<story><title>Forensic analysis of recent Victoria&apos;s Secret photo</title><url>http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/322-Body-By-Victoria.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>davi</author><text>I didn&apos;t know what &quot;Error Level Analysis&quot; was.  So:&lt;p&gt;&apos;Error level analysis (ELA) works by intentionally resaving the image at a known error rate, such as 95%, and then 
computing the difference between the images. If there is virtually no change, then the cell has reached its local 
minima for error at that quality level. However, if there is a large amount of change, then the pixels are not at their local minima and are effectively “original”.&apos;&lt;p&gt;From &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.hackerfactor.com/papers/bh-usa-07-krawetz-wp.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.hackerfactor.com/papers/bh-usa-07-krawetz-wp.pdf&lt;/a&gt;, a lot of interesting stuff in there.</text></comment>
<story><title>Forensic analysis of recent Victoria&apos;s Secret photo</title><url>http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/322-Body-By-Victoria.html</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>adriand</author><text>I would love to see an analysis like that of this photo I first posted to my blog (&lt;a href=&quot;http://socialtech.ca/ade/index.php/2008/03/beware-the-big-bad-black-wolf/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://socialtech.ca/ade/index.php/2008/03/beware-the-big-ba...&lt;/a&gt;) which generated the usual claims of &quot;Photoshop&quot; on Reddit, until I posted the original version, which kicked off many more claims that it was &apos;shopped (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/6byul/to_all_the_photo_experts_on_reddit_who_claimed/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/6byul/to_all_the...&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;p&gt;Even though, to the best of my knowledge, the photo is 100% real.</text></comment>