The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exposing digital forgeries by detecting inconsistencies in lighting
Abstract
When creating a digital composite of, for example, two people standing side-by-side, it is often difficult to match the lighting conditions from the individual photographs. Lighting inconsistencies can therefore be a useful tool for revealing traces of digital tampering. Borrowing and extending tools from the field of computer vision, we describe how the direction of a point light source can be estimated from only a single image. We show the efficacy of this approach in real-world settings.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Computer graphics: principles and practice
(2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-2713 · Cited by 4,651
An Introduction to the Conjugate Gradient Method Without the Agonizing Pain
Shewchuk, J. R. (1994) · Cited by 2,173
Detection of Copy-Move Forgery in Digital Images
Fridrich, J. (2004) · Cited by 1,040
Exposing digital forgeries in color filter array interpolated images
Popescu, A. C., & Farid, H. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/tsp.2005.855406 · Cited by 656
Self-citationExposing digital forgeries by detecting traces of resampling
Popescu, A., & Farid, H. (2005) · doi:10.1109/tsp.2004.839932(410 · Cited by 655
Self-citationFinding the illuminant direction
Pentland, A. P. (1982) · Journal of the Optical Society of America · doi:10.1364/josa.72.000448 · Cited by 244
Determining digital image origin using sensor imperfections
Lukas, J., Fridrich, J., & Goljan, M. (2005) · SPIE Proceedings · doi:10.1117/12.587105 · Cited by 175
Perceiving Illumination Inconsistencies in Scenes
Ostrovsky, Y., Patrick Cavanagh, B., & Sinha, P. (2005) · Perception · doi:10.1068/p5418 · Cited by 149
Cited by
Determining Image Origin and Integrity Using Sensor Noise
Chen, M., Fridrich, J., Goljan, M., & Lukas, J. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security · doi:10.1109/tifs.2007.916285 · Cited by 893
Detecting Image Splicing using Geometry Invariants and Camera Characteristics Consistency
Hsu, Y.-F., & Chang, S.-F. (2006) · 2006 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo · doi:10.1109/icme.2006.262447 · Cited by 434
Detection of copy–move forgery using a method based on blur moment invariants
Mahdian, B., & Saic, S. (2007) · Forensic Science International · doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.11.002 · Cited by 414
Fast, automatic and fine-grained tampered JPEG image detection via DCT coefficient analysis
Lin, Z., He, J., Tang, X., & Tang, C.-K. (2009) · Pattern Recognition · doi:10.1016/j.patcog.2009.03.019 · Cited by 395
Information Forensics: An Overview of the First Decade
Stamm, M. C., Wu, M., & Liu, K. J. R. (2013) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2013.2260814 · Cited by 394
Metadata
- Authors
- Johnson, M. K., & Farid, H.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 7th workshop on Multimedia and security
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2005-08
- Pages
- 1-10
- OpenAlex
- W2081698350
- Cited by
- 406
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 13.81
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Exposing digital forgeries by detecting inconsistencies in lighting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1073170.1073171
- The paper
- Johnson, M. K., & Farid, H. (2005). Exposing digital forgeries by detecting inconsistencies in lighting. Proceedings of the 7th workshop on Multimedia and security. https://doi.org/10.1145/1073170.1073171
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
