Comments on: Reuters, Adobe set to make news photos fauxto-proof

By: dinasour

dinasour — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:39:37 +0000

And what happens when it’s the editors, not the field Fauxtographers, who are doing the Photoshopping.

Who watches the watchers.

By: JeffH

JeffH — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 14:05:29 +0000

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.

By: Highrise

Highrise — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 07:24:23 +0000

Mkay, now how are they going to make their print falseproof?

By: MirCat

MirCat — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 06:15:58 +0000

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?

By: triple

triple — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 03:32:07 +0000

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.

By: flip

flip — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:32:31 +0000

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.

By: StuLongIsland

StuLongIsland — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:09:18 +0000

…and DVD encryptions can’t be broken….

NOT

By: Max Power

Max Power — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:07:55 +0000

Flip is right.

Technology will create a way around this…soon.

By: danarchy

danarchy — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:04:27 +0000

I won’t be able to put my boss face on the body of Steve Urkel anymore??? BLAST!

By: fusionaddict

fusionaddict — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 02:00:44 +0000

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.

By: Suitably Flip

Suitably Flip — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:54:52 +0000

Reuters Intends To Put Its Own Fauxtogs Out Of Business…

Via Gizmodo, Wired is reporting that Reuters is working alongside fellow media hornswoggler the Associated Press, as well as Adobe and Canon, to help rid the world of doctored photographs through the creation of a “suite of photo-authentication tools…

By: Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin — Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:53:21 +0000

Policing photo forgeries…

Adobe gets in on the act to help prevent another Adnan Hajj-gate. Of course, all the best software in the world won’t solve propaganda problems like this one. But every bit counts. *** Allah is reminded of the V-chip and……