posted by jb at 5:58 PM on August 5, 2006


No, no, you're missing the point. Clearly, the smoke has assumed the shape of an angry orangutan, whose face is clearly visible in the upper middle third of the photo. Those "cloned" bits are simply his raised, clenched fist.
posted by greatgefilte at 6:03 PM on August 5, 2006


I passed this on to the National Press Photographers mailing list - I'm curious to hear what the response is!
posted by blaneyphoto at 6:04 PM on August 5, 2006


This makes me wonder if the images of Satan appearing in clouds of smoke in the Weekly World News were indeed real.
posted by stavrogin at 6:11 PM on August 5, 2006


It's a hundred times worse.

quintillion.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 6:15 PM on August 5, 2006


I don't hold with altering images at all, but taking many photos of the same thing is standard photographic practice. All of them will be on the wire service so that news agencies / publishers can just choose which one they want.

Nobody is complaining about multiple photographs having been taken. The point is that the photos appear to be staged; i.e., a dead girl is photographed in an ambulance, and then photographed being loaded into the same ambulance two hours later. Of course, our blogger doesn't cite his source for these timestamps, so who knows. I certainly don't know anything about the reliability of the blog; I was curious and Googled the photographer's name, and that's what came up.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 6:17 PM on August 5, 2006


The picture's just fine. It's next week's cover for the Weekly World News' feature:

"GIANT ALIEN EYEBALLS DISCOVERED IN CITY SMOG - SCIENTISTS SAY OUR POLLUTION ACTS LIKE TV FOR THEM!"
posted by Smart Dalek at 6:23 PM on August 5, 2006


im in ur batlfi3ld cl0nin ur sm0k3
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:34 PM on August 5, 2006


This is quite possibly the worst thing to ever happen in the history of everything.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:57 PM on August 5, 2006 [2 favorites]


ever.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:57 PM on August 5, 2006


This is right up there with the Simon Wiesenthal "smoke" photo.

This seems to be the journalistic equivalent of saying "Our amps go to 11." It's as if everything must be dramatized to enormous levels.
posted by adipocere at 7:04 PM on August 5, 2006


i can't believe they still have it up--a 5 year old could tell it's been altered, and terribly.
posted by amberglow at 7:19 PM on August 5, 2006


It's a bazillion times worse.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:33 PM on August 5, 2006


Bah. Just a noob attempting to extend the frame vertically. There's no doctoring of the actual content, just rounding out the tops of the smoke plumes. And poorly.. oy.

Had doctoring of the actual content occured by someone with this guy's 1337 skills, I'm sure it would be far from subtle.
posted by SilverTail at 7:37 PM on August 5, 2006


Nobody is complaining about multiple photographs having been taken. The point is that the photos appear to be staged; i.e., a dead girl is photographed in an ambulance, and then photographed being loaded into the same ambulance two hours later.

Couldn't be because the cam era's internal clock was set to a diffrent timezone or anything.
posted by delmoi at 7:38 PM on August 5, 2006


Patrick Schneider's alteration was purely artistic. Adnan Hajj's alteration gives the impression that the bombs caused greater destruction than they actually did. It's a hundred times worse.

Fuck that shit. I don't want to see "art" in the newspaper. I say fire 'em both.
posted by delmoi at 7:40 PM on August 5, 2006


..And, oh man, look at that next photo. I think someone's just discovered Photoshop's filters.
posted by SilverTail at 7:41 PM on August 5, 2006


Bah. Just a noob attempting to extend the frame vertically. There's no doctoring of the actual content, just rounding out the tops of the smoke plumes. And poorly.. oy.

The point is that this isn't authentic. We have no way to know what the actual scene looked like now, because we no longer can trust the source or its producer.

News is authentic or it isn't news. Period.
posted by Mikey-San at 7:44 PM on August 5, 2006


Hey, I found Waldo.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 7:48 PM on August 5, 2006


Couldn't be because the camera's internal clock was set to a diffrent timezone or anything.

More likely the "timestamps" referred to were the times the photos moved on the wire and had nothing to do with the time they were taken. So, yeah, not terribly compelling.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 7:48 PM on August 5, 2006


Well sometimes something can look photoshopped it's not...



... but those smoke clouds do look really fake.
posted by bobo123 at 7:48 PM on August 5, 2006


They really need to hire me to doctor their images. I'm really good at the clone tool and will accept American dollars.

(this is sarcasm)
posted by Kickstart70 at 8:01 PM on August 5, 2006


OK, poking around about this story, I found this. It is from lgf (combative conservative site that broke the Dan Rather story), thus warnings apply:



posted by blahblahblah at 8:07 PM on August 5, 2006


blahblahblah: I zoomed way in on the image and the rear version has better outlined windows, even through the smoke, than the front one. I think they really are different buildings, just similar looking.
posted by Kickstart70 at 8:09 PM on August 5, 2006


What the fuck?
posted by bob sarabia at 8:12 PM on August 5, 2006


Actually, the whole lgf story is worth a read. See the nice enlargements.
posted by bim at 8:12 PM on August 5, 2006


Here is an interesting analysis (albeit from a conservative source) of photographic coverage of the bombings, including photographs by the same photographer linked to in the post.

From this article:
As for EU Referendum's claim that a Lebanese rescue worker seen in many photos from Qana was a "Hezbollah official," I e-mailed co-author of the site, Richard North, to ask for his evidence.
"All I have to go on is gut instinct," North replied.
posted by NoMich at 8:18 PM on August 5, 2006


Kickstart70, a different site pointed out that the whole horizontal line has been copied (from the left side of the picture until the right end of the red box in the photo above) can you take a look and see if that makes sense or not?

And this is by far the best response to the Qana conspiracy theorists I have read (from conservative Glenn Reynolds). But the Washington Post blog should have noted that Human Rights Watch decreased the number of dead to 28 from 56, not that it makes the bombing less tragic.
posted by blahblahblah at 8:32 PM on August 5, 2006


This is bad, bad, bad, bad.
posted by blacklite at 8:36 PM on August 5, 2006


This should bring down Reuters, but unfortunately it won't.
I had a highschool teacher who warned me about stuff like this... his example was extending the crowd to even out a composition in a protest... none of us understood what he was talking about at the time (pixel?) and now I have to see this.

God, I hope at least 3 people lost there jobs over this.
posted by squidfartz at 8:49 PM on August 5, 2006


Well, I think I fixed it... :/
posted by samsara at 8:53 PM on August 5, 2006


And this is by far the best response to the Qana conspiracy theorists I have read (from conservative Glenn Reynolds).

That's actually Megan McArdle. Glenn Reynolds has been on vacation all week and he's had 4 guest bloggers filling it. Doesn't make it less true, however.
posted by sbutler at 9:02 PM on August 5, 2006


blahblahblah: You know, I think you're right now...something really fishy there.
posted by Kickstart70 at 9:17 PM on August 5, 2006


It's the wagdogging we're NOT catching that troubles me. I know I'm a cynical old fart, but considering how many times in recent years we've caught everyone and everything from the New York Times to the Bush administration lying and cheating, what about all the times when we didn't?
posted by ZachsMind at 9:17 PM on August 5, 2006


What I don't understand, and someone please fill me in:

Does it fucking matter how much smoke there was?

Like, are there people out there who are on the fence about this whole Israel/Lebanon issue, who might not have been convinced to support Lebanon if there were 33% less smoke in that shot?

Someone clue me in. I feel like I'm missing something super important because so many people are making such a huge deal out of this.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 9:48 PM on August 5, 2006


I dont know how to inline an image, but the lgf site that blahblahblah linked to now claims to have found the original, July 26 photograph. They've created a pretty damning animated overlay, to be found here.

Even if it's a different picture (unlikely, since the angle is exacty the same), you can clearly see that buildings have been added in the photoshopped version.
posted by scarylarry at 9:51 PM on August 5, 2006


how is it impossible that two photos could've been taken from the "exact" same place? don't most journalists in this area of the world stay in the same hotels?

this is such a non-issue.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 9:54 PM on August 5, 2006


bob sarabia: No idea. It's seems pretty obvious (to me anyway) that it's a zoom during the exposure, but that's a bit more artistic leaning of a composure and technique than I'm used to seeing in news-related shots.
posted by Stunt at 10:11 PM on August 5, 2006


horrifyingly interesting subject
posted by AloneOssifer at 10:14 PM on August 5, 2006


combative conservative site that broke the Dan Rather story

lol
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:25 PM on August 5, 2006


I feel like I'm missing something super important because so many people are making such a huge deal out of this.

citizen 4th gen bottom-up news truth monitors smell a rat in the MSM. Film at a 11.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:29 PM on August 5, 2006


I feel like I'm missing something super important because so many people are making such a huge deal out of this.

It's a big deal because photographers aren't supposed to drastically alter their photographs. It's also a big deal because this particular photographer did a seriously piss-poor job at it. You need it spelled out for you or what?
posted by bob sarabia at 10:41 PM on August 5, 2006


"News is authentic or it isn't news. Period."


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA


That's cute.


Really.
posted by stenseng at 10:47 PM on August 5, 2006


this is such a non-issue.

And you are so wrong. This goes to the reliability of the reporting we're getting on what's generally regarded as the most significant story in the world at the moment. I don't say that to make accusations of conspiracy, but the fact remains that this photos damages the credibility of Reuters, a major source of news around the world.

This Adnan Hajj may have a political agenda that Reuters was unaware of, or he may have been simply trying to sell more photos. But if Reuters has any sense, they'll drop him like a hot potato, and fast.

No one is saying this is more important than what is actually happening ... but it impacts our ability to correctly learn what's happening, which is pretty important.
posted by pmurray63 at 10:47 PM on August 5, 2006


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's cute.

Really.


Thanks for the insightful counter-statement, chief. You're really making a significant stance on . . . whatever the fuck it is you're trying to say.

If it's doctored or spun, it's not "news" in its proper, pure, objective sense. It's politic, op-ed, or propaganda. Just because you see other news outlets doing the same thing doesn't mean I'm wrong about this--they're just passing off propaganda, etc., as "news" when it isn't, just like Reuters did here.

If you cannot understand this distinction, that's not my problem, and it does not undermine, lessen, or invalidate this thread or the statement you quoted and attempted to mock.
posted by Mikey-San at 11:12 PM on August 5, 2006


only someone who is near blind or has no idea what they are doing in photoshop or photography in general would do that to an image and think it looks ok. [i am a photoshop ninja who works correcting photos for a magazine.]
posted by th3ph17 at 11:59 PM on August 5, 2006


"If it's doctored or spun, it's not "news" in its proper, pure, objective sense. It's politic, op-ed, or propaganda."

You guys are talking as if this is NEW. It's par for the course fellas. Orson Welles was no respectable journalist, but he stood up against a man using sensationalism to sell newspapers by fighting fire with fire, and both Hearst & Welles got burned in that war of wills.

Today, you either get with the program of you end up on the curb. Or do you guys honestly believe Rather, Jennings, and Koppel all just happened to choose to retire at the same time? If you want a steady paycheck, you do what the moneybags tell you to do. And what are the moneybags trying to do? Sell more of whatever it is they're hustling. If it's news, give the public what it wants. Think about THAT next time you pass by a newsstand.

They're only providing what they think you'll buy.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:08 AM on August 6, 2006


Like, are there people out there who are on the fence about this whole Israel/Lebanon issue, who might not have been convinced to support Lebanon if there were 33% less smoke in that shot?

Well I somewhat agree with you in that the actions of a photographer shouldn't overshadow the very real violence that is occuring in the region.

I've noticed recently two situations were doctored materials benifited the ones that were suppossed to be attacked. In Canada there was the Grewal tapes, which initially looked like a major scandal for the Liberal party but the scandal dissapeared when it was found that there was some editing to the tapes. Likewise the Killian documents (Rathergate), undermined criticism of Bush being a draft dodger.
posted by bobo123 at 12:19 AM on August 6, 2006


You guys are talking as if this is NEW.

No, we're talking about this as though this were something we should be talking about.

Just because it isn't new doesn't mean we shouldn't care.
posted by Mikey-San at 12:25 AM on August 6, 2006


To see how egregious this is, check this thread about an L.A. Times photographer who got fired for simply color correcting the color of the sky in an image.
posted by wsg at 12:35 AM on August 6, 2006


All news is biased, even if it is as simple as the cropping of a photo, or the choice of words to use. Eg: Freedom-fighter/Militant/Terrorist.

Anyway, for some more realistic photos of Beiruts Harat suburb (posted before, reposting with correct URLs)


(Google Earth, Lat/Long 33.854451,35.506568 North=left)


(DigitalGloble sample image from 22/Jul/2006)
posted by nielm at 12:44 AM on August 6, 2006


.. and since the image above was takenm the same suburb has been futher attacked.
Aftenposten.no has lower-resolution images from 31/Jul showing further damage to the same suburb
One would think that all the targets worth hitting would have already been hit in the first strike...
posted by nielm at 12:52 AM on August 6, 2006


You people are jumping to conclusions to think that it was the photographer that doctored the photo. Newspapers (and presumably web sites) have people who pull photos off the newswires and photoshop correct them so that they will reproduce properly, given the limitations of the printing process. Ordinarily, this involves only levels and color balances being modified (so that grass looks green, for example). I'm guessing that it was someone doing this (for Yahoo?) that is to blame - not Reuters or the photographer. It should be possible to find the same pic undocotred if it came cleanly from Reuters.
posted by spock at 1:12 AM on August 6, 2006


On the original version the Israelis are dropping flowers.
posted by sgt.serenity at 1:51 AM on August 6, 2006


You mean like the real original that might be found at the Reuters web site? Yeah, it looks just as faked.

That's some really, really bad work either from the photographer or someone at Reuters. I don't think you can blame this on Yahoo.
posted by Orb at 1:58 AM on August 6, 2006


According to this site, Reuters 'admits doctoring Beirut photo'
posted by F Mackenzie at 6:01 AM on August 6, 2006


Heh... Well, now they've admitted it, but since I spent enough time on this, I'll post it anyway

Aside from the cloning, it seems like also, maybe... collaging? Photoshoppers: Take a look at this photo from the same perspective by the same photographer (back-up here).

Okay, now line up the building I've outlined in green in the photo that's the subject of this post (it's on the far right in the photo I've linked to):



If you adjust for size and, layer one image over the other, lining up the same building exactly, look what happens to the surrounding information, especially the skyline:



(the red box shows where the large building on the horizon is in the post image... You have to admit that the position in the other photo looks like the "natural" skyline.)
posted by taz at 6:12 AM on August 6, 2006


About the issue of the dead children being posed in different places - they weren't the same child. It was another child, wearing a different shirt. There were just multiple dead children.
posted by jb at 7:04 AM on August 6, 2006


The article that F Mackenzie linked to has a replacement photo.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:59 AM on August 6, 2006


This is one of those Que Bono type things where the question one has to ask is, "Who benifits from a really poorly doctored picture of Lebanon?" I mean can you imagine anyone with half a brain thinking that picture is going to fool anyone for a metric second?

I think we need to be on the lookout for a clean shaven Mel Gibson from Star Trek's "Mirror Mirror" universe. Probably still drunk, though.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 10:12 AM on August 6, 2006


I mean can you imagine anyone with half a brain thinking that picture is going to fool anyone for a metric second?

Yes, the doctored pic will fool the vast majority of people. Most people don't pay attention to details.
posted by bim at 11:29 AM on August 6, 2006


I just don't get the motivation for releasing a poorly doctored photo like that, or even a well-done one. It's not like there aren't plenty of terrible pictures of Beirut at this point.
posted by cell divide at 12:02 PM on August 6, 2006


I just don't get the motivation for releasing a poorly doctored photo like that, or even a well-done one. It's not like there aren't plenty of terrible pictures of Beirut at this point.

How do you know? Maybe there aren't if they have to resort to photoshopped ones. Maybe the damage done to the Lebanese infrastructure is overrated. Maybe the Arabs (and Adnan Hajj certainly sounds Arabic to me) are sprucing up these photos to make the world believe that they are suffering worse than they really are.

Or maybe someone wants you to *think* that.
posted by sour cream at 12:28 PM on August 6, 2006


What the fuck?
posted by bob sarabia at 8:12 PM PST on August 5 [+] [!]

Exactly, Bob Sarabia. If this is an authentic photo of a woman being pulled from a collapsed building, then why is she spotless? No dust, no grime, no wounds. The whole situation of war is bad enough without fake or enhanced "news".
posted by annieb at 12:34 PM on August 6, 2006


All digital cameras imprint data as to when the shot was created and how. The newer high end models also come with systems that allow third party digital verification that the image is completely undoctored from the original development. If this works as advertised I think we are seeing clear evidence for the use of this technology in photojournalism (as well as law which is what it was developed for.
posted by meinvt at 12:42 PM on August 6, 2006


Reuters admits altering Beirut photo
posted by aceyim at 3:08 PM on August 6, 2006


Reuters has retracted the photo and promised not to use the freelancer's pictures ever again
posted by hatsix at 3:08 PM on August 6, 2006


Tempest in a teapot:



(analytical reticles added to make the picture look all analyzed and stuff)
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:20 PM on August 6, 2006


Heywood, awesome reticles - you need zooming, though, ala Blade Runner.

The same sites that talked about this photo now are pointing out a number of other photos from Lebanon that appear to be manipulated. At least one seems pretty clear cut, the others might be wishful thinking, though there is obviously something up here.
posted by blahblahblah at 9:40 PM on August 6, 2006


have you guys seen these--one neighborhood in Beirut--before and after
posted by amberglow at 4:35 PM on August 7, 2006


Reuters yanks all 920 photos for review. Most seem unaltered, but at least two have been.
posted by pmurray63 at 8:38 PM on August 7, 2006


Wow, the guy's worked for Reuters off and on since 1993, and he was that obvious about it? Maybe he got his kid to photoshop it. Or maybe he was drunk.

That's pretty sad, either way, though.

Also, ladies and gentlemen, I think we got a man fired.
posted by blacklite at 11:06 PM on August 7, 2006


This image is altered, too:


You can clearly see that the little building on the lower right of the red box is NOT in the upper position shown. The larger building does appear duplicated, but anybody who's seen government housing knows that buildings get duplicated all the time. The little building, though, is simply not there in the upper position. It's been added. You cannot see it in the upper position because there is smoke in the way. Unless somebody gets hold of the PSD, we cannot say with certainty that the red box shows any Photoshop duplication.
posted by etoile at 6:54 AM on August 8, 2006


" What I don't understand, and someone please fill me in:

"Does it fucking matter how much smoke there was?"


What if there was no smoke at all? You've got to be able to trust news sources to be reporting what they see.

meinvt writes "All digital cameras imprint data as to when the shot was created and how."

No true, and besides which even on camera that do add EXIF data the data imprinted is set by the user.

meinvt writes "The newer high end models also come with systems that allow third party digital verification that the image is completely undoctored from the original development."

Any links to inormation on this? It's generally agreed that you can't trust this kind of thing if you give the signing keys to the users.
posted by Mitheral at 8:40 AM on August 8, 2006


Heh, it's all over the news today. The BBC didn't even use the pic and their website has a piece discussing their photo manipulation policies, in the wake of this.
posted by -harlequin- at 2:16 PM on August 8, 2006


The guy was fired.
posted by mathowie at 12:46 AM on August 9, 2006


« Older Holding up sprigs of parsley, Trujillo's men queri...  |  In news,... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments