NEF file fraud

[defaultw4x9l13t6pt5]

I have two paths / curves which are side by side and I stroked the one on the right. I increase that stroke to 100 ... and then I see the stroke show behind the non stroked curve on the left. Does this mean that the image I traced was designed multi-layered and the image which has the stroke showing behind (left) was actually the top layer in the original photo.  I am trying to use illy to determine the true make-up of the original photo.

This issue is very important and your answer may be helpful in a Law Matter. I have post a picture which shows strokes on the wall to the right of the dresser yet it strokes through.  Thank you

subject renamed by moderator for clarity (was Strokes question for)

[Doug A Roberts]

I don't see what you mean by 'stroke' in that image. I just see a photo with a random path selected.

[Jacob Bugge]

defaultw,

As I (mis)understand it, you have some black paths round the selected one with straight segments, including one to the right.

However, the spine and the Anchor Points of the unstroked path will appear fully visible whether it is above or beneath the other one. The only way you can see directly whether it is on top is to give it a bright (such as yellow) stroke which will show on top of the black one if on top. But that only reflects the stacking order of the paths in the Image/Live Trace which can also be seen in the Layers panel (after expansion).

And in any case, the stacking order of non overlapping paths created by tracing reveals nothing about layers in imagery traced.

And in any case, a photo only consists of a single layer of pixels, as does a JPEG file. It is possible to edit/change/manipulate a JPEG file in different applications, including Photoshop, applying different layers and thereby producing multi layered imagery. But saved as a JPEG, those layers will be destroyed leaving only one layer of pixels, all information of underlying parts deleted.

So I am afraid that any editing of an original photo can only be revealed/proved by (your having access to) the actual file in the editing application.

[defaultw4x9l13t6pt5]

Thank you for responding.  I am investigating a .NEF fraud and since iLLY cannot open an nef, the file is converted to jpg by default. Let me try my question is the following way....

1. I trace the jpg and then expand it to make the paths editable

2. I select anything (paths / Curves) that turns blue while mousing over the image.  I am unclear of the difference between paths and curves. If I select something in the expanded image and it turns BLUE....is it a path or a curve?

3. I apply a stroke and choose 100 width. when I do so the stroke sometimes appears to generate itself under areas which I did not intend to stroke and some times the stroke expands beyond the boundind box of the image itself.

4. My question is: If I expand a stroke and it appears under another area in the photo, does that mean or indicate that the original photo was edited with an app that can produce layers, such as photoshop.  Thanks

[Ton Frederiks]

It makes no sense to open a jpeg version of an Nikon .nef raw file.

Nikon software and apps like Photoshop and Lighroom can open files in the .nef format.

[Anna Lander]

You see, the vector image is a different thing from the raster one. When you trace the image and expand it, you create a new art object. Each colored area on the original JPG became a closed shape, and the Trace module makes them a bit bigger than the original areas to overlap the new shapes and avoid the holes. So, the final appearance of the vector version says nothing about any properties and features of the original raster image. This is not a way to check them.
"Curves" and "Paths" in this case mean the same thing, the shape contour.

When you roll over the vector shape in Illustrator, the view module highlights the edges for more comfortable work. The color of this highlighting depends on the layer properties. The default layer in the new document has light-blue highlighting. And yes, if some parts of the shapes are overlapped, you can see this highlighting of one shape edges partially "under" the other one. This also means nothing about the original raster image.

[defaultw4x9l13t6pt5]

Thank you Anna,

I understand what you are saying here. The problem here is editing the NEF file in the best way possible. If I may explain what we are up against in this legal matter.  A file was edited / created using a program like photoshop, Inkscape or other and after the edits were completed the image itself was reshot with a digital Camera (we believe using a Light Table) to achieve the NEF format.  It is easy to see that the photos were reshot but we have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Also, because this crime was committed between 2007 -10 we know that there were no programs available to edit NEF's.  Nikon has confirmed this.

Now we have reshot photos in both NEF and Jpg which the camera produces automatically so what we have not been able to figure out is how to decipher the NEF files properly.  We know we can get Nikon software as well as Photoshop and Lightroom and even Inkscape but using these apps it seems we are not able to drill down into the file but rather enhance a fraudulently produced file.  Can you see our dilemma here?

I could send you an example if you think you have a sokution.   Thank You,

David

[Ton Frederiks]

"Also, because this crime was committed between 2007 -10 we know that there were no programs available to edit NEF's".

Around 2003 .nef files could be opened by Photoshop with the Camera Raw plugin.

See: https://helpx.adobe.com/sea/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html

[defaultw4x9l13t6pt5]

You seem quite knowledgeable about this stuff. However Nikon did tell me
that there were no applications that could edit NEF at the level that they
can today. Since we do not use Photoshop for anything NEF we strive to find
answers elsewhere. One of our partners uses Illy but you have made sense in
your response earlier and we will look in another direction.

The question still remains, is there a way to detect the fraudulent edits
in an NEF file that you know about. If you have direct information in a
matter like this then I would be willing to offer ---.00

Thank you.

[Ton Frederiks]

I would recommend Photoshop to detect tampering with an image.

[Anna Lander]

If they reshot the image, they did not need to edit and save it as NEF. They could open the original NEF (Nicon raw file) by any program that has a RAW plagin (e.g. Photoshop), then save in any rasrter format, and then reshoot. Photoshop is the best way for your task. It can find the edited areas comparing the pixels order in the image. But even file metadata will show you the last shot properties, not the original one's.

[defaultw4x9l13t6pt5]

Hello again Anna,

In response,  think about my question in terms of a criminal matter where the nef file is the target.  There is a car with a oerson sitting in the drivers seat and the car and driver were shot using a Nikon Camera.  Now the very same car has to be used in a re-dited version where the original background does not exist any longer.  In order for that car and driver to exist in the new edited image which was done in a computer, the image has to be reshot again with a Nikon Camera. It should be clear in this senario that the computer edits would be done on the jpg file and could be saved to any format.   Now that re edited jpg image needs to be presented as a NEF.  Since a jpg cannot be converted back into an NEF file (as far as I know) that newly edited jpg file needs to be printed out, laid on a 'Light Table' where the Nikon Camera is mounted above and reshot to achieve the NEF format. Remember that this has happen 2007 -10.  Now when the 'Light Table' shot images are copied from the camera to computer, there are 2 sets of formats... NEF and JPEG.  It is true that the images after being reshot are 'NEF' but they have been reshot on a 'Light Table' to reflect the fraudulent edits.  Therein lies the problem, we have NEF negatives which we know are fraud from the information above and we have to find a way to show it.  This called 'NEF FRAUD' and it is the new way to commit such an offence with the Digital Negatives.  This should be an eye opener for the unsuspecting photographers because of haw easy it is to have their work compromised. I have added a photo below that should everything into perspective.

Thank you for listening

[Anna Lander]

Thank you!
This fraud may be done not only with NEF format but also any RAW format (Canon, Sony, etc.) It's a raster area, and you can find the best recommendations on Photoshop forum. I'll try to show the direction.

Any printing technology leaves traces. Printed and then reshot image will not be continious. When you zoom the image as close as possible, you will see the raster. Regular raster is evident, stochastic raster is less visible, but even with a very high resolution you'll see dots and spaces between them.
Here is a good article about different rasters:
http://the-print-guide.blogspot.com/2010/01/fmstochastic-screening.html.

Compare the photos on the illustrations. They show very well where to look at.

[Jacob Bugge · Accepted solution]

defaultw,

Firstly, I believe it is better to ask over here, in the Photshop forum, as Ton said,

https://community.adobe.com/t5/Photoshop/bd-p/photoshop

Secondly, I believe there may be clues in discrepancies inherent in the reshooting on a (flat) light table, revealed by inevitable subtle variations (more in equipment more than 10 years old).

Edit: Anna knows so much more than I here, including what she said while I was delayed in writing this.

[defaultw4x9l13t6pt5]

Yes I think you are right. However, since I am playing catch-up here it would be very helpful if someone would accept one of the files and tryout what you about the discrepancies since I have to learn from what I see and hear from here....

and another thing is that all the images are glossed over where one cannot see anything such as one would be able to see hair for example.  It's like taking a picture of something under glass. The Camera allegedly used was a Nikon D200 and was considered a very powerful camera for its times in 2007.

[Anna Lander · Accepted solution]

Could you please share a part of the image (any, by your choice, at least 500x500 px) without any additional editing? We could try to see and show where to look at it.

[defaultw4x9l13t6pt5]

I will do this asap and I thank you for weighing in. When I login to the
comm I get lost and don't know how to directly find you for instance so I
find myself searching in circles. If you can respond in such a way that I
can get directly to you it would be helpful.

Because you are the only one who has offered to look at a file(s) I am
going to place files on my server and give the address to the forum. These
are 3872 x 2592 Nikon standards. I will need some time to do this but they
will be available for downloading by end of day.

This is the biggest moment I have encountered in over 10 years. I am
overwhelmed.

Thank you Adobe Forum

[Jacob Bugge · Accepted solution]

defaultw,

As you can see at the top of the page, we are now in the Photoshop ecosystem forum so all our Photoshop friends can also see this and join in, and the title is more eye catching, both thanks to a moderator friend.

In order to get unlost when signed in, you can click the Bell button (caption saying Notification) at the top right next to your avatar and see the (latest entry of each kind of) activity here; and you can also (bookmark and) use this link to your own About page,

https://community.adobe.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/20886776

You can get back here either way by just clicking any of the entries; you may notice that they refer to this thread by its original title, which also occurs in the browser Tab; that is owing to a forum bug still unmended.

Your plan of posting a link here is indeed the best, giving all our knowledgeable friends an opportunity to have a look at files.

[Jacob Bugge · Accepted solution]

Indeed, defaultw, and I believe that the best way is to involve a wider circle of helpers with professional knowledge about the matters involved.

In order to build on everything here, rather than your having to start over, I hope a moderator will move all this to the Photoshop forum; all hitherto posters here will be notified about further contributions through through their Notification feed (the Bell icon at the top right of every page).

A moderator?

[Anna Lander]

1. If the photo has JPG format, it can't be layered. It is possible only for TIFF or PSD formats.
2. There are (at least, visible) 4 big spots and 1 path that seems to be non-stroked. Are these spots paths? Did you apply brushes or strokes? 

Please, mark the part of the image you interested in, Now your question is a bit unclear.

[Stephen Marsh]

Have you engaged the services of a professional digital imaging foresnsics expert? If not you should.

[defaultw4x9l13t6pt5]

To the people at the Adobe Community,What your seeing here in the photos I
have presented is one of the worst frauds and attacks of a 'Black Home' in
Canada's history. For years people have been afraid to assist due to the
racial aspect of this crime. Many others have been supportive but did not
have image knowledge and could not offer any assistance in the area I see
coming from within the Adobe Community. There have been many people who
have suffered as a result of this fraud, and although it has been over 10
years since this fight began ...... In less than one week we heard from
someone named Anna who offered some words that gave us strength when we
were on our knees and also in this very week the RCMP / Police have agreed
to meet with us as well.

I am so overwhelmed that I barely believe this is happening. I believe the
pictures I present here (Link) were edited using Photoshop / Illustrator
and possibly Gimp and Inkscape. In my whole life I have never been able to
afford Photoshop or Illustrator and if I could've, then perhaps I would've
seen the power and willingness to help from the Adobe Community. If any
one of the pictures is deemed fraud and we can prove it in such a way that
others can see it too....We get our lives back!

I thank you.

All pictures shown are fraudulent:
https://share.icloud.com/photos/0HXIegkXucmFc7JjVld-DKykQ

If you have any issues with the link please let me know ASAP as this a
first time for me.

[D Fosse]

I'm trying to get up to speed and don't really know what I'm supposed to look for here.

Note: I think this should be handed over to a professional forensic service. These are just my immediate observations.

But the metadata present in these jpegs give some clues. Two examples:

In both cases it's consistent with the actual scene in the photos. Focal length, shutter speed/aperture, and flash firing. Note that if metadata says the flash fired, it's the built-in camera flash unit or a mounted on-camera flash. If this was shot on a repro table, you'd need to use remote flash triggering either from the hot shoe or the flash sync outlet, and that shows as flash not fired in metadata.

As for the images themselves, they are of good technical quality and sharpness, and I see no sign of second-generation repro. Getting a good result out of that is in fact very difficult and the first casualty is usually the contrast curve, which will require extensive tweaking to look natural.

I know. This probably isn't very helpful.

[defaultw4x9l13t6pt5]

Hello,

could you or anybody looking at this post please understand the following statement.

In the images I presented there is one pressing concern that needs an Adobe user review. image DSC_0994. 

In this image the roof has been erased and one can see the trees sitting right on top of the fascia boards.  I am uploading an image showing the roof the day after fire and it should answer the question asked about 'Knowing what to look for'. The Link. https://share.icloud.com/photos/0HXIegkXucmFc7JjVld-DKykQ

[Anna Lander]

What we can see by naked eyes: there is some blurriness on the other photos comparing to yours:

I took the images with a similar distance to the wall to see the details. And, as you can see, the latter one is a bit blurry and noisy comparing to your photo. This looks like a trying to hide the high-resolution stochastic raster.
But you can try some advanced image checking resources such as https://29a.ch/photo-forensics or http://fotoforensics.com/. They have good Help section.

And one more question. Your photo has been shot in June 2007. The fraudulent series — in September 2007. Do you have any real photos made between these dates?