Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/04/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] fired for photoshopping
From: Johnny Deadman <lists@johnbrownlow.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 21:38:21 -0500

There is actually a solution of sorts to all of this. It is implemented 
on the 1Ds but not awfully well and the systems are not in place to 
take advantage of it HOWEVER...

It is quite possible to embed a verification code in a digital file  
which is dependent on the image being a bit-for-bit copy of the 
original. As soon as the image is altered in any way, it no longer 
verifies. Software installers use a similar technology.

Now this might not sound terribly useful, because as soon as you alter 
the image in any way (tonal correction for example) the image will no 
longer verify as original BUT if you supply your tweaked file along 
with the unaltered file, an editor can easily check that the tweaks do 
not break any policies. Most of this could actually be automated very 
easily with just a two-second visual check to verify.

So it goes like this in my imagined future. You supply two files: the 
raw camera file and your final version. The photo ed or whoever it is 
plugs them into a piece of software which brings them up side by side 
on a screen and checks that nothing obviously fishy has gone one before 
committing them to publication.

One can even imagine every image containing the raw image as part of 
its file format. That way the two never get separated.

As I say, there are solutions. Not unbreakable, but still robust.

JB


On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 08:48  PM, Tim Atherton wrote:

> row
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> You mean the "Cockroach Theory" applies?
>>
>
> Kinda - does anyone here think this guy is the only news photographer 
> doing
> this? Most cases, probably to a lesser extent, closer to where the
> "acceptable manipulation" line is fuzzy, but probably on the wrong 
> side of
> it. Some more blatantly (though perhaps more skilled, so you don't get 
> the
> same dude twice in the background...)
>
> Partly just because it's so darn easy to do, partly because morale in 
> the
> news/PJ world is probably at an all time low (and then of course 
> there's
> blind ambition/competition)
>
> And of course, a large bunch of PJ/News photographers who wouldn't even
> think about doing it - they sharpen and adjust, and if the picture 
> isn't
> quite as good as they thought/hope - oh well, there's always tomorrow 
> :-)
> (though I can see how if you felt you'd just been to hell and back, 
> and you
> kinda saw how the picture didn't quite work - damn - but if you just
> combined these two - and HELL I almost died out there getting these, 
> so it
> doesn't really count... and it does look more like I remember it...)
>
> tim
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>
>
- --
John Brownlow

pictures:
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

"unintended consequences" warblog:		
http://www.johnbrownlow.com/unintended

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Henning Wulff <henningw@archiphoto.com> (Re: [Leica] fired for photoshopping)