That could be it. It is well-known that commercial programs such as Adobe Photoshop incorporate proprietary digital watermarking DRM code— beyond merely looking for a simple constellation— that blanks out or prevents certain images from appearing, as do scanners and photocopiers. Such features also enable banks to identify genuine versus counterfeit currency. Furthermore, it is assumed (and in many instances known) that laser printers, digital presses, etc. embed tracking dots or other watermarks in everything they output, and presumably respond to the same DRM features.
I can photocopy it, can a vampire be photo copied?
Did you try to photograph it while it was on a glass table top? I tried to photograph something on a clear glass countertop the other day and autofocus totally weirded out the entire picture.
Since this is IMHO, I’ll pop in with a similar example that I knew instantly must be deliberate.
I have mild prosopagnosia (face-blindness), and sometimes lose the plot for a while in TV shows that have two characters that look the same (to me - a person without prosopagnosia could probably tell them apart easily, but for me, if they are two 30ish white guys with similar hair color and cuts, I’m screwed). I was watching a crime show on Netflix that included flashback scenes of the murderer, who looked just like (to me) one of the “good guy” characters.
Of course it’s possible that a plot twist would be “hah! Mr. GoodGuy was the BadGuy all along!” but that outcome was inconsistent with other plot elements. So I decided to take a screenshot of Mr. GoodGuy and Mr. BadGuy so I could compare them at my leisure and decide whether they really were the same person or not.
As you can guess from the context of this thread, it didn’t work - the screenshots just came out black. I was bummed, but ended up figuring it out by checking the cast, and seeing that two different actors played the characters. So yeah, it WAS my prosopagnosia. I still wish I could compare the two characters side by side, though.
Back to seriousness, I would opine that this means the photo failure is NOT deliberate. A photocopier is generally more strict than a camera about rejecting sensitive images (banknotes etc). Have you tried experimenting with different environmental conditions when you try to photograph the card? Different backgrounds, different lighting, different distance from the card, etc?
A few years back, it was possible to take screenshots of Netflix programs, but they made a change that did away with that, at least with IE & Edge browsers. I haven’t gotten around to trying the other browsers.
If/when there can be found the time and the volunteers OP should try it on different Android phones and see if this is in fact unique to thisdevice, and if so then identify what about it is different from the others (photo app, system settings, patches). I agree that if it was possible to scan and photocopy w/o problems, then it’s unlikely there is any designed disruptive feature in the card that should cause this and the source may be in the processing software.
Do phone-cameras and other digital cameras embed tracking dots or watermarks in videos and still pix? If not, should they? Is that something that could be done by an app instead of in the guts of the phone/camera software?
Not sure if it’s the same reason, but back in the day, a black-screen screenshot was the result of hardware acceleration in the video card. Windows would give the video player program a black square of screen and say “here you go, have at it!”, and the video player would use the video card to put video into that black square. (or some combination of the above).
The result was that Windows didn’t know what was in that black square, so a screenshot would just show…a black square.
The workaround was to disable hardware acceleration, then video would be rendered in Windows and screenshots worked–with the accompanying terrible video performance.
You must be my long lost sister!
It wasn’t until my mid forties when I realized I had this condition. My whole life I was confused by movie plots because everyone looked the same, especially in old B&W movies filled with middle aged dark-haired white guys in suits and ties. I just figured everyone else had the same trouble.
I then saw an article in Scientific American where they had a little test, with faces of famous people with hair and clothing cropped out, and I couldn’t identify a single one. My wife immediately said “Well, that’s Bill Clinton…that’s Oprah…” and so on. The light bulb went on!
Now I don’t feel so bad when I encounter someone from work in a shopping center and can’t recognize them. It’s always surprising to me when my wife looks at a photo from 1975 on Facebook and immediately points out friends, even though she had never seen young photos of them.
No, but metadata is attached to images, including location data unless disabled or stripped out somehow, which is partly how a bunch of folk who invaded the capital were caught by police.
You tell me.
Yes, there’s a multitude of ways to watermark an image after it’s shot, visibly or otherwise. This tech goes back many years.
Netflix screenshots work fine on a Mac with Chrome.
This is all correct.
BTW, here is a recent news article mentioning tracking dots, digital watermarks, and metadata, as well as fingerprinting individual digital cameras based on non-uniform response of their imaging sensors (thus digital cameras do automatically and inadvertently fingerprint all their output anyway)
Somewhat analogous to barrel-rifling creating unique marks on bullets that trace one back to the firearm that fired it. But that sounds more like the forensic work of a crime lab than a “fingerprint” that is easy for anyone to read (unless blocked by the creator).
ETA: BTW to squegee- I wasn’t thinking of the ability to add a digital watermark in post-production (e.g. Photoshop), rather, a camera embedding a watermark (or other IDing feature) in the image file at the time it’s created (when you take the picture, eg)
I was thinking Basilisk.
Joking aside, I have actually encountered a situation where an object could not be photographed, and it was not by design - I actually had a thread about it (12 years ago): Cell phone camera crashes entire phone, but only when photographing certain things
At the time, I faintly hoped I had discovered a real-life Langford Basilisk (an image that by its nature causes the thing looking at it to crash). I think in the end, I concluded that it was just because certain image subjects didn’t compress well, and there was a problem writing larger files on a specific combination of hardware I happened to have.
That works, sort of: