Rafael i'm almost sure you will win, i was a expert of traditional photo
collage and manipulation (as in darkroom ) and at that time, if i wished i
could bypass most of detection method
But time pass by...Now i do photo collage with computer but for only artistic
purpose and so i never had reason to study how to fake detection techniques
Neverthless i wonder how you can see anything wrong if
1 i do a good collage taking care of shadow , proportion and prospective
2 i print a high quality gigantography of my computer photo-collage
3 In a studio with diffuse light i make with my camera a photo of the
Gigantography , taking care to get a very subtle out-focus (or just smearing
the lens with a tiny veil of something as vaseline
I don't know much about EXIF data,(i don't even know if they report as default
exposition time ,diaframma opening time and focal used, if so could be needed
to have them coherent with the kind of image)
but i'm confident you will find Exif data from a real camera
-----------------------------
Will be quite a lot of work and i can't see any reason to do it
(well at least if nobody is going to pay few thousands Euro in cash to get a
image of Hilary Clinton having fun with a almost naked young black guy, or
something alike)
So my curiosity is only academic...still i'm a bit curious
Alchemie Foto\grafiche
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
L'email della prossima generazione? Puoi averla con la nuova Yahoo! Mail_______________________________________________
Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU
https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
