Tangental question, aslo asked in the Pit thread:
Are there any reliable ways to tell if a photograph has been digitally altered? Perhaps ways not available to the general public?
One of the things I looked for was evidence of layers (which .jpgs can have) and Photoshop would have created if you start messing with it. Of course, a savvy user (who would, most likely be savvy enough to retouch the photo in the first place) would flatten the image and as one’s a .bmp it doesn’t have layers.
I also checked to see if there was a “history” associated with the file. Sometimes digital cameras will embed information about the photo into the image which Photoshop can detect and I also recall that there’s a process where one can look for histories, but I couldn’t figure out how to do it.
—Hijack—
I came across a video the other day of some US soldiers destroying a civilian’s car after he was caught looting. At the end of the video, the narrator says that the man was a taxi driver and the car was his livelyhood. There’s no way the soldiers didn’t destroy the car, but I’m wondering if the “taxi driver” thing is actually true…any opinions?
Link (3mb download)
Jpeg images can not contain layers. While you can bring a .jpg image into Photoshop, while you are editing it you are working with Adobe’s proprietary .psd format. The image is of necessity “flattened” if you choose to save it as a .jpg file. There’s no separating the layers again.
The difference between a .jpg and a .bmp is that a bitmap has a colour value assigned for each pixel. ie; the first line of a 640X480 solid white bitmap image will be represented this way:
Pixel 0,0 = “255,255,255” | 0,1 = “255,255,255” | 0,2 = “255,255,255” |0,3 =“255,255,255” [and so on until] 0,640 = “255,255,255”
That same line, converted to a jpeg, will be represented by something like:
From pixel 0,0 to pixel 0,640 = “255,255,255”
No room for layers in either schema.
Photoshop does create small appended inline thumbnails for .jpeg files, and in some versions the thumbnail was created initially and not always updated when changes have been saved. There is no room for a proper .psd-style “history” in the .jpg standard – it would defeat the point of compression.
It’s far more likely that it’s simply a bad editing job. I doubt that whoever altered the picture put more than a few minutes into it.
And sorry, but your flipping animation is working against you. The d’s in “saved” and “rescued” do not conform to the d in “Boudreaux” or the lower-case d in “Dad.”
As for the corrugation pattern, both pictures are too grainy to really tell for sure. It looks to me like the pattern disappears around the word “rescued,” and possibly around “saved,” but I get the impression that we’re both trying to see faces in the clouds here.
Some new stuff to chew on:
Here is a large high-quality jpeg of the “killed and knocked up” version.
This is the clearest yet, and has very little (that is to say, practically nothing) in the way of compression artifacts. The corrugation lines are consistent throughout the light area by the “d.”
You might have something there.
A look at the sort of stuff that “doggod91,” the host of the “saved and rescued” version, also makes room for seems to indicate that he has a xenophobic anti-muslim (not to mention homophobic) attitude and spends a lot of time expressing it through crude photoshops. So a certain amount of “consider the source” might appropriately come into play.
As for Lcpl Boudreaux-- boy, is he ever gonna get it. What a dick.
Or, to be concise…
Larry, I have to say that you did a fine job editing the sign in the page at your site.
That image was produced by Photoshop, according to some of the header comments. (On a Unix system, type “strings <image-file-name>” and “Adobe Photoshop 7.0” appears near the top.) There’s a lot of other Photoshop header information, but I don’t know anything about the Photoshop information format so I don’t know what it means.
This doesn’t mean it’s been heavily Photoshopped (it may have just been cropped or resized) but it’s not the original. (There’s also not any camera identifying information I can find.) The image datestamp, which I assume is also added by Photoshop, is 2003/06/13 (18:12:24).
It seems quite obvious to me that the “inoffensive” picture is the altered one. Its quite clear that the altered words simply do not match the rest of the writing.
Actually, that was from the “War on Terrorism” back in Afganistan. (Remember that? The attempt to get the Al Qaieda people who really were responsible for the 9-11 attacks.)
There was indeed a lot of protest about it, from people who said it indicated US intolerance. Often from gya/lesbian people. The one that stuck in my mind the most was the protest from the gay/lesbian teachers group, who complained about the misspelling on the graffiti. [“Highjack” should be “Hijack”, they said.] That struck me as rather funny.
P.S. Any grammar experts here who can confirm that this was a misspelling?
Thanks, CurtC. I do loves me some Photoshoppin’.
Thanks for pulling out the header info, Omphaloskeptic. For what it’s worth, I think a lot of (most?) Photoshop users use Photoshop even if you’re not really intending any fancy stuff with your pictures. (ie; it’s the application of choice just to import an image – the software that comes bundled with most digital cameras is typically crap.)
The date may go some ways towards establishing provenance.
I’m a little late to this party but would like to add my opinion.
- The “killed” sign existed before the “saved” sign.
- The words were not written by the children.
- Both images are possibly faked, but if so, the “killed” one was faked first.
- More likely, however, is that the photo with the “killed” sign is genuine. In that case, it is probably just a bad joke played on kids who can’t read English, and the photographer and the Marine pictured never, ever intended it to get into general circulation.
That is exactly my feeling. After seeing the hi-res version of the “killed/knocked up” sign here:
http://karmann.goonsquad.net/img/boudreauxs.jpg
…I can’t find any indication that it is a forgery. However the “saved/rescued” is an obvious forgery:
Great detective work, Larry. After seeing the big version, it is obvious that it is the original. Ack.
I checked again and here it is. So far they are saying “undetermined” but they seem to be leaning toward “saved/rescued” as the original with “killed/knocked up” derived from that. Personally, I’m not so sure. Because of:
[ul]
[li]the inconsistency of the handwriting in the “saved/rescued” version[/li][li]the unnatural turn of phrase “saved my dad and then rescued my sister” vs. “saved my dad and my syster” (thanks CurtC for validating what I was already thinking)[/li][li]the “saved/rescued” source’s history of photoshop fueled right-wing advocacy (thanks Larry Mudd)[/li][/ul]
I’m tending to think that “saved/rescued” was made by altering “killed/knocked up” although I could still change my mind if given good evidence.
I think it is important to note that, even if it was certain that “killed/knocked up” came first and “saved/rescued” derived from it, that would not be proof that “killed/knocked up” was a true photograph. The original no doubt said “Hi Lcpl Boudreaux’s Mom!” and was foolhardily sent to Mom by email from whom it was forwarded to friends and then to friends of friends until it fell into the hands of the villain who ever (s)he is.
Or it’s real. Who knows. But thanks to everyone who responded to my question. While I didn’t get a clear yes or no answer, I was impressed by the thought that everyone put into it. And please carry on if there is more to say.
Actualy, your animation convinced me the other way around, since both “saved” and “rescued” seem to be poorly aligned with the rest of the text. Now, this can be an artefact of the animation process, so I’m not going to make my mind either way.
What i’m going to remember will be “don’t take pictures at face value, but don’t take the word of people who tell you that the picture was doctored, either”…
An aside to the whole image debate–do we even know that the fellow pictured is Lcpl Boudreaux? I’m betting (and I lean toward the offensive one being original) that Boudreaux is one of this soldier’s buddies, and he’s pranking him (and the kids).
I think your skepticism is well advised but yes that’s a picture of Lance Cpl. Ted J. Boudreaux Jr. of Headquarters and Service Company, 3rd Battalion, 23rd Marines.
I can end this debate. Chemical Boy on FreeRepublic claims he edited the original picture to the “nice” version.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/site/user-posts?id=137299
That being said, I never liked the idea of invading Iraq and the mess is making it worse, but I thought that the “offensive” version was hilarious, in a Fark.com/South Park so-offensive-it’s-hilarious kind of way. It was completely inappropriate to post it on the Internet, though.