Exposing photo manipulation with inconsistent reflections

Abstract

The advent of sophisticated photo editing software has made it increasingly easier to manipulate digital images. Often visual inspection cannot definitively distinguish the resulting forgeries from authentic photographs. In response, forensic techniques have emerged to detect geometric or statistical inconsistencies that result from specific forms of photo manipulation. In this article we describe a new forensic technique that focuses on geometric inconsistencies that arise when fake reflections are inserted into a photograph or when a photograph containing reflections is manipulated. This analysis employs basic rules of reflective geometry and linear perspective projection, makes minimal assumptions about the scene geometry, and only requires the user to identify corresponding points on an object and its reflection. The analysis is also insensitive to common image editing operations such as resampling, color manipulations, and lossy compression. We demonstrate this technique with both visually plausible forgeries of our own creation and commercially produced forgeries.

References

1. Adelson, E. H. 2000. The New Cognitive Neurosciences, 2nd Ed. MIT Press, Chapter Lightness Perception and Lightness Illusions, 339--351.
2. Avidan, S. and Shamir, A. 2007. Seam carving for content-aware image resizing. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 3.
3. Bertamini, M., latto, R., and Spooner, A. 2003. The Venus effect: people's understanding of mirror reflections in paintings. Perception 32, 593--599.
4. Bertamini, M. and Parks, T. E. 2005. On what people know about images on mirrors. Cognition 98, 85--104.
5. Bravo, M. and Farid, H. 2001. Texture perception on folded surfaces. Perception 30, 7, 819--832.
6. Caprile, B. and Torre, V. 1990. Using vanishing points for camera calibration. Int. J. Comput. Vision 4, 127--140.
7. Cavanagh, P., Chao, J., and Wang, D. 2008. Reflections in art. Spat. Vis. 21, 3-5, 261--270.
8. Croucher, C. J., Bertamini, M., and Hecht, H. 2002. Naive optics: Understanding the geometry of mirror reflections. J. Exper. Psychl. Hum. Percept. Perform. 28, 3, 546--562.
9. Farid, H. 2009. A survey of image forgery detection. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 2, 26, 16--25.
10. Farid, H. and Bravo, M. 2010. Image forensic analyses that elude the human visual system. In Proceedings of the SPIE Symposium on Electronic Imaging.
11. Fridrich, J. 2009. Digital image forensic using sensor noise. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 26, 2, 26--37.
12. Fridrich, J., Soukal, D., and Lukas, J. 2003. Detection of copy move forgery in digital images. In Proceedings of the Digital Forensic Research Workshop.
13. Garry, M. and Gerrie, M. 2005. When photographs create false memories. Current Direct. Psychol. Sci. 14, 326--330.
14. Garry, M. and Wade, K. 2005. Actually, a picture is worth less than 45 words: Narratives produce more false memories than photographs. Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 12, 359--366.
15. Gloe, T., Winkler, A., and Borowka, K. 2010. Efficient estimation and large-scale evaluation of lateral chromatic aberration for digital image forensics. In Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Media Forensics and Security.
16. Grabler, F., Agrawala, M., Li, W., Dontcheva, M., and Igarashi, T. 2009. Generating photo manipulation tutorials by demonstration. ACM Trans. Graph. 28, 3.
17. Hartley, R. and Zisserman, A. 2004. Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Cambridge University Press.
18. Hays, J. and Efros, A. A. 2007. Scene completion using millions of photographs. ACM Trans. Graph. 26, 3.
19. Johnson, M. and Farid, H. 2007a. Detecting photographic composites of people. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Digital Watermarking.
20. Johnson, M. K. and Farid, H. 2005. Exposing digital forgeries by detecting inconsistencies in lighting. In Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia and Security Workshop. 1--10.
21. Johnson, M. K. and Farid, H. 2006. Exposing digital forgeries through chromatic aberration. In Proceedings of the ACM Multimedia and Security Workshop. 48--55.
22. Johnson, M. K. and Farid, H. 2007b. Exposing digital forgeries in complex lighting environments. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forens. Secur. 3, 2, 450--461.
23. Kee, E. and Farid, H. 2010. Exposing digital forgeries from 3-D lighting environments. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Forensics and Security.
24. Kelby, S. 2008. The Digital Photography Book. Peachpit Press.
25. Kirchner, M. 2010. Efficient estimation of CFA pattern configuration in digital camera images. In Proceedings of the SPIE Conference on Media Forensics and Security.
26. Kirchner, M. and Gloe, T. 2009. On resampling detection in re-compressed images. In Proceedings of the IEEE Workshop on Information Forensics and Security. 21--25.
27. Kubovy, M. 1986. The Psychology of Perspective and Renaissance Art. Cambridge University Press.
28. Light, K. 2004. Fonda, Kerry and photo fakery. The Washington Post. (2/28, A21).
29. Lukas, J., Fridrich, J., and Goljan, M. 2006. Digital camera identification from sensor noise. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forens. Secur. 1, 2, 205--214.
30. Montague, J. 2010. Basic Perspective Drawing. 5th Ed. John Wiley and Sons.
31. Ng, T.-T. and Chang, S.-F. 2004. A model for image splicing. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Image Processing.
32. Ostrovsky, Y., Cavanagh, P., and Sinha, P. 2005. Perceiving illumination inconsistencies in scenes. Perception 34, 1301--1314.
33. Pan, X. and Lyu, S. 2010. Detecting image region duplication using SIFT features. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. 1706--1709.
34. Peters, J. W. 2010. On The Economist's cover, only a part of the picture. The New York Times. (7/5).
35. Popescu, A. C. and Farid, H. 2004. Exposing digital forgeries by detecting duplicated image regions. Tech. rep. TR2004-515, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College.
36. Popescu, A. C. and Farid, H. 2005a. Exposing digital forgeries by detecting traces of re-sampling. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 53, 2, 758--767.
37. Popescu, A. C. and Farid, H. 2005b. Exposing digital forgeries in color filter array interpolated images. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 53, 10, 3948--3959.
38. Potter, M. 1976. Short-term conceptual memory for pictures. J. Exper. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Memory 2, 509--522.
39. Riess, C. and Angelopoulou, E. 2010. Scene illumination as an indicator of image manipulation. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Information Hiding.
40. Ritschel, T., Okabe, M., Thormählen, T., and Seidel, H.-P. 2009. Interactive reflection editing. In Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH Asia. 129:1--129:7.
41. Sacchi, D., Agnoli, F., and Loftus, E. 2007. Doctored photos and memory for public events. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 21, 1005--1022.
42. Shelbourne, T. 2007. Photoshop CS3 Photo Effects Cookbook. O'Rilly.
43. Sinha, P., Balas, B., Ostrovsky, Y., and Russell, R. 2006. Face recognition by humans: 19 results all computer vision researchers should know about. Proc. IEEE 94, 11, 1948--1962.
44. Sunkavalli, K., Johnson, M. K., Matusik, W., and Pfister, H. 2010. Multi-scale image harmonization. ACM Trans. Graph. 29, 4.
45. Vishwanath, D., Girshick, A., and Banks, M. 2005. Why pictures look right when viewed from the wrong place. Nature Neurosci. 10, 8, 1401--1410.
46. Wade, K., Garry, M., Read, J., and Lindsay, D. 2002. A picture is worth a thousand lies. Psychonom. Bull. Rev. 9, 597--603.
47. Wade, N. 2005. Clone scientist relied on peers and Korean pride. The New York Times (12/25).
48. Westheimer, G. and McKee, S. 1975. Visual acuity in the presence of retinal-image motion. J. Optic. Soc. Amer. 65, 847--850.

Index Terms

• Computing methodologies

  • Artificial intelligence

    • Computer vision

      • Image and video acquisition

        • 3D imaging

  • Computer graphics

• Social and professional topics

  • Computing / technology policy