A field guide on how to spot fake photos

Take, for example, the photo of Catherine, Princess of Wales, released by Kensington Palace in March. News organizations retracted it after experts pointed out some obvious manipulations. Some have questioned the authenticity of the footage taken during the assassination of former President Donald Trump.

The next time you come across an image that takes you by surprise, here are a few things the experts have to offer.

It may sound simple, but a study by Sophie Nightingale, a researcher at Lancaster University in Britain, found that by age groupsPeople who took the time to zoom in on the photos and scrutinize the different parts saw the altered images better.

Try it the next time you have a weird feeling about a photo. Just make sure you don’t focus on the wrong things. To help, we’ve created this (slightly exaggerated) example image to highlight some common signs of image manipulation.

Rather than focusing on things like shadows and lighting, Nightingale suggested looking for “photometric” clues, such as the blurring of the edges of objects, which suggests they were added later; noticeable pixelation in some parts of the image and not in others; and color differences.

Consider this parrot: Who brings a parrot to the polling station?

And take a closer look at its wings; the fuzzy edges of its leading feathers contrast with the rounded cuts closer to its body. This is clearly an amateur Photoshop job.

Fine details are one of the hardest things to edit smoothly in an image, so they often get hammered. This is often easy to spot when normal, repeating patterns are disrupted or distorted.

In the image below, notice how the shapes of the bricks on the wall behind the divider are bent and crushed. Something strange happened here.

Take a look at the now famous photo of Princess Catherine.

The prince was seen with his two children in his arms. Online explorers were quick to point out inconsistencies, including overlapping floor tiles and some molding that appeared to be misaligned.

Did you realize that this person has an extra finger in our polling station example? Of course, it is possible for people to have a condition like polydactyly, where they are born with an extra finger or toe. While it’s a bit tricky, if you see things like extra numbers, it could be a sign that AI is being used to alter the image.

It’s not just bad Photoshopping that ruins nice touches. Artificial intelligence is very well known when it comes to manipulating detailed images.

So far, this is especially true of structures like the human hand – although they’re getting better. However, it’s not uncommon for AI-generated or edited images to show the wrong number of fingers.

One way to determine the authenticity of an image is to step back and consider what’s around it. The context in which an image is posted can tell you a lot about the purpose of sharing it. Check out the social media post we created below for our modified image.

Ask yourself: Do you know anything about the person who shared the photo? Was it added to the post intended to provoke an emotional response? What does the title say, if any?

Peter Adams, senior vice president of research and design at the News Literacy Project, says that some enhanced images, or even original images placed in a context different from reality, are meant to appeal to our “intuitive, gut feeling.” a non-profit organization that promotes critical media appreciation. These edits can artificially create support or create sympathy for specific causes.

Nightingale recommends asking yourself a few questions when you see an uplifting image: “Why did someone post this? Is there any ulterior motive that suggests it might be fake?”

In many cases, Adams adds, comments or replies to a photo can reveal that it is fake.

Here is a real life example taken from X. The AI-generated image of Trump flanked by six young black men first appeared in October 2023, but was added to a post in January that said the former president had stopped his motorcade to meet the men. in impromptu dating.

But it didn’t take long for commentators to point out inconsistencies, such as the fact that Trump only has three thumbs on his right hand.

In some cases, authentic visions appear from the sky, and we wonder if they really exist. Finding the source of those images can help shed some important light.

Earlier this year, science teacher Bill Nye appeared on the cover of Time Out New York magazine wearing something much more stylish than the baby-blue lab coat many of us remember. Some wondered if the images were created by artificial intelligence, but after going back to the photographer’s Instagram account, the Scientist was indeed was wears edgy, young clothes.

It’s also worth checking out news services like this one for pictures that claim to come from a real news event. Associated Press and Reuters and companies like Getty Images — all of which give you a peek at their editorial photos.

If you happen to find the original image, you are looking at the original one.

If an image looks uncharacteristic of the person in it, looks obviously biased, or just doesn’t pass the vibe check, reverse image tools like TinEye or Google Image Search can help you find the originals. Even if they fail to do so, these tools can still reveal valuable context about the image.

A recent example: Shortly after a 20-year-old gunman attempted to assassinate Trump, a photo of smiling Secret Service agents clutching the former president appeared on Threads, a social media service owned by Meta. That footage was used to support the baseless theory that the shooting was staged.

There is no visible smile in the original photo.

Even armed with these tips, you’re unlikely to be 100 percent able to distinguish real images from manipulated ones. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t maintain your sense of skepticism. This is part of what we all need to do to remember that even in divisive and confusing times, factual truth still exists.

Ignoring this only allows bad actors to “dismiss everything,” Nightingale says.

“That’s where society is really at risk,” he said.

Edited by Karly Domb Sadof and Yun-Hee Kim.