tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12511094.post115488506832381384..comments2012-01-12T23:33:28.174+02:00Comments on Thoughts from Id: Go Reuters, go ABC!Mikko Särelähttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11957027213024679447noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12511094.post-1155194007067702292006-08-10T10:13:00.000+03:002006-08-10T10:13:00.000+03:00"'m saying that we should create pressure toward n..."'m saying that we should create pressure toward news photographers that they would get cameras that have such a feature."<BR/><BR/>I agree. Luckily there is already a quite strong demand for image verification system.<BR/><BR/>A verification system could be done in such a way that you can turn the feature on (off) if needed.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"It's great that such features for some cameras already exist. "<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately those canon data verification kits are very expensive (around $700) :/<BR/><BR/><BR/>"There are many ways of manipulating pictures in a propagandist way, which are not so easy to find out. Do you think we should just accept that any photograph we see in newspapers may be doctored?"<BR/><BR/>Yep, I know. I think that an image verification system is important. I only hope that some day there is a text verification system also. :D It's more importantAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12511094.post-1155163058707694232006-08-10T01:37:00.000+03:002006-08-10T01:37:00.000+03:00I wouldn't dream of trying to make such a feature ...I wouldn't dream of trying to make such a feature compulsory for professional cameras. I'm a libertarian and believe in the working of a free society. Instead, I'm saying that we should create pressure toward news photographers that they would get cameras that have such a feature. Media companies might want to require shots to be taken with such cameras to ensure their authenticity and thus maintain their reputation. <BR/><BR/>You might, or might not, end up buying camera with such feature in future - but it would be your choice. <BR/><BR/>It's great that such features for some cameras already exist. <BR/><BR/>The alterations in the picture shown were simply to notice, but not all alterations that can be done to a picture are. There are many ways of manipulating pictures in a propagandist way, which are not so easy to find out. Do you think we should just accept that any photograph we see in newspapers may be doctored? [A photo of course can always be manipulated through choice of lighting, framing, etc. but the things that are in the photo actually should have to exist.]Mikko Särelähttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11957027213024679447noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12511094.post-1155109351452538372006-08-09T10:42:00.000+03:002006-08-09T10:42:00.000+03:00"Make each professional digital camera have a secu..."Make each professional digital camera have a secure chip with a unique public key/private key pair that is used to sign each photograph with the date and time of taking the photo, possibly a sequence number."<BR/><BR/>I'm definitely against that. I own a professional camera and I don't want such a feature.<BR/><BR/>Reuters and other publishers can simply buy Canon dSLR cameras and Canon Data Verification Kits<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/7fb63<BR/><BR/><BR/>By the way, everyone who has used Photoshop can easily see that the extra smoke in Reuters' image have been added with Clone Brush tool. The doctored image simply sucks. Such a manipulation can be done in less than 5 minutes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12511094.post-1154887745299100732006-08-06T21:09:00.000+03:002006-08-06T21:09:00.000+03:00The same also applies to us bloggers. It would be ...The same also applies to us bloggers. It would be nice to be able to publish photos which people could be certain of that they had not been tampered with.Mikko Särelähttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11957027213024679447noreply@blogger.com