Whoopdeedoo Posted July 24, 2017 Author #26 Share Posted July 24, 2017 The only thing I did was make the photo (which I took myself) smaller by resizing, to fit the site's size criteria. I just take photos and am not able to or interested in editing beyond making too large photos (473kb) into smaller, uploadable ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted July 24, 2017 #27 Share Posted July 24, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, OPS said: Hello Whoopdeedoo, Can you specify if this image has been edited? Where did you get this photo from? Did you take it yourself? According to my software, this picture has been edited.. See below: *** Searching Compression Signatures *** Signature: 0182408A81A4ABF04D4A34A8A5E98C58 Signature (Rotated): 012D821C6AB210E2A753BE053B8F55D0 File Offset: 0 bytes Chroma subsampling: 2x2 EXIF Make/Model: NONE EXIF Makernotes: NONE EXIF Software: NONE Searching Compression Signatures: (3347 built-in, 0 user(*) ) EXIF.Make / Software EXIF.Model Quality Subsamp Match? ------------------------- ----------------------------------- ---------------- -------------- CAM:[SONY ] [CYBERSHOT U ] [ ] Yes SW :[Adobe Photoshop 7.0 ] [Save As 07 ] SW :[Apple Quicktime ] [0466-0467 ] SW :[Digital Photo Professiona] [05 ] SW :[IJG Library ] [075 ] SW :[MS Paint ] [ ] SW :[MS Visio ] [ ] SW :[ZoomBrowser EX ] [low ] The following IJG-based editors also match this signature: SW :[GIMP ] [075 ] SW :[IrfanView ] [075 ] SW :[idImager ] [075 ] SW :[FastStone Image Viewer ] [075 ] SW :[NeatImage ] [075 ] SW :[Paint.NET ] [075 ] SW :[Photomatix ] [075 ] SW :[XnView ] [075 ] NOTE: JFIF COMMENT field is known software Based on the analysis of compression characteristics and EXIF metadata: ASSESSMENT: Class 1 - Image is processed/edited As the originally posted image had no metadata attached, I'm guessing you used software that makes guesses about the metadata/post-processing from the image's characteristics.. The OP has already said it was resized, so pretty much all bets are off if he is unwilling to post the original and it seems that is the case. Even posting images here involves them getting re-processed/compressed. FTR, I'm gunna take a wild guess that you used Jpegsnoop, which has these sort of provisos about its use: Quote JPEGsnoop can be used with reasonable confidence in identifying "processed" images, but what can we draw from the tool's assessment that an "Image has a high probability of being original"? ... only that the JPEG compression "signatures" and certain metadata elements match those expected from the indicated camera model(s).... Is this sufficient information to prove that an image is "original"? In a word, no. Important Note: For this, and related reasons, the tool should not be used as direct evidence for legal investigations! The pic in the OP had no metadata whatsoever. So unless we see the original... Edited July 24, 2017 by ChrLzs why does this silly editor keep adding lines to quotes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whoopdeedoo Posted July 24, 2017 Author #28 Share Posted July 24, 2017 This is all too complicated for me. I guess it was fun uploading an interesting photo at the time. But the scrutiny and stuff beyond my limited capabilities. I hope everyone has fun with their real ghosts and goblins. Out a here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubbly_Dooright Posted July 25, 2017 #29 Share Posted July 25, 2017 8 hours ago, Almighty Evan said: I can still hear Archie Bunker saying it. So, that's who I remember saying it in a certain way. Thanks for clarifying my memory! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now