4 ms·
Digital signing seems like an obvious solution here but you actually need to allow multiple chained digital signatures so that you can retain provenance across
by danjc 3y ago
Digital signing seems like an obvious solution here but you actually need to allow multiple chained digital signatures so that you can retain provenance across successive edits. Without this, even a simple edit like brightness/contrast change would strip the signature.
- PaulHoule 3y agoYep. It's bad enough that the RAW will get converted to a JPG which is not quite identical so an entirely different image so far as digital signing is concerned. You might not need to archive all the intermediate states but you're going to have to describe every change in the image in sufficient detail that the process can be reconstructed exactly. I owned a Canon DSLR years ago which I always felt compelled to mess with the curves because blacks just weren't black enough for me. When I got a Sony years later I liked how images look right out of the camera without adjustments and even went through a phase where I was printing on 6x4 cards and often composed on the camera and didn't even crop. Last summer though I started posting flower photos to Mastodon and got into increasing the vibrance a lot, and I also got DxO because I do sports photography which forces me to use high ISO and that involves using a neural net to filter electronic noise. I can do all that and Photoshop will export metadata about my camera but once I use the Generative Fill to do something simple and innocuous like remove a splatter or add a row of bricks, it strips out that metadata.