Read on Twitter
I did a few things forensic'y things to see what I could come up with...
For anyone who doesn't care about the methodology, tools, or reasoning, here's the tl;dr:
"seems real... or a really good job"
Here's how YOU can start checking on your own.. https://twitter.com/D3m0A/status/1340266638092849157
For anyone who doesn't care about the methodology, tools, or reasoning, here's the tl;dr:
"seems real... or a really good job"
Here's how YOU can start checking on your own.. https://twitter.com/D3m0A/status/1340266638092849157
1. Reverse Image Searched via Google, SauceNAO, Yandex, PrimEyes, TinEye, Bing, etc.
I cropped out pieces of the 2 images to use.
Starting with the selfie:
Assuming the "selfie" is a background pic + them 'shopped in, I wanted to see about finding an "original" pic of the room.
I cropped out pieces of the 2 images to use.
Starting with the selfie:
Assuming the "selfie" is a background pic + them 'shopped in, I wanted to see about finding an "original" pic of the room.
No dice.
Nothing that was readily available on any of the (free) rev image searches listed above.
For your ease, here are some links you can check out to do some of your own checking:
http://duplichecker.com - goog, bing, yandex, tineye, baidu, sogou
Nothing that was readily available on any of the (free) rev image searches listed above.
For your ease, here are some links you can check out to do some of your own checking:
http://duplichecker.com - goog, bing, yandex, tineye, baidu, sogou
I also cropped out this piece, figuring I may be able to locate a previous pic of Kemp and his daughter that--if this is indeed a 'shop job--would have been superimposed over a background shot.
But also, no dice.
But also, no dice.
I even pulled out a pic of Kemp's daughter and used PrimEyes (scary how easy it is to find people) to see if I could find an "original" of that. (again, no dice)
Granted... could I have done a better job at slicing out pieces to search for?
Sure. Of course.
But the more I dug in, the more I felt like it was NOT manipulated (at least not by anyone who's job ISN'T retouching/faking photos)
Sure. Of course.
But the more I dug in, the more I felt like it was NOT manipulated (at least not by anyone who's job ISN'T retouching/faking photos)
Since I wasn't able to find any "originals" that faces/bodies had been added to, the next step is to get a *bit* (pun intended) more technical....
(..... we need to look at the bits and data in the image )
(..... we need to look at the bits and data in the image )
Now, you can use something like Imago ( https://github.com/redaelli/imago-forensics ) and a few other toolkits to dig into the image on your local machine.... or...
you can take advantage of some really great online tool suites that provide virtually everything you need.
you can take advantage of some really great online tool suites that provide virtually everything you need.
I've talked about #fotoforensics a number of times, but this morning I decided to use forensically. https://29a.ch/photo-forensics/
Magnifying edges to look for bad paste jobs yielded nothing. Everything looked as it should.
Error Level Analysis didn't have anything crazy jump out, even after playing with the settings.
Same with the Noise Analysis--no glaring issues.
Basically, all the checks came back ok
Error Level Analysis didn't have anything crazy jump out, even after playing with the settings.
Same with the Noise Analysis--no glaring issues.
Basically, all the checks came back ok
All in all... seem like legit photos--at least from the analysis methods I used.
Anything others use/would try that I missed?
@rev0lutn @D3m0A @spaceB0xx @2Spaceninja15 @8Notables @LeeSpacey
Anything others use/would try that I missed?
@rev0lutn @D3m0A @spaceB0xx @2Spaceninja15 @8Notables @LeeSpacey
