digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Bounty Fishing: 5 Ways to Easily Spot a Photoshopped Image

bountyfishing.com — The biggest hurdle we faced was how we were going to validate and authenticate the fish photos our users submitted - digitally altered photos can be incredibly convincing. Below are a few tips for spotting an image that has been photoshopped.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • muskymax, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5Definitely will aid all companies in avoiding photo shop scams.
    • tabaczka, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Ahh the insight...
    • richgustavson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4/me slaps you across the face with a digitally enhanced trout
  • jarrodhunt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+77Whats the world come to when you can't even trust a Fisherman.
    • thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -25/+18I take it you've never asked a fisherman about the biggest fish he ever caught ? :)
    • mendicant, on 10/11/2007, -0/+31Thanks Ted Turner, that was the joke.
    • coit, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13It was thiiiiiis biiiig.

      /stretches arms way out
    • kjm16, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14That's what she said.
  • khalidhajsaleh, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Both the contest and the software are pretty cool. What is the longest fish that win a prize until now? what kind of prizes are these?
  • theoutdoorsman, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Cool idea!
  • peaudecastor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+63They should have that software on dating websites.
  • tombishop63, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2You mean people really go fishing?
  • SearchStudent, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11I should use these tricks next time I video tape myself..... did I just say that?
  • cynic573, on 10/11/2007, -14/+8You can usually tell by the pixels.

    ...and by seeing quite a few shops in your day.
    • Spacecow, on 10/11/2007, -10/+2That was funny the first nine million times I heard it.

      Wait, no, it wasn't funny then either.
    • chrisOrbit, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3"I can tell by the pixels"..... Wait... the pixels? Wow, no way. I was doing it all wrong.
    • qwertylicious, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Aaaaahh. So that's how you do it.

      I was just looking at the file name and hoping it was something like "pshoppedpic001.jpeg".
  • agildehaus, on 10/11/2007, -14/+3i can tell by the pixels and by having seen quite a few shops in my time
  • digitalmob, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Interesting. I wonder how easy it would be subvert this system. Instead of using pure interpolation to fill in the empty space, maybe interpolate and then throw in a little bit of randomness?
    • CDefense7, on 10/11/2007, -9/+4Couldn't you just make a fake ruler with longer than normal inches then take the picture? Or could you shrink the rest of the picture, leaving the fish in tact? Probably detectable - I'd use the ruler method.
    • CDefense7, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11@ i mean shorter than normal inches
    • CDefense7, on 10/11/2007, -8/+2just digg me down - digg all three of these way down - i was beaten to the punch and for some reason didn't see the question below. sorry!
    • Timmmm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Or perhaps take 2 photos, one a bit closer and cut the fish from one onto the other. Then you get the right statistical properties.
    • arnar, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Yes - given the description some subtle random noise should circumvent that. Rotating the image a few degrees several times could also help I guess.

      You could go the extra mile and print out the photo on nice paper, then take another photograph of that. That should leave no trace of the original pixels or any machine-detectable patterns.
  • empeethree, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15I would definitely fish if she was on the boat..

    http://www.bountyfishing.com/members/fba9d88164f3e2d9109ee770223212a0/photo/f2217062e9a397a1dca429e7d70bc6ca/390x272/c550fce.jpg

    or

    http://www.bountyfishing.com/members/2a38a4a9316c49e5a833517c45d31070/photo/17e62166fc8586dfa4d1bc0e1742c08b/390x272/0a5edc0.jpg
  • xtmno3, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Anyone know the actual software used by law enforcement to detect these things? It is pretty cool to read about, but in the short time I have to look right now, I didn't see a name.
  • daxmax, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Ok so I have a question. What if i had a setup with objects and props that where smaller than normal.
    Smaller ruler, smaller quarter, smaller prop glass, and smaller tablecovering.
    Everything smaller to exaggerate the size of my fish.

    Would there be any way to corraborate the evidence?
    • kirkness, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14lol classic. someone should post a photo of a fish next to toy furniture. look at this giant fish i caught!
    • plutpwnium, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5You weren't supposed to think of that.
    • sixstring, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4If it didn't look too bad you could just take a picture of the edited picture. You wouldn't have any telltale signs in the pixels.
  • kirkness, on 10/11/2007, -0/+37I thought "bountyfishing" was going to be a new term for looking for published photoshopped images.

    but its literally a fishing website. lol
  • CyberSol, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Couldn't you just take a picture of your altered picture?
  • mpdickso, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2What if you used a scaled down tape/ruler? You wouldn't need to alter the image, and yet the fish would appear larger.

    @daxmax...beat me to it
  • gweedo767, on 10/11/2007, -8/+6Or look for "The Thing"
    http://gigglesugar.com/324414
    • plutpwnium, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1i actually 'LOL'ed at that man. Took me a bit to figure out what was wrong with having a man's arm around her shoulder... but then it clicked. Nice.
  • boonecafe, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1so this is seomoz hard at work
  • veoeluz2268, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Of course, this article is virtually useless for digg users; seeing as how many of them are experts at determining the validity of pictures and videos alike

    hehe :-P
  • slapthemonkey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Another software?
  • rmwaite, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Someone posted a link on YouTube or Google Video some time back to a Google seminar about detecting manipulated photos - I've tried finding it to no avail. Anyone have the link?
  • carl201167, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"Photoshop filled in the missing pixels by interpolating their values from the original recorded pixels. These regularly spaced new pixels are a specific combination of their surrounding pixels. Such regularities rarely occur in natural images, so their presence can be used as evidence of tampering."

    New "tamper brush" in CS4, anyone?
  • TheRadicalTimes, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0At least the hand wasn't groping her or anything ():)
  • loveddevol, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1wish i knew the name of the application.
  • modbox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2hmmm, why does the BountyLab flash demo have what looks like 8 xbox360 consoles in the background? do they have lots of free time between scanning images? lol
    • t0ny, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They look a ups or something. They dont look like xboxes to be.
    • pixelbasic, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1From same demo:

      “BountyFishing has exclusive rights for the use of the world’s most advanced digital imaging forensics software...” Exclusive rights? Yea verifying fish stories is a top priority in this world.

      And perhaps they should use that software on their own lab photos. For Christ sakes do they really need that kind of lab for a fishing site? Did someone really sink that much money into this? If so I have a bridge I’d like to sell them.
  • MrBilly, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3From the article: "Using human anatomy and other reference points Bounty Fishing verifies the authenticity of the ruler’s length."

    *Te he! : -)
  • plastiqmanb, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"Pictures only prove that you cant convince"



    -The format
  • gbouchard, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I swear man, the fish was that big... I don't care about the fact the the picture was photoshopped, it was still that big and you were not there to see it.
  • nakile, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Random hands grabbing your from the back point it out too.
  • superdoofus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1from the "land of 10,000 lakes" (minnesota, usa). this is the department of natural resources' website for verification of a possible state-record breaking physical sample of any certain species of fish:

    If you catch a fish that you think could be a record, follow these steps:

    * Weigh the fish on a state-certified scale (found at most bait shops and butcher shops), witnessed by two observers.
    * Take the fish to a DNR fisheries office for positive identification and a state record fish application.
    * Complete the State Record Fish submission form Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to download this file. and send it along with a clear, full-length photo of your fish to the address listed on the form.
    * Learn about becoming a Master Angler.

    http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fishing/staterecords.html

    also:
    the dnr office will examine the fish to validate that it was caught by fishing and not snagged or shot or found washed up on a shore or netted or by any means other than fishing. there was a muskellunge battle between two professional fisherman in wisconsin decades ago and because one of them unloaded a round in the animal's skull (which was common for 5-foot plus fish, ask any ocean fisherman or stugeon fisherman), a record was called into question and dismissed...because of photographic evidence. photographic evidence that was recorded on film.
    let alone the uproar that came to the public light thanks to depth of field/focal length and geometry investigation years after the catch regarding another record (i had heated debates about this with my old man for a while, he'sa dyed in the wool pike fisherman): seems another muskie was debunked due to photographic forensics (again, analog), based upon on a picture taken in the late fifties.

    http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Stories/A_new_angle_on_an_old_fishing_record.html


    this contention isn't anything new. in fact, it's more common than faked ufo pictures and video.
  • parkermauney, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1http://www.duggmirror.com/
  • elrican, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0interesting technology, the concept looks like a rip off of http://www.anglingmasters.com fishing tournament. I wonder what the software would say about this fish? http://www.anglingmasters.com/index.asp?sec=362&too=2005&eve=7&id=1375
    • theoutdoorsman, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I looked at the AM web site. Bounty doesn't require you to buy a ruler from them and they validate the photos(as described in the article). I think AM just guesses. I'm not sure how the "rip off" statement has any validity. The only similarity is they both hold fishing tournaments and any one site can't have exclusivity for that.
  • gbouchard, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Hey buddy, I won't see if if I'm not logged ;)

    and the 2 websites dont really compare, they don't validate the same way and the tournament prizes and species are different.
  • JohnnySasaki, on 11/19/2007, -0/+0interesting
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.