Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Identifying Manipulated Images

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the check-that-out dept.

Jamie found a cool story at MIT Tech Review. (As an aside, it sits behind an interstitial ad AND on 2 pages: normally I reject websites that do that, but it's a slow news day, so I'm letting it through.) Essentially, software is used to analyze light patterns in still photographs. Once you can figure out where the light sources are, it becomes a lot easier to determine if an image has been photoshopped.

8 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Everything is photo-shopped! by jimboindeutchland · · Score: 5, Funny

    Duh!

    --
    this post is now diamonds!
  2. Uh Oh by Missing_dc · · Score: 5, Funny

    This bodes ill for all those geeks out there with "out-of-state" girlfriends!!

    --
    How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
  3. Re:Steganography by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Funny

    *Somewhere in the middle of the NSA / MI6 buildings, a check mark is put next to an IP address.*

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  4. Apollo by sir_eccles · · Score: 4, Funny

    I love how the first comment is asking if the apollo landing photos were photoshopped.

    1. Re:Apollo by lena_10326 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I love how the first comment is asking if the apollo landing photos were photoshopped.
      Photoshop was HUGE in 69. Huge.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
  5. Re:Goes both ways by Linker3000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yeah, but do they blend?

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
  6. Re:Good by Marvin01 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It just sounds wrong to say that an image has been "GIMPed".

    Actually, now that I think about it, I kinda like it...

  7. Re:"photoshopped"? by HeroreV · · Score: 3, Funny

    You could probably find out if you googled it.