16

There are several ways to [attempt to] determine the veracity of an image, with respect to whether it represents a unique capture of a single scene: Image data level inconsistencies Certain processing operations result in telltale "signatures" embedded in the data which are often invisible to the eye but may be identified by statistical analysis. The best ...


11

Those appear to be codes from a Fuji Frontier automatic film processing lab machine or one of its older predecessors. Such machines were/are popular at mass retailers who did/do one hour photo processing and printing. Users have some leeway in assigning what information is printed using the codes on the back of the print, so there is some variation ...


11

You can often use techniques from piloting. You can find alignments in the picture, for instance the corner of a building that masks off the 2nd vertical line of windows of the building in the back. From this you determine a line on which the camera must have been. With two more such alignments you get three lines that give you a triangle in which the camera ...


8

JPEGsnoop compares the compression signature in a JPEG with its database of known combinations of signatures and software/firmware, and gives a list of software/cameras that match the signature of the input image. Here is some sample output: *** Searching Compression Signatures *** Signature: 013BA18D5561625796E986FDBC09F846 Signature (...


7

While you can't know for sure, the site fotoforensics.com can provide some insight. Be sure to read the tutorial and check this link for your image: From their analysis, I'd guess the photo has not been doctored. I'm not associated with this site in anyway, although I do think it's pretty interesting stuff.


7

It's very unlikely that double exposure could happen with a digital camera in the way it could occasionally occur unintentionally (and, often, intentionally) with film cameras. That's because there's no "film advance" mechanism in a digital camera. Each frame is read as a separate file, and there's no plausible way for them to get mixed up. If the ...


7

A quick Google found me this page, where it says: "Russian photographer Sergey Semenov shows you the NYC Central Park the way you’ve never seen it before. The amazing picture that won Semenov the best amateur award from the International Pano Awards, is stitched together from a bunch of 360-degree panoramic pictures, taken from a helicopter." Once you've ...


7

I am not knowledgeable on the math and programming needed for this, but I can provide you with some insights into information needed for something such. What you want to look into, is perspective distortion in photography. In particular, you need to research lens compression (which is a bogus term, but that aside). A quick overview of perspective ...


5

More difficult than what you're after: every solid-state sensor chip has its own irregularities -- slight differences in pixel responsivities and so on. A forensic analyst, given a couple images known to be from each camera, can unequivocally say which camera produced any other image. AFAIK this works even when only JPG output is available, assuming the ...


5

No; digital files can't work that way. If the card were corrupt, you might see images jumbled together, but it would look like this at best, not a smooth overlay. Additionally, the filenames aren't really "slots". They're just identifiers; if they are reused, the same value appears in the "index" in the filesystem, but the data could be anywhere. It's ...


5

That's going to sound amazingly simple but open the image in your image editing software of choice (e.g. The GIMP), pick the "Select" tool, and select a rectangle encompassing your "object". In The GIMP, the size of the select box is displayed in the status bar at the bottom. There you go. Object height in pixels :)


5

No, there is no way. This just isn't possible. There's no unalterable data that you can check. Why are people sending you false information? I'd work on checking your incentives, and make it easy to identify patterns of false reports.


5

With a digital camera, it's much more likely to see something like this with a long exposure and multiple flashes firing during the exposure. If you google "long exposure multiple flash", you can see some examples of the effects possible with this technique, including some that appear somewhat ghostlike. One of the links returned does a decent job of ...


4

If the E-510 you purchased is not modified for IR work, it may not be the appropriate tool. Digital cameras these days come with UV/IR blockers over their sensors to keep colors true (UV/IR sensitivity can throw off greens and purples on sensors). This blocker greatly reduces the IR sensitivity of the sensor. It doesn't completely reduce it, but it does ...


4

Since it is a Ghost Tour, it would not surprise me if they made it special for the tourists with some tricks along the tour. When photographers use their in-camera flash it would be relatively easy to give them a photographic evidence of those ghosts in their own photos. It only needs an old film SLR camera with the rear "door" replaced with a flash unit. ...


4

Currently, without having a rich experience in retouching there is probably very little chance you'd be able to tell. Even RAW files are, in a very basic sense editable. Here are some hints: If you're looking at fashion photography, always be mindful of skin texture. Bad retouchers (trying to please clients) generally destroy skin texture but often forget ...


3

You would need to be familiar with photo editing techniques as well as limitations of camera equipment to be able to identify both what you would consider to be "photoshopped" as well as the signs of when it occurs. I'm fairly new to the game, but I can usually tell when an image has more dynamic range than is possible with camera equipment so maybe the sky'...


3

The number is called a "twin check". A number was assigned the roll of film. Usually assigned in the order opened at the sorting table. The prints made from that roll are given the same number. The 3R stands for 3X enlargement rectangular. This is likely a 3 1/2 x 5 inch print.


3

It looks like the light source is coming from the left to cause those shadows. Because it is. The shadows appear as a result of the difference in the angle of the flash compared to the lens.


2

If you really want to get hard core, read the books on photo interpretation. I've got two by Dino Brugioni, who was part of the team that analyzed the Russian missles in Cuba during the cold war Cuban Missle crisis. They would look at the length of shaddows to calculate sun location, or if they had the sun location, use the shaddows to calculate height and ...


2

I found the answer after viewing another site from a link posted here concerning archiving negatives. In sum, unless the lab added the date (which some did) there is no way to determine the date from the code on back of the photo. The code is used by and for the lab (developers) and relates to paper, color correction, etc., technical information that may be ...


2

Too much information has been removed from the image presented to us for anyone to perform an analysis. From whatever original, doctored or otherwise, it has simply been mashed by repeated resaves using poor quality jpeg options, edits (to add the text and resizing), and the size has been significantly reduced. The image does not contain any obvious edits ...


2

No. This is not possible. There is a standard metadata field in EXIF which tells if the self-timer was used, but: There's no guarantee that the cameraphone app in use actually writes this field Many transfer methods strip all of this off to reduce file sizes, It's easy to edit, so you even if it's there, you can't trust it.... And if all of that wasn't ...


2

Using the print size or border style seems like a long shot to me. That could be influenced by film brand, paper brand, chosen print lab and country, let alone time frame. If you do get a time frame, you're more likely to get a decade than a year. That said, antiques or forensics experts may be able to guide you.


2

Screenshots from my smartphone: have no Exif data are much smaller than pictures (2Mpix vs 12Mpx from the camera) have the wrong aspect ratio (16/9 instead of 4/3 from camera shots) So it should be easy to detect the quick hacks. Nothing can be done against explicit tampering with the Exif data (or against good image editing).


2

There are multiple sections of metadata in a JPEG files but they can all be removed. Software which strips EXIF can strip it to various degrees but can also remove all other metadata sections. This is often done when posting on the internet to avoid personal information leaking such as geolocation or to make files lighter for upload. In any case, you cannot ...


2

As others have stated, there is no definitive way to prove that an image came from a particular device. All evidence has to be gathered, considered, and correlated to arrive at a probable answer. This includes metadata, timing information, GPS coordinates, lens and sensor characteristics, and compression settings. Whether one can come up with reasonable ...


2

The short answer is yes. It's done everyday. The subject of Photogrammetry involves answers to your question. Photogrammetry is measurement from images. Photogrammetry is useful for topographic mapping, architecture, engineering, or even geology! There are a lot of software tools dedicated to aerial photos, photogrammetry is really useful for geographical ...


1

Codes like this on the rear of photo prints had a different intended purpose to Exif data in your digital photos. When prints were made, oftentimes there were "corrections" applied, to adjust colours, exposure, etc. The point of the code on the rear of the print was so that if the customer returned for a reprint, the corrections could be replicated so that ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible