Reuters, Adobe set to make news photos fauxto-proof
posted at 8:48 pm on March 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Reminds me of the V-chip. The responsible parties can’t or won’t police their own so they’ve deputized technology to do it for them. And of course it reminds me of DNA testing. Guilty parties abound and this is the only sure way to do justice. Or does it remind me of carbon dating? Yeah, it’ll solve mysteries — while draining the wonder out of life.
Flip says it reminds him of a spam filter. God help us all.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
You know, this whole thing could have been avoided if news agencies just required photographers to use 35mm cameras and were required to supply the negatives.
fusionaddict on March 8, 2007 at 9:00 PM
I won’t be able to put my boss face on the body of Steve Urkel anymore??? BLAST!
danarchy on March 8, 2007 at 9:04 PM
Flip is right.
Technology will create a way around this…soon.
Max Power on March 8, 2007 at 9:07 PM
…and DVD encryptions can’t be broken….
NOT
StuLongIsland on March 8, 2007 at 9:09 PM
To offer another analogy, this Reuters initiative to weed out fauxtography strikes me as the journalistic equivalent of Michale Richards or Gavin Newsom entering rehab to retroactively cure their societal improprieties.
flip on March 8, 2007 at 9:32 PM
This is the same stuff used to authenticate digital images in the courtroom. Its good enough to prove guilt, but not crappy photoshops? Sometimes I don’t get you hotair..
You know what the scary thing is? I worked as a retoucher in a studio for about a year – and ive done all kinds of photo manipulation. The people who are actually good at this – not the freelancers who manipulated the past photos – the people who don’t suck at PS can manipulate something, and you or I will never know it. It doesn’t matter.
triple on March 8, 2007 at 10:32 PM
I always found Carbon Dating silly. I mean how old was the carbon in the object to begin with?
- The Cat
P.S. Does this mean no more fake nipples on celeb pics?
MirCat on March 9, 2007 at 1:15 AM
Mkay, now how are they going to make their print falseproof?
Highrise on March 9, 2007 at 2:24 AM
As I noted here:
Adobe’s efforts are all fine-and-dandy, but will ultimately prove irrelevant for several reasons:
A) Not all photos will be sent in a digital format that includes any Photoshop “tags” or audit trail; once a picture has been manipulated in Photoshop, it can then be recreated in another application that will not include the audit trail;
B) Dedicated fakers will always find a way to bypass the audit trail, for instance by hacking the software in their camera to remove the ID tags;
C) Finally, the fact that photoeditors will still be making the decisions based on their eyeballs; they’d rather trust their own “instincts” and 10 seconds of looking at the photo rather than run the digital image through any fake-detection software that might take a few more seconds and make them feel more dependent on something other than their own “instincts”. Alas, human vanity will continue to rule the day.
JeffH on March 9, 2007 at 9:05 AM
And what happens when it’s the editors, not the field Fauxtographers, who are doing the Photoshopping.
Who watches the watchers.
dinasour on March 9, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Comment pages: