Is a DNG/PEF as good as a negative...

johnmflores · 07-13-2010, 09:39 AM

...from a legal perspective?

There's been some discussion recently about photographer rights and such. Which got me thinking, in an era where photo manipulation is cheap and easy, what kind of photography would be deemed unmanipulated in a court of law? I'm not aware of any programs that can output DNG/PEF files.

Marc Sabatella · 07-13-2010, 10:00 AM

Maybe not commercially available programs, but it would be quite simple for someone to write a program to do it. I have to believe that should it ever come down to a legal issue, a lawyer for the side claiming the DNG/PEF was manipulated would have no trouble demonstrating the viability of that claim - you could probably pay a college student $20 to hack up a manipulated raw file.

johnmflores · 07-13-2010, 10:38 AM

Interesting link regarding the use of digital images in the courtroom, from the point of view of forensics professionals...

http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/41/04701145/0470114541.pdf

deejjjaaaa · 07-13-2010, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by johnmflores

.I'm not aware of any programs that can output DNG/PEF files.

such programs are called firmware (besides things like Adobe DNG converter or similar that outputs DNG files)... you can find them in every camera...

MPrince · 07-13-2010, 01:54 PM

Thing is, if I'm not mistaken, a raw file is just data--nothing more than a series of 1's and 0's. You can't view a raw file. The image you see when looking at a raw file is actually an imbedded jpeg. I would imagine it's possible, through software, to determine if a raw file has been altered but hey, I'm no expert at this type of thing.

Mr. Ben · 07-13-2010, 02:17 PM

A raw file is pretty rock solid for evidence sake (even the cops shoot digital nowadays). Being on the original card is probably even better, since that's the original point where the data was created/written. In general, if you are particularly worried, the less you "handle" your original raw files, the better since they have the "purest" information from when you pressed the shutter button.

also, here's a nifty page that discusses digital photos in legal situations. The Admissibility of Digital Photographs in Court

RioRico · 07-13-2010, 08:55 PM

I won't comment on laws and evidentiary rules, which vary between jurisdictions. But as a former software engineer (burnt-out codemonkey) I know that an isolated datum is worthless, and has value or meaning only within a context. The legal context includes chain-of-possession logs -- who has had access to that datum? Who could have diddled it?

And any data can be generated by software. I'd have much more confidence that a set of digital photos of a subject are accurate, than a single photo, but even such a set could be generated, and may appear 'true' when they're not. Such an imitation of reality is the goal of cine CGI. False RAW images indistinguishable from reality will soon be easy to generate, if they aren't already. For greater confidence, we'd need multiple images from multiple sources, that can be compared for continuity. Do pics shot with different cameras controlled by different people agree?

I hereby predict that falsified RAW images will be a big problem in the future.

ChooseAName · 07-14-2010, 04:53 AM

A WORM (write once, read many) memory card might be the answer.

RioRico · 07-14-2010, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by ChooseAName

A WORM (write once, read many) memory card might be the answer.

So I generate some false image data in software on a computer, insert the WORM card, write the false RAW data to the card, and VOILA! Who could tell that the data came from that computer, and not from the processor+firmware of a camera? Any datum can be faked. I'll say that again: ANY DATUM CAN BE FAKED. Its source can be spoofed. The only protection is to utilize data from multiple independent sources. In many many cases, fakery isn't cost-effective, and nobody will bother to fake data. In some very very few cases, the benefit would be worth the effort. As image processing warez develop further, detecting faked data will become virtually impossible. Bother.

johnmflores · 07-20-2010, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

The only protection is to utilize data from multiple independent sources. In many many cases, fakery isn't cost-effective, and nobody will bother to fake data. In some very very few cases, the benefit would be worth the effort. As image processing warez develop further, detecting faked data will become virtually impossible. Bother.

Love them or hate them, but cell-phone cameras already play an important role in documenting incidents in public places.

At the end of the day, cameraphone-wielding citizens may end up being more important to maintaining civil order and documenting the abuses of power by police, security guards and others than the 2nd Amendment.

stevebrot · 07-21-2010, 12:39 PM

In Lightroom, I can export any image to DNG with modifications intact. Camera PEF or Pentax DNG (yes, there is a difference) is another matter. As noted above, I would expect that a smart college kid would be able to reverse engineer a doctored image. Heck, I might even be able to do it.

Steve

Marc Sabatella · 07-21-2010, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

In Lightroom, I can export any image to DNG with modifications intact.

Sort of, but not really. the raw image data is never modified by lightroom - only the jpeg preview embedded within the file. And of course, the list of adjustments you made may be recorded within the file as well. That's how LR can make it appear the image data really contains your edits. But it doesn't. You'd really have to write your own software to alter the image data.

stevebrot · 07-21-2010, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Sort of, but not really. the raw image data is never modified by lightroom - only the jpeg preview embedded within the file. And of course, the list of adjustments you made may be recorded within the file as well. That's how LR can make it appear the image data really contains your edits. But it doesn't. You'd really have to write your own software to alter the image data.

Damn! I was so happy in my delusion!

Steve

reeftool · 07-23-2010, 05:26 PM

Every one of our trucks at work has a one use disposable film camera in the accident kit for the driver to take pictures of the accident scene. The corporate powers want film shots, not digital shots for legal reasons. We have over a thousand trucks running around the country so I'm sure this issue has come up. The camera kits come from a specialty company who manufacture this product specificly for this purpose.

07-13-2010, 09:39 AM	#1
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Is a DNG/PEF as good as a negative... ...from a legal perspective? There's been some discussion recently about photographer rights and such. Which got me thinking, in an era where photo manipulation is cheap and easy, what kind of photography would be deemed unmanipulated in a court of law? I'm not aware of any programs that can output DNG/PEF files.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
PEF or DNG?	Jodokast96	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	60	03-22-2010 11:34 AM
PEF or DNG	jackbullet	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	7	08-10-2009 12:31 PM
PEF vs DNG	Riktar	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	39	03-01-2009 01:05 AM
PEF vs DNG	MikeD	Photographic Technique	3	01-24-2008 05:17 AM
PEF vs. DNG	martin s	Pentax DSLR Discussion	20	09-11-2007 03:26 AM

07-13-2010, 10:00 AM	#2
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Maybe not commercially available programs, but it would be quite simple for someone to write a program to do it. I have to believe that should it ever come down to a legal issue, a lawyer for the side claiming the DNG/PEF was manipulated would have no trouble demonstrating the viability of that claim - you could probably pay a college student $20 to hack up a manipulated raw file.

07-13-2010, 10:38 AM	#3
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361 Original Poster	Interesting link regarding the use of digital images in the courtroom, from the point of view of forensics professionals... http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/41/04701145/0470114541.pdf

07-13-2010, 11:30 AM	#4
deejjjaaaa Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: steel city / rust belt Posts: 2,043	Originally posted by johnmflores .I'm not aware of any programs that can output DNG/PEF files. such programs are called firmware (besides things like Adobe DNG converter or similar that outputs DNG files)... you can find them in every camera...

07-13-2010, 01:54 PM	#5
MPrince Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: WV Posts: 1,495	Thing is, if I'm not mistaken, a raw file is just data--nothing more than a series of 1's and 0's. You can't view a raw file. The image you see when looking at a raw file is actually an imbedded jpeg. I would imagine it's possible, through software, to determine if a raw file has been altered but hey, I'm no expert at this type of thing.

07-13-2010, 02:17 PM	#6
Mr. Ben Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 46	A raw file is pretty rock solid for evidence sake (even the cops shoot digital nowadays). Being on the original card is probably even better, since that's the original point where the data was created/written. In general, if you are particularly worried, the less you "handle" your original raw files, the better since they have the "purest" information from when you pressed the shutter button. also, here's a nifty page that discusses digital photos in legal situations. The Admissibility of Digital Photographs in Court

07-13-2010, 08:55 PM	#7
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I won't comment on laws and evidentiary rules, which vary between jurisdictions. But as a former software engineer (burnt-out codemonkey) I know that an isolated datum is worthless, and has value or meaning only within a context. The legal context includes chain-of-possession logs -- who has had access to that datum? Who could have diddled it? And any data can be generated by software. I'd have much more confidence that a set of digital photos of a subject are accurate, than a single photo, but even such a set could be generated, and may appear 'true' when they're not. Such an imitation of reality is the goal of cine CGI. False RAW images indistinguishable from reality will soon be easy to generate, if they aren't already. For greater confidence, we'd need multiple images from multiple sources, that can be compared for continuity. Do pics shot with different cameras controlled by different people agree? I hereby predict that falsified RAW images will be a big problem in the future.

07-14-2010, 04:53 AM	#8
ChooseAName Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Southeast USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 390	A WORM (write once, read many) memory card might be the answer.

07-14-2010, 06:43 AM	#9
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by ChooseAName A WORM (write once, read many) memory card might be the answer. So I generate some false image data in software on a computer, insert the WORM card, write the false RAW data to the card, and VOILA! Who could tell that the data came from that computer, and not from the processor+firmware of a camera? Any datum can be faked. I'll say that again: ANY DATUM CAN BE FAKED. Its source can be spoofed. The only protection is to utilize data from multiple independent sources. In many many cases, fakery isn't cost-effective, and nobody will bother to fake data. In some very very few cases, the benefit would be worth the effort. As image processing warez develop further, detecting faked data will become virtually impossible. Bother.

07-20-2010, 12:59 PM	#10
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361 Original Poster	Originally posted by RioRico The only protection is to utilize data from multiple independent sources. In many many cases, fakery isn't cost-effective, and nobody will bother to fake data. In some very very few cases, the benefit would be worth the effort. As image processing warez develop further, detecting faked data will become virtually impossible. Bother. Love them or hate them, but cell-phone cameras already play an important role in documenting incidents in public places. At the end of the day, cameraphone-wielding citizens may end up being more important to maintaining civil order and documenting the abuses of power by police, security guards and others than the 2nd Amendment.

07-21-2010, 12:39 PM	#11
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	In Lightroom, I can export any image to DNG with modifications intact. Camera PEF or Pentax DNG (yes, there is a difference) is another matter. As noted above, I would expect that a smart college kid would be able to reverse engineer a doctored image. Heck, I might even be able to do it. Steve

07-21-2010, 03:15 PM	#12
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by stevebrot In Lightroom, I can export any image to DNG with modifications intact. Sort of, but not really. the raw image data is never modified by lightroom - only the jpeg preview embedded within the file. And of course, the list of adjustments you made may be recorded within the file as well. That's how LR can make it appear the image data really contains your edits. But it doesn't. You'd really have to write your own software to alter the image data.

07-21-2010, 04:50 PM	#13
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Sort of, but not really. the raw image data is never modified by lightroom - only the jpeg preview embedded within the file. And of course, the list of adjustments you made may be recorded within the file as well. That's how LR can make it appear the image data really contains your edits. But it doesn't. You'd really have to write your own software to alter the image data. Damn! I was so happy in my delusion! Steve

07-23-2010, 05:26 PM	#14
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,555	Every one of our trucks at work has a one use disposable film camera in the accident kit for the driver to take pictures of the accident scene. The corporate powers want film shots, not digital shots for legal reasons. We have over a thousand trucks running around the country so I'm sure this issue has come up. The camera kits come from a specialty company who manufacture this product specificly for this purpose.