article from the NY Times (photo fraud in scientific journals)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steve W., Jan 24, 2006.

  1. Steve W.

    Steve W. Guest

    article from the NYTimes, "It May Look Authentic; Here's How to Tell It

    "Photo-manipulation has proved particularly troublesome for science. One
    journal is showing the way in a new offensive against fraud."
    Graphic: Tricks of the Trade

    Don't these methods of detecting that a jpeg photo has been altered presume
    you have the original unaltered photo?
    Steve W., Jan 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. The artifacts illustrated in the article at the posted URL are the
    thumbprint of fabrication, and as noted in the article, can be
    detected without comparison to an *original.* BTW, how do you know
    the original is original.

    The algorithms are searching for induced artifacts. It's mathematics
    ( applied ).

    Lawrence Glickman, Jan 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Steve W.

    bmoag Guest

    A jpeg image bears little resemblance to the original image that came off
    the sensor.
    A jpeg image is highly processed using algorithms for contrast, brightness,
    saturation and color correction that are based on subjective engineering and
    aesthetic decisions.
    Compare a jpeg and a raw image coming out of a dSLR. Which is the authentic
    image made in the camera?
    The only authentic original image is a film negative or transparency.
    However the choice of a particular film introduces a subjective aesthetic
    decision that departs from a truly neutral representation of the subject.
    All color and black and white films have a palette or gamut that
    distinguishes one from the other.
    All prints, regardless of the original image capture medium, introduce
    fabrications and distortions. Even black and white contact print appearance
    is strongly affected by the choice of paper and development.
    So what is the true original photographic image anyway?
    There really is no such thing.
    Whether for art, science or photojournalism there is no way to produce a
    photographic image that has not been subject to some kind of conscious,
    intentional manipulation.
    bmoag, Jan 24, 2006
  4. All true. But as the article stated, the journal finds some of that
    acceptable. It's even unavoidable, as you point out. It is manipulation
    to change pertinent data that they object to.7
    Barry L. Wallis, Jan 27, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.