Category Archives: image credibility

Theoretical formula for image credibility?

And now … as Monty Python would say … and now for something completely different.

This post is for all my mathematical friends. Recently it took my fancy to consider the credibility of photographs from a mathematical perspective.  I wondered if I could posit a basic theoretical formula to quantify the relationship between the presented image and the original photograph?

Of course it would be quite difficult to establish reliable figures to plug into this calculation.  At present such figures would be as subjective [1] as the opinions of the distributors and consumers of the images themselves. Even so, it may be useful to consider these relationships in a formulaic manner.

Such a theoretical formula would be based on the descriptions of the elements affecting the veracity of images, which I group into three main types:
– local manipulations (airbrushing, cloning, etc),
– global manipulations (colour adjustments, levels, etc.) and
– artifacts (compression blocking effects, etc.)

Using these elements to mathematically describe the ratio of credibility for a presented photograph in comparison with its original (pre-edited) state, could look like this:

Presentation image                       1 – ∑ l,g,a
—————————–          =         ——————-
  Original image                                    1
l = local manipulations
g = global manipulations
a = artifacts such as compression, display resolution

This formula can be further expanded if we consider the elements of Metadata, Context, and Photographer’s Reputation.  If we assume that the metadata of the image is informative and has not been tampered with, then metadata will always add to the credibility of an image. Context and Photographer’s Reputation are elements that may add or detract from the credibility and authenticity of the image. Thus

Presentation image                   1 – ∑ l,g,a
—————————–      =         ——————–    +  M  ±  C  ±  P
Original image                                1
M = in camera metadata and user-entered metadata
C = context in which the image is presented
P = photographer’s reputation

M is the metadata of the image provided by technological means (metadata recorded by the camera at the time of the photograph). Metadata, assuming it is untampered itself, will always add to the authenticity of the image by providing a range of important data about the image capture such as date, time, location, camera details etc.  It is also information added by the photographer post image production.

C is a quantity that can be a positive number, thus increasing image credibility, if the context in which an image is presented is supportive of the truth of the image, in which case the value of the Presentation image over the Original image could be considerably higher.  Equally, it could be a negative figure, if the contextual elements within which an image is presented are false or misleading, in which case the value of the Presentation image over the Original image could be a negative figure, indicating that the Presentation image is worth less in representing reality than the Original image.

P  Like Context, a Photographer’s reputation can be additive or subtractive. A photographer with a known reputation for manipulation of images should be considered more likely to manipulate the image under examination, and by the same token an image by a photographer with a reputation for not manipulating images or clearly describing any manipulations can be viewed with more surety of credibility.

Note that the idea of an image being created using staging, like the Cottingley fairies, and thus misrepresenting reality is quite relevant to the credibility of the image, however it is outside the scope of this formula for two reasons.  First, other than through notation in metadata or context, there is no way to incorporate the alterations made to the actual scene being photographed. The baseline for the original photo (and thus the formula) is set at the control point of the image being recorded by the camera sensor. More importantly, one could argue that even though the scene was staged, it is in fact the real scene recorded by the sensor of the camera, staging and all.

This formula also does not take into account the way in which we as humans perceive either the original or the presentation images, which is an important second part of the two way communication of information that is representative photography, but that’s a subject for another day.

So, over to you my math friends, I would love to hear your ideas!


[1] However there is the possibility that in future my formula can be populated with at least some real numbers; recently such quantification was attempted in respect of image manipulation of models to create a meaningful metric of photo retouching based on geometric and photometric changes:

Kee, E., & Farid, H. (2011). A perceptual metric for photo retouching. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(50), 19907-19912.

1 Comment

Posted by on October 26, 2017 in image credibility



Love him or hate him, President Trump is making us think

While listening this morning to Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull attempt to convince a disbelieving reporter of the Today Show that he is an innocent bystander to the proposed changes to national wage conditions, my husband turned to me and said, “If that was Trump, he’d answer the question.”

future_predictedIt made me think.  Although I choose to focus on my research rather than the heated political circus, I am of course aware of the furore caused by Donald Trump’s candidacy and election.  And for me, Trump’s current catchphrase of “fake news” is quite relevant to our times.

I’ve been talking about the need for credibility in images for years, knowing that few people were listening, but also knowing that one day they would. Now it suddenly occurs to me that the future I predicted – that people would eventually come to care about truth in images and the information they contain – is arriving even as we speak.  It’s just arriving as a much bigger and broader tsunami  of concern than I anticipated.

I was thinking too small when I thought of image credibility alone; the whole world is crying out for truth, the whole truth.  The problem is that the rightful sources of this truth – our leaders, the media, and the vast sea of organisations who should be keeping us informed – do not always perform this function effectively.  There are so many agendas and motives and logistical problems involved in the circulation of information that we are all being misinformed and underinformed on a daily basis.

I am not presenting President Trump as the new dawn of truth, but unlike Prime Minister Turnbull’s incomprehensible wall of words that cause us to walk away shaking our heads, Trump’s plain-speaking and definitive statements are causing people to question the substance of what they are being told in unprecedented numbers. And that can only be a good thing.

A crisis of truth and its anodyne


Perhaps we are not, as many people believe, in a crisis of Trump, but in a crisis of truth – we are awakening to the fact that truth is beset on all sides and we are experiencing the effects of not really knowing what we can believe.

Fortunately, we live in an exciting time in which the traditional pillars of information and misinformation can be restructured radically to provide a better, more solid foundation for truth.

We have robust ways to store as much data as we need. We have the ability to turn that data into information we can all circulate through the extraordinary connectivity we all share. Hopefully over time we can convert our commonly understood information into knowledge, and aspire to the best outcome of all: wisdom.

I am excited about the future of information in this, the information age.  In the meantime, I will keep chipping away at my little corner of truth: researching and championing the notion of truth and credibility in images.

The ‘truth pyramid’ portrayed is a result of my thinking about the interaction between data/information/knowledge/wisdom and how each element and their interactions build truth.

Tags: , , ,

The Case of the Venezuelan Poodle Moth

I love how we can find out practically anything at a moment’s notice simply by Googling it. But the trouble with this type of instant information is that Internet content is by its nature highly fallible when it comes to accuracy. Put another way, there’s a lot of fiction mixed in with the facts. And because we are usually moving quickly through the information presented to us, we can misunderstand but still think we know.

Take the case of the Venezuelan Poodle Moth for example.  When I Googled this interesting sounding animal, the snap ‘info window’ on the right hand side of the search results (Fig 1) displayed several images and a short Wikipedia blurb.

Google results for Venezuelan Poodle Moth

Fig. 1: Google/Firefox Venezuelan Poodle Moth info window 5 Dec. 2015

My first impression of this moth was gleaned from this info window – the photographs, the authoritative comment from Wikipedia, the taxonomic classification. My reaction: could this moth be any cuter? I don’t think so. I instantly wanted to have them in my garden, or keep one as a pet. And to think that Nature dreamed up something so adorable, that even flies!

Or did she?    —    Well, maybe. It is an open question, and it depends on which image you are looking at.  Let’s do a bit of data mining on the visual and textual information supplied in Google’s info window and see if my first impressions of this moth were based on fact or fiction.

The images

There are seven images (not counting the ‘People also search for’ section). Two are identical, and the main photo and photo at top right are very similar. Are they all images of the Venezuelan Poodle Moth? No.

For starters, if you’re looking at the gorgeous fluffy white moth with the black striated antennae in the main image, or the smaller image at top right, you aren’t looking at a real Venezuelan Poodle Moth, or even any sort of a real moth.

You’re looking at a beautiful moth sculpture made of wool felt. What’s more, you’re not even looking at a wool felt sculpture of a Venezuelan Poodle Moth, but a Bombyx mori, or Silk moth.

This cute little piece of art is part of a larger art sculpture (Fig 2) exhibited at the Itami City Museum of Insects in Hyogo Japan in 2008.[9,10,12]. It appears to be by a Japanese artist named Hakoiri. You can see this and more of Hakoiri’s sculptures here .

Hakoiri wool felt sculpture at Itami City Museum of Insects photo by filmskiandwhatnow_tumblr_n4s2r3z7Zq1rxzlvxo3_500

Fig. 2: Wool felt sculpture of silk moth lifecycle by Hakoiri. Clockwise from left: caterpillar, pupae, male, eggs, female all on bed of Mulberry leaves (silk caterpillars’ favourite food) [3] Photo by Tumblr photographer ‘filmskiandwhatnow’

Beautiful art, but scarcely evidence of a new species of real moth, and rather misleadingly included in the information with which we have been presented.

The remaining images are real moths. Some have been taken by Dr Arthur Anker, the zoologist Wikipedia identifies as the discoverer of the Poodle Moth. Some have not. Are they Poodle Moths? Mostly no.

If you are looking at the photo of the moth in the middle top row to the right of the main picture, you are looking at a Muslin moth (Diaphora mendica) [4].

Muslin moth DrPhotoMoto-Flickr

Fig. 3: Muslin Moth-photo by Flickr photographer Dr PhotoMoto [4]

This moth is associated with the Venezuelan Poodle Moth because some experts think they might be related, and also because the photographer named the moth as a ‘Poodle Moth’ on his Flickr site in addition to its correct name.[4]

If you are looking at the photo of the moth in the right bottom row to the right of the main picture (Fig. 4) you are looking at an unidentified moth by an unidentified photographer. It looks a bit like a portrait of an Emperor Gum moth to me, but only an entomologist can know for sure.

Maybe an Emperor Gum moth?

Fig. 4: Unidentified moth by unidentified photographer

I was unable to find any evidence of this photo having been taken by Dr Anker, despite reviewing his entire collection of Lepidoptera photos on his Flickr site. This moth photo appears to have become associated with the Venezuelan Poodle moth through sites that are erroneously including this photo as an example of the Venezuelan Poodle moth.

If you are looking at the photo of the moth in the middle bottom row to the right of the main picture, you are looking at a moth that was photographed by Dr Anker; he calls it simply a “Cute Moth” (Fig. 5).

Cute Moth by Dr Arthur Anker

Fig. 5: “Cute Moth” – Dr Arthur Anker Flickr site

This moth has also become associated with the Venezuelan Poodle moth through co-location on sites ranging from Dr Anker’s Flickr photostream to quasi-scientific news sites that have been including this photo as an example of a Venezuelan Poodle Moth.[5,6]  But Dr Anker does not claim this to be a Poodle Moth.

The Venezuelan Poodle Moth?

Lastly, if you are looking at the remaining two identical photos (Fig 6), you  may be finally looking at a Venezuelan Poodle Moth.

Poodle Moth by Dr Anker

Fig. 6: “Poodle Moth” by Dr Arhur Anker, Gran Sabana Venezuela

This photo is by Dr Anker, who states the photo date was 1 January 2009, and can be seen in various resolutions on Dr Anker’s Flickr site here.

Although there is no reference original image to identify any manipulations, this image is at least cropped. The moth is obviously quite hairy;  with two of its legs crossed in front of it and  5 of its 6 legs showing in the photo, it takes on an extra level of fluffy cuteness. The image caption by Dr Anker is “Poodle moth (Artace sp, perhaps A. cribaria), Venezuela.”

At last we have come to the one unique photograph of the moth in question!  We have to adjust our understanding of the Venezuelan Poodle moth to just that one photo. And although it isn’t quite what we first expected from our Google snap info, let’s face it, it is rather adorable.

And actually, does bear a marked resemblance to a poodle (for a moth).

Poodle Moth and Toy Poodle

The text and taxonomy of the Venezuelan Poodle Moth

The text blurb accompanying this extraordinary range of images reads:

“The Venezuelan Poodle Moth is a possible new species of moth discovered in 2009 by Dr Arthur Anker of Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan in the Gran Sabana region of Venezuela. Wikipedia.

Higher Classification: Artace
Rank: Species”

This looks very authoritative, doesn’t it?  And frankly, like Mulder in The X-Files, I want to believe. It is evident from his 134 academic papers that Dr Anker is a respected zoologist, particularly in the field of crustaceans, especially shrimps.[11] He can therefore be assumed to be acting in good faith in presenting this moth photo as evidence of a possible new species.

But in reality, at the present time there is currently no formally identified moth by the name of the Venezuelan Poodle Moth. There is only a photo of a moth with a whimsical name. The moth is very far from scientifically described.

We have no information on its size or other physical details, its lifecycle or its specific habitat. We do not have a specimen in any collection as far as we know. Without even the most basic of information, it is difficult to ascertain from the photo that the moth is of a previously unknown species of moth from the genus Artace.

However, I can’t say it will not eventually be a Venezuelan Poodle Moth, given it is as yet unidentified and could one day be a new species, which could give Dr Anker naming rights to the moth, which he may then give the common name Venezuelan Poodle Moth, although I think ‘Anker’s Poodle Moth’ has a nice ring to it too.

In summary

So, in separating fiction from fact, I would say that the Google info window results would leave the casual observer convinced that this moth exists, that it is large, fuzzy and friendly, and that it comes in a variety of colours.

As a reminder, here is the Google results window I started with:


The reality of the Venezuelan Poodle Moth is that at present it doesn’t exist, although a photo of a lovely unidentified moth with the title ‘Poodle Moth’ from Venezuela does exist in Dr Anker’s Flickr photostream. Certainly it isn’t the over-the-top-cute fuzzy moth that could be held in the hand (because it was a wool felt sculpture). It also doesn’t come in the orange and white variants (as far as we know) that the info window evokes.

However, Google results to the contrary, this is all we know about the Venezuelan Poodle Moth:

Zoologist Dr Arthur Anker has uploaded an image to Flickr of an unusual and possibly new species of moth he reports having photographed in the Gran Sabana area of Venezuela, and he has called it a ‘Poodle Moth’ (illustrated below) and tentatively suggested it to be in the Artace genus of Lepidoptera.

Venezuelan Poodle Moth

“Poodle moth (Artace sp, perhaps A. cribaria), Venezuela.”

Really Google, was that so hard to say?

[1] Per (if this species is new and is in the Artace genus) it would be taxonomically located in the family tree as: Kingdom: Animalia – Class: Insecta – Order: Lepidoptera – Superfamily: Lasiocampoidea – Family: Lasiocampidae – Genus: Artace
Source: Accessed 5 December 2015.
[2] “Venezuelan Poodle Moth” Accessed 5 December 2015.
[3] Abad-Santos, Alexander. Venezuelan Poodle Moth is the Internet’s Favorite Pet this week. The Wire. 30 August 2012. Accessed 5 December 2015.
[4] Shuker, Karl. Mystery of the Venezuelan Poodle Moth – Have you seen this insect??. 22 August 2012. Accessed 5 December 2015.
[5] ‘boredpanda’. 21 more strange animals you didn’t know exist. Accessed 6 December 2015.
[6]  Avax News. Venezuelan Poodle Moth. 13 January 2013. Accessed 6 December 2015.
[7] Abovetopsecret. The Bizzarre yet awesome Venezuelan Poodle Moth – Facts behind the hype 6 May 2013. Accessed 6 December 2015
[9] Accessed 7 December 2015.
[10] Itami City Museum of Insects. Accessed 7 December 2015
[11] Arthur Anker. Universidade Federal do Ceara, Labomar. Accessed 9 December 2015.
[12]  Accessed 10 December 2015. The almost intelligible Google Translate translation of his artist’s statement is “Mozomozo – worms, insects Exhibition” was produced in order to participate in the exhibition that, for the first time and made insects moth of the first issue also Fumofu in wool felt, are you silkworm like that silkworm adult. And make try to, I’m more insect of wool felt facing is the Was … cute I think I think we do not, silkworm. By Chimachima flocked to thin legs, it was also representing the Fumofu feeling. Apparently so people mother’s generation is Kuwabata around us until the time of your elementary school was a lot, but I’m willing to talk about the silkworm it’s mon were grown until it emerged in the pupae from larvae, I brought up unfortunately It has never  been. It was for sure, and vowed to mind someday.”
[13] Toy Poodle. FreePik. Accessed 10 Dec 2015.
Postscript —
For those of you wondering how I happened to take an interest in the Venezuelan Poodle Moth, it was like this:
I had the idea that it would be interesting to do a post for my Matched Set series on the cheeses of Monty Python’s The Cheese Shop skit.  As it turns out, someone else already had the idea, but in the process of looking around, I decided to Google that most infamous of cheeses, the Venezuelan Beaver Cheese.  : )  In the results was a reference to the Venezuelan Poodle Moth, and who could resist learning more about a Venezuelan Poodle Moth?  And so the saga began…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,