Except, if you've looked at enough of these, you know that they are often very misleading, especially to the untrained eye. It's a fantastic tool for people to

Except, if you've looked at enough of these, you know that they are often very misleading, especially to the untrained eye. It's a fantastic tool for people to pretend that they have "proof", but all it takes is showing the ELA of a photo you know to be real to realize that the tool is more complex that it appears at first. Here's two taken from NatGeo's best photo's of 2018 [0]: https://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=a29db81cd8bfc2e23a7a17d0ea0bcd9cbee129bc.391559 https://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=a29db81cd8bfc2e23a... https://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=7a9b396c6b9ee467d364f4e170b11e4d746d6e14.2718382 https://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=7a9b396c6b9ee467d3... To make things worse, you used the low-res/low-jpeg-quality version of the photo from the blog, which inherently have more error. If you use the original 2100x3100 photo [1], you get a much different result: https://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=c6c3a0784144868a5662628c098cbae583b32d17.651387 https://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=c6c3a0784144868a56... [0]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/best-of-2018/best-pictures-2018/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/best-of-2018/... [1] http://time.com/3992951/iss-photobomb/ http://time.com/3992951/iss-photobomb/