Can EXIF metadata prove one image is a Photoshop edit of another?
Asked 8/16/2014
175 views
2 answers
0
I have two very similar images. One contains the EXIF/IPTC field "Original Transmission Reference," and the other does not. Can that difference be used as evidence that one image is an edited or Photoshopped version of the other? More generally, how reliable is metadata alone for determining whether an image is original or manipulated?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
12y ago
2 Answers
6
Any metadata can be altered quite easily, therefore slightly sophisticated forgery may alter the metadata such that it looks more original than the actual original. It isn't difficult for instance, to forge the job id of photograph.
However, supposing that the metadata is just one out of many other evidences, the state of the metadata of a photograph can act as a supporting evidences. In your example, the quality of the photograph and that the supposedly photoshopped image is cropped smaller form a much stronger evidence than the metadata. A more direct evidence though, it is supposedly impossible for an outsider to alter the posting date on the Facebook post without leaving edit trails in Facebook's system, unless Facebook is part of a conspiracy to cover up "some unwanted, leaked image".
Whether this type of evidence will be good to establish beyond reasonable doubt for legal purposes, you need to ask a lawyer.
Originally by user5545. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user5545
12y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
No. Metadata alone is not reliable proof that one image is an edited version of another.
EXIF/IPTC fields can be removed, changed, or forged fairly easily, so the presence of an "Original Transmission Reference" field in one file and its absence in another does not by itself show which image is original or whether either was edited in Photoshop.
Metadata can still be a supporting clue when combined with stronger evidence, but it should not be treated as decisive. More useful indicators are differences in image quality, cropping, resampling, compression artifacts, and the known publication history of the files. In other words, metadata may help build a case, but it cannot reliably prove authenticity or manipulation on its own.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI12y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why are RAW files considered harder to manipulate than JPEGs?
Can digital cameras verify image authenticity, and how do photojournalists prove a file is original?
How can you prove authorship of a photo if it was shot only as JPEG?
How can I save the edited HDR Efex Pro image from Aperture on macOS High Sierra?
Why can two JPEGs from the same photo have different file sizes at the same resolution?