4 ms·
I'm not going to express an opinion about the photo other than general surprise about how varied a concept of 'faked' appears across all commentators. What rea
by joosters 14y ago
I'm not going to express an opinion about the photo other than general surprise about how varied a concept of 'faked' appears across all commentators.
What really interested me was the article's description of Photoshop's XMP metadata block, giving a history of saves/exports/edits. I never knew this level of detail was stored with the images. It also makes me think, how long until there are tools to easily edit such metadata? The website takes the metadata as gospel truth. At some point in the future, this is not going to be a reliable position to take.
- nightpool 14y agoWell, to be honest, they really just use it as a starting point. I'm sure he wouldn't have just concluded it was totally genuine if he had seen a clean metadata block. Its a good starting point, but by far not the "gospel truth."
- joosters 14y agoI've no problem with how they used it in the article. At the moment, the overlap of 'professional photographers' and 'people skilled in metadata forgery' is pretty slim and (IMO) the data is unlikely to have been altered in this case. My point is, in the future, you won't be able to even use the metadata as a starting point because all of it could have been changed with easily-available and well-known tools.
- sengstrom 14y agoIt is not hard to edit the metadata. I think the current reference point for picking out forgeries is a RAW file - not that they are impossible to manipulate either but it is harder, plus the kind of statistical analyses done in the article would be more meaningful on an image that is supposedly completely unedited.