Advertisement

Detecting Doctored Images

Chapter

Abstract

With the availability of powerful image-editing software, digital cameras, and a wealth of online imagery, almost anyone can doctor an image. Consequently, image hoaxes are now commonplace and people even expect that images of celebrities have been retouched. For many, seeing is no longer believing. While most doctored images are made for entertainment or artistic purposes, they have also shown up in courtrooms as evidence and in scientific publications. The presence of manipulated images in these settings is troubling and the field of digital image forensics has emerged to address this growing problem. This chapter provides an overview of current tools for detecting doctored images and discusses trends that have emerged in the field. Several tools are described in detail and references are provided for related techniques.

Keywords

Scale Invariant Feature Transform License Plate Color Filter Array Tamper Region Scale Invariant Feature Transform Feature 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Avcibas I, Bayram S, Memon N, Sankur B, Ramkumar M (2004) A classifier design for detecting image manipulations. In: 2004 International Conference on Image Processing, ICIP ’04, vol 4. pp 2645–2648, 2004Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ronen B, Jacobs DW (2003) Lambertian reflectance and linear subspaces. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 25(2):218–233Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blanz V, Vetter T (1999) A morphable model for the synthesis of 3D faces. In: Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH, pp 187–194, 1999Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen M, Fridrich J, Goljan M, Lukáš J (2008) Determining image origin and integrity using sensor noise. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 3(1):74–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chojnacki W, Brooks MJ (1994) Revisiting Pentland’s estimator of light source direction. J Opt Soc Am 11(1):118–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conotter V, Boato G, Farid H (2010) Detecting photo manipulations on signs and billboards. In: International Conference on Image Processing, pp 1–4, 2010Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Criminisi A, Reid I, Zisserman A (2000) Single view metrology. Int J Comput Vis 40(2):123–148MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Debevec PE, Malik J (1997) Recovering high dynamic range radiance maps from photographs. In: Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques (SIGGRAPH), 1997Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dirik AE, Sencar HT, Memon N (2008) Digital single lens reflex camera identification from traces of sensor dust. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur, 3(3):539–552Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Farid H (2006) Digital image ballistics from JPEG quantization. Technical Report TR2006-583, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, 2006Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Farid H (2008) Digital ballistics from JPEG quantization: a followup study. Technical Report TR2008-638, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, 2008Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Farid H, Bravo MJ (2010) Image forensic analyses that elude the human visual system. In: SPIE Symposium on Electronic, Imaging, pp 1–10, 2010Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faugeras O (1993) Three-Dimensional Computer Vision. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fischler MA, Bolles RC (1981) Random sample consensus: a paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography. Communications of the ACM 24(6):381–395MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jessica F, David S, Lukáš J (2003) Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images, In: Proceedings of DFRWS, 2003Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldman DB (2010) Vignette and exposure calibration and compensation. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, 32(12):2276–2288Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goljan M, Chen M, Fridrich J (2007) Identifying common source digital camera from image pairs. In: Proceedings of the IEEE ICIP, 2007Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goljan M, Fridrich J (2008) Camera identification from cropped and scaled images. In: Proceedings of the SPIE Electronic Imaging: Security, Forensics, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents X, vol 6819. 2008Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grossberg MD, Nayar SK (2004) Modeling the space of camera response functions. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 26(10):1272–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hartley R, Zisserman A (2004) Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Horn BKP (1970) Shape from shading; a method for obtaining the shape of a smooth opaque object from one view. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hsu Y-F, Chang S-F (2010) Camera response functions for image forensics: An automatic algorithm for splicing detection. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 5(4):816–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Johnson MK, Farid H (2005) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting inconsistencies in lighting. In: Proceedings of the 7th workshop on multimedia and security, MM&Sec ’05, pp. 1–10, 2005Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnson MK, Farid H (2006) Exposing digital forgeries through chromatic aberration. In: Proceedings of the 8th workshop on multimedia and security, MM&Sec ’06, pp 48–55. ACM, 2006Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Johnson MK, Farid H (2006) Metric measurements on a plane from a single image. Technical Report TR2006-579, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, 2006Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johnson MK, Farid H (2007) Exposing digital forgeries in complex lighting environments. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 2(3):450–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnson MK, Farid H (2008) Exposing digital forgeries through specular highlights on the eye. In: Information Hiding of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4567. pp. 311–325, 2008Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pravin K, Sudha N, Ser W (2011) Exposing digital image forgeries by detecting discrepancies in motion blur. IEEE Trans Multimedia 13(3):443–452Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kee E, Farid H (2010) Exposing digital forgeries from 3-D lighting environments. In: IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security, Seattle, WA, 2010Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kirchner M (2008) Fast and reliable resampling detection by spectral analysis of fixed linear predictor residue. In: Proceedings of the 10th workshop on multimedia and security, MM&Sec ’08, pp 48–55. ACM, 2008Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhouchen L, Rongrong W, Xiaoou T, Shum H-Y (2005) Detecting doctored images using camera response normality and consistency, In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2005Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vis 2(60):91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lukáš J, Fridrich J, Goljan M (2006) Digital camera identification from sensor pattern noise. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 1(2):205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lyu S (2010) Estimating vignetting function from a single image for image authentication. In: MM&Sec ’10, pp 3–12, 2010Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mahajan D, Ramamoorthi R, Curless B (2008) A theory of frequency domain invariants: Spherical harmonic identities for BRDF/lighting transfer and image consistency. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 30(2):197–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mahdian B, Saic S (2008) Blind authentication using periodic properties of interpolation. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 3(3):529–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nillius P, Eklundh J-O (2001) Automatic estimation of the projected light source direction. In: Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2001Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pan X, Lyu S (2010) Region duplication detection using image feature matching. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 5(4):758–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pentland A (1982) Finding the illuminant direction. J Opt Soc Am 72(4):448–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Popescu A, Farid H (2004) Statistical tools for digital forensics. In: 6th International Workshop on Information Hiding, 2004Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Popescu AC, Farid H (2004) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting duplicated image regions. Technical Report TR2004-515, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, 2004Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Popescu AC, Farid H (2005) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting traces of re-sampling. IEEE Trans Signal Process 53(2):758–767MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Popescu AC, Farid H (2005) Exposing digital forgeries in color filter array interpolated images. IEEE Trans Signal Process 53(10):3948–3959MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ramamoorthi R, Hanrahan P (2001) An efficient representation for irradiance environment maps. In: Proceedings of the 28th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques, SIGGRAPH ’01, pp 497–500. ACM Press, 2001Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ramamoorthi R, Hanrahan P (2001) On the relationship between radiance and irradiance: determining the illumination from images of a convex Lambertian object. J Opt Soc Am A 18:2448–2559MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Remondino F, El-Hakim S (2006) Image-based 3D modelling: A review. The Photogramm Rec 21(115):269–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sinha P (2000) Perceiving illumination inconsistencies. In: Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, vol 41(4):1192, 2000Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Szeliski R (2011) Computer Vision: Algorithms and Applications. Springer, New York, 2011Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Willson RG, Shafer SA (1994) What is the center of the image? J Opt Soc Am A 11(11):2946–2955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yerushalmy I, Hel-Or H (2011) Digital image forgery detection based on lens and sensor aberration. Int J Comput Vis 92(1):71–91MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zhang W, Cao X, Zhang J, Zhu J, Wang P (2009) Detecting photographic composites using shadows. In: IEEE Conference on Multimedia and Expo, pp 1042–1045, 2009Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations