Image authentication by assessing manipulations using illumination

  • Manoj KumarEmail author
  • Sangeet Srivastava


With the ever increasing use of digital media, image tampering has become imperative. This spurs the need to identify such tampering for authentication and jurisdiction. The main idea of this paper is an assessment of the possible light source direction from the image. This technique uses the inconsistencies in the light source direction to detect the image forgery. Initially, in the preprocessing step on input image, surface normals are calculated using surface texture profile. RED band is mainly used for obtaining surface texture information and, further, surface normal calculations are done. With estimated illumination profile and normals, the incident angle θi is computed for various chosen image patches. The θi angle is the estimated angle from image object to light source direction. The inconsistency in θi values is used as an evidence of tampering. The proposed technique is tested on different known fake images and is found capable of identifying manipulated objects in an image. This technique works for homogenous illuminated surfaces and has better forgery detection accuracy. Additionally, our technique also diminishes human intervention for forgery detection. The performance of proposed forgery detection technique is examined using CASIA1 image database to give users a feel of the performance.


Lighting Image forensics Decorrelation Image manipulation 



  1. 1.
    Austin JD, Pizer SM (1988) A multiprocessor adaptive histogram equalization machine. Inform Process Med Imag Springer, Boston, MA: 375–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carvalho T, Farid H, Kee E (2015) Exposing photo manipulation from user-guided 3-D lighting analysis. SPIE Symp Med Watermark Sec Foren. San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chojnacki W, Brooks MJ, Gibbins D (1994) Revisiting Pentland’s estimator of light source direction. J Opt Soc Am 11(1):118–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dong J, Wang W (2016)," 2009–2016. [Online]. Available: [Accessed 12 August 2016]
  5. 5.
    Fox J (2012) Listverse. Listverse, 28 Dec. 2012. [Online]. Available: Accessed 12 Sept. 2016
  6. 6.
    Haouzia A, Noumeir R (2008) Methods for image authentication: a survey. Multimed Tools Appl 39(1):1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson M (2007) Lighting and optical tools for image forensics. PhD dissertation, Dartmouth CollegeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson M, Farid H (2005) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting inconsistencies in lighting. Proc 7th Workshop Multimed Sec (ACM): 1–10, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kee E, Farid H (2010) Exposing digital forgeries from 3-D lighting environments. IEEE Workshop Inform Forens Sec ((WIFS), Seattle, WA, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kee E, O'Brien JF, Farid H (2013) Exposing photo manipulation with inconsistent shadows. ACM Trans Graph (TOG) 32(3):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kee E, O’Brien J, Farid H (2014) Exposing photo manipulation from shading and shadows. ACM Trans Graph 33(5)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kumar M, Srivastava S (2016) Identifying photo forgery using lighting elements. Indian J Sci Technol 9(48):1–5Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar M, Srivastava S, Nafeesuddin (2017) Forgery detection using multiple light sources for synthetic images. Austral J Foren Sci. doi:
  14. 14.
    Mingolla E, Todd J (1986) Perception of solid shape from shading. Biol Cybern 53(3):137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moran L (2012) Associated Newspapers Ltd. MailOnline, 28 February 2012. [Online]. Available: Accessed 08 September 2016
  16. 16.
    Nillus P, Eklundh J-O (2001) Automatic estimation of the projected light source direction. Proc 2001 IEEE Comput Soc Conf Comput Vision Pattern Recogn, Kauai, HI, USA, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    O'Brien JF, Farid H (2012) Exposing photo manipulation with inconsistent reflections. ACM Trans Graph 31(1):4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peng B, Wang W, Dong J, Tan T (2015) Improved 3D lighting environment estimation for image forgery detection. IEEE Int Workshop Inform Foren Sec (WIFS), Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peng B, Wang W, Dong J, Tan T (2017) Optimized 3D lighting environment estimation for image forgery detection. IEEE Trans Inform Foren Sec 12(2):479–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pinel J-M, Nicolas H, BRIS CL (2001) Estimation of 2D illumination direction and shadow segmentation in natural video sequence. Int Work Very Low Bitrate Video Coding: 197–202Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Riess C, Pfaller S, Angelopoulou E (2015) Reflectance normalization in illumination based image manipulation detection. New trends in image analysis and processing -- ICIAP 2015 workshops, lecture notes in computer science, vol 9281. Springer, Cham: 3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Riess C, Unberath M, Naderi F, Pfaller S, Stamminger M, Angelopoulou E (2017) Handling multiple materials for exposure of digital forgeries using 2-D lighting environments. Multimed Tools Appl 76(4):4747–4764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roy A, Mitra S, Agrawal R (2011) A novel method for detecting light source for digital image forensics. Opto-Electron Rev 19(2):211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang Y, Samaras D (2002) Estimation of multiple illuminants from a single image of arbitrary known geometry. European conference on computer vision— ECCV 2002, lecture notes in computer science, vol 2352. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhong J, Gan Y, Young J, Huang L, Lin P (2017) A new block-based method for copy move forgery detection under image geometric transforms. Multimed Tools Appl 76(13):14887–14903CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, ASETAMITY UniversityNoidaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Applied ScienceThe Northcap UniversityGurugramIndia

Personalised recommendations