Dgital file. Tracking changes
Dgital file. Tracking changes
Author
Discussion

rex

Original Poster:

2,067 posts

296 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
Can any of you more computer literate people out there be able to help me. I have been taking digital clinical photographs for many years now and a point has come up from a collegue regarding tampering with the images. Is it possible to have an image (as a jpeg) where any changes are recorded in a way that cannot be tampered with? It would be nice to prove, if required that the image has not been doctored in anyway. This would also need to be the case with scanned images.

ehasler

8,579 posts

313 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
Hi Rex,

The only thing I've seen which does this is Canon's Digital Verification Kit. I've not however heard of anything that can be used to verify existing images taken on a different camera, or scanned in.

rex

Original Poster:

2,067 posts

296 months

Thursday 22nd June 2006
quotequote all
Cheers Ed.

Hows the LSE

My P38 needs the air suspension doing

ehasler

8,579 posts

313 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
rex said:
Cheers Ed.

Hows the LSE

My P38 needs the air suspension doing
It's great! Took it off roading for the 1st time a couple of weeks ago, and it was awesome! It does make the Tuscan look frugal though

beano500

20,854 posts

305 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
Nikon are due to release something soon...


But don't hold your breath, you know how long they can take


...called "Image Authentication Software" But it's due to be several £££s and (I think) compatable only with the new D2XS (or maybe the software upgrade on a standard 2X?)

size13

2,033 posts

287 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
When you say clinical, in what way do you mean?

medical, dental etc..?

Edited by size13 on Friday 23 June 10:43

poah

2,142 posts

258 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
if you take it in RAW you'll always have a file format that cannot be shopped.

rex

Original Poster:

2,067 posts

296 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
size13 said:
When you say clinical, in what way do you mean?

medical, dental etc..?

Edited by size13 on Friday 23 June 10:43

Dental

beano500

20,854 posts

305 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
poah said:
RAW
Good point...



Can you get your teeth into that?




...get your teeth into...






"It's the way I tell 'em"


Er...






'Scuse me

rex

Original Poster:

2,067 posts

296 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
poah said:
if you take it in RAW you'll always have a file format that cannot be shopped.


Doh. I'll put my brain into gear next time

size13

2,033 posts

287 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
rex said:
size13 said:
When you say clinical, in what way do you mean?

medical, dental etc..?

Edited by size13 on Friday 23 June 10:43

Dental
We're currently looking into this (just launched a new practice management system). There's no sure-fire way of doing it yet as images could come from your camera, x-ray machine or wherever.
Like said, RAW is almost there, but you can't get a raw image from all the digital hardware.

You could have a system that stores the changes seperately (like Rawshooter or Picassa) and they are linked to some kind of authentication. Don't know if DICOM covers anything relevant, http://medical.nema.org/

Edited by size13 on Friday 23 June 15:35

thebluemonkey

1,296 posts

270 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
There was a piece in the Nikon Pro magazine last year about the Police forensic photographers using D1X's. They burnt everything to disc as quickly as possible and then those discs were stored securely.

fergusd

1,251 posts

300 months

Friday 23rd June 2006
quotequote all
you could just run an md5 checksum over the image when you take it then store that checksum value somewhere safe or public . . . that way if there's any debate as to whether the image someone has is the same as the one you took . . . just compare the md5 checksum . . .

I'm sure that's not what you're trying to do tho' . . .

Fd