Identifying Manipulated Images

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.

Comments

Good

[Fri13]

Now when we have a tool what shows when image is manipulated by using Photoshop, we can start using GIMP or any other _image manipulation_ software because those tools cannot trace them because they dont "photoshop" images, they manipulate them.

Yah, bad sarcasm, im just tired that "photoshop this" "photoshop that" like there would not be any other image manipulation software. I bet that over 50% Photoshop owners just has a warez version of it and 80% of photoshop users could do their things with any other software.

Ad? What ad?

[brunes69]

Adblock - everyone should have this installed.

Re:Good

[DigitalSorceress]

Actually an interesting point there.

I'm no graphic artist - I'm a web application developer. I leave the heavy lifting (graphics-wise) to the pros, but I often find that I'll use Paint Shop Pro (an older pre-Corel version) for resizes, rotates, and minor alterations. Heck, I even use Paint Shop Pro just fine for my occasional dalliances in the Fark Photoshop challenges.

My point is that I too find the "Verbing" of Photoshop to be a bit inaccurate. However, people have pretty much taken it and run with it. It's not too different from many of the other linguistic corruptions/evolution (depending on your viewpoint) that goes on every day.

On the bright side, at least it will keep future etymologists busy.