Is there a way to tell if you have edited a pic?

[bethard728]

I'm sure that sounds like a dumb question but I don't know the answer so I gotta ask. I'm getting ready to choose my pictures for my county fair entries and the rules say non-manipulated digitals. Now, I know the judges likely won't know if I edited or not because they will just see prints. However, I want to be honest and use pics that I know I have not edited. I have a few pics that I took a few months ago and I'm not sure if I edited them or not. If I did, I know it was minor, maybe a contrast boost and some cropping but still I don't remember. So, is there a way to tell? Like maybe from EXIF data or something? Thanks so much. Appreciate your input!

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by bethard728

I'm sure that sounds like a dumb question but I don't know the answer so I gotta ask. I'm getting ready to choose my pictures for my county fair entries and the rules say non-manipulated digitals. Now, I know the judges likely won't know if I edited or not because they will just see prints. However, I want to be honest and use pics that I know I have not edited. I have a few pics that I took a few months ago and I'm not sure if I edited them or not. If I did, I know it was minor, maybe a contrast boost and some cropping but still I don't remember. So, is there a way to tell? Like maybe from EXIF data or something? Thanks so much. Appreciate your input!

You know, that's a real good question. Unless it's either very obvious, or a very sloppily done edit, I would think that there is not any way to know...but just educated guess on my part

Vinnie

[mclean8]

nope, no way to tell if edits have been done, if they are done right. particularly on prints because you can't pixel peep. but the more elaborate the edit, the better it needs to be to avoid detection.

another way to look at it though, is that every digital image is edited. whether it is done automatically by your camera just after capture, or at the computer a longer while after capturing the image, there is editing. all digital images would look soft without some sharpening, white balance is applied to interpret the image data into colours and contrast adjustments are almost always made.

the contest should be more specific about editing, i agree with 'no cloning' ie taking pixels from another location in the image, or a different image, and putting them over defects in the original. but contrast, levels, saturation, sharpening are all required in my opinion.

unless you shot a raw image and converted it to tiff with no adjustments and printed that, then your image has been 'edited'.

rambling now, but no one would expect a film shooter to only stick to one brand of developer, only the recommended dilution and developing times. so a digital shooter should be able to pick the contrast, adjust white balance and tweak your exposure at the very minimum.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by mclean8

nope, no way to tell if edits have been done, if they are done right. particularly on prints because you can't pixel peep. but the more elaborate the edit, the better it needs to be to avoid detection.

another way to look at it though, is that every digital image is edited. whether it is done automatically by your camera just after capture, or at the computer a longer while after capturing the image, there is editing. all digital images would look soft without some sharpening, white balance is applied to interpret the image data into colours and contrast adjustments are almost always made.

the contest should be more specific about editing, i agree with 'no cloning' ie taking pixels from another location in the image, or a different image, and putting them over defects in the original. but contrast, levels, saturation, sharpening are all required in my opinion.

unless you shot a raw image and converted it to tiff with no adjustments and printed that, then your image has been 'edited'.

rambling now, but no one would expect a film shooter to only stick to one brand of developer, only the recommended dilution and developing times. so a digital shooter should be able to pick the contrast, adjust white balance and tweak your exposure at the very minimum.

Well put...thanks for your thoughts on this

[LoveDSLR]

Originally Posted by bethard728

So, is there a way to tell? Like maybe from EXIF data or something?

The Image Authentication software from Nikon permits verification via a personal computer as to whether an image has been processed or edited after it was taken.

It is mainly used as a "chain of evidence" by law enforcement and other government agencies, the media, insurance companies and a variety of other business applications and requirements.

[Gulpa]

From a very file level managment perspective: your PC would record the "Created Date\Time" and the "Modified Date\Time". If the latter is greater than former, then you've edited the photo.

[JerInTheBox]

Originally Posted by Gulpa

From a very file level managment perspective: your PC would record the "Created Date\Time" and the "Modified Date\Time". If the latter is greater than former, then you've edited the photo.

Yup, that's probably the best way. I was gonna say that if you did any cropping the resolution would be different from the camera's default, but the dates are probably all you need to check, can't think why the edited would show the same date/time as the original.

[bethard728]

Thanks everyone!

[sybren]

If you're going to edit, you might as well change the EXIF tags to match the creation timestamp with the modification timestamp.

Most of the time with "no editing" they mean "don't do anything you wouldn't be able to do in a dark room with negatives". Well, you can do a *lot* in the dark room...

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by sybren

If you're going to edit, you might as well change the EXIF tags to match the creation timestamp with the modification timestamp.

Most of the time with "no editing" they mean "don't do anything you wouldn't be able to do in a dark room with negatives". Well, you can do a *lot* in the dark room...

Yeah, you can do a lot in the darkroom. You can dodge, burn, crop, tone, use high contrast paper, different processing chemicals, and maybe more...why should you be limited in the "digital darkroom" to, at least be able to do the same?