Jump to content

Need to Know for Question of Authenticity! Is ".jpg" the Native File Format for Older Cameras!


Recommended Posts

I am sorry if this question sounds stupid but it is very, very important for me to know!

 

I am researching some photographs that were taken in the early 2000's with a point and shoot camera- the camera stored the photos onto a floppy disk, which were the loaded onto a computer. I need to know if these photos are authentic- taken when they are claimed to have been taken and whether or not they have been altered.

 

Is the fact that I received the files in .jpg format indicative of any possible tampering? I know photographs taken with newer cameras usually download as a ".tiff" file, but I am dealing with an older camera. Some of the photos had a .png extension. They all supposedly came from the same camera "the .jpgs, and the .pngs."

 

Is .jpg a native file format, meaning, if transferred directly from a camera to a computer, the images would appear in that exact file format? Or, does the fact that they are .jpg files show that, after they were uploaded onto the computer, they were uploaded, transferred to an editing program, (possibly altered), and then exported as a .jpg file?!

 

Specifically referring to a "DIGITAL MAVICA" "point and shoot camera".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you said "floppy disk" I figured you were probably talking about a Mavica.

 

In any case, Jpeg has been a de-facto standard for a long time. The first generation Nikon DSLRs from 1999, for example, which were arguably the first commercially successful "professional" DSLRs, required digging into non-intuitive menus to save in anything other than JPEG or TIFF, with the former being strongly preferred.

 

In fact, these days I'd say that most cameras-ranging from cell phones to DSLRs-do JPEG by default. The only common alternative, often seen on DSLRs and from some types of users, is the raw file, whose format is manufacturer(and to a lesser extent, camera) specific. Even though many high end cameras still offer TIFF as an option(I think my D800 can do it), I see little reason to use it-TIFF files are comparable in size to RAW files, but don't offer the post-processing manipulation options of RAW.

 

In any case, I pulled up a manual for the Mavica FD5 and FD7, and the standard files from these were a 640x480 pixel JPEG.

 

I do not see any reference to .png files, and honestly I'm not surprised. As such things go, it's a relatively new file format and was only officially adopted as a standard in 2003. I'm not overly familiar with it as an output format for digital cameras-I think of it more as being a graphics format.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you said "floppy disk" I figured you were probably talking about a Mavica.

 

In any case, Jpeg has been a de-facto standard for a long time. The first generation Nikon DSLRs from 1999, for example, which were arguably the first commercially successful "professional" DSLRs, required digging into non-intuitive menus to save in anything other than JPEG or TIFF, with the former being strongly preferred.

 

In fact, these days I'd say that most cameras-ranging from cell phones to DSLRs-do JPEG by default. The only common alternative, often seen on DSLRs and from some types of users, is the raw file, whose format is manufacturer(and to a lesser extent, camera) specific. Even though many high end cameras still offer TIFF as an option(I think my D800 can do it), I see little reason to use it-TIFF files are comparable in size to RAW files, but don't offer the post-processing manipulation options of RAW.

 

In any case, I pulled up a manual for the Mavica FD5 and FD7, and the standard files from these were a 640x480 pixel JPEG.

 

I do not see any reference to .png files, and honestly I'm not surprised. As such things go, it's a relatively new file format and was only officially adopted as a standard in 2003. I'm not overly familiar with it as an output format for digital cameras-I think of it more as being a graphics format.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you so much, that was really helpful!

 

Maybe you can answer one more question for me? Would the default file names for images produced on an older camera with a floppy disk be similar to default file names on a modern camera? For example, would it assign each images a random, or sequential number every time? Sorry if this is a silly question- but I am trying to provide evidence that a series of photographs were renamed for deceptive purposes, and I am having a hard time finding resources that will show me what a file generated from this type of camera is supposed to look like- without being altered or renamed.

 

Thank you so much for your help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have you examined metadata of the jpegs?

 

many cameras included make n model of the taking camera in the exif notes as well as date n time, depending on the reader, it can also give you post process info.

The more you say, the less people listen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

have you examined metadata of the jpegs?

 

many cameras included make n model of the taking camera in the exif notes as well as date n time, depending on the reader, it can also give you post process info.

There is no metadata... some claim the "camera was to hold to have it", but I think it was swiped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though many high end cameras still offer TIFF as an option(I think my D800 can do it), I see little reason to use it-TIFF files are comparable in size to RAW files, but don't offer the post-processing manipulation options of RAW.

AFAIK TIFFs are even bigger than RAWs.

Back when the Mavica was used memory was expensive. So somebody saving files as JPEGs in camera would be quite "normal".

Tampering? - I suppose a lot of digital images needed basic post processing to look bearable or way more trial and error to get everything right in camera until the early 2000s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no metadata... some claim the "camera was to hold to have it", but I think it was swiped.

 

Was wondering when you say "no metadata" is there not even a date of the file? There should be a "date created" and probably a "date modified", I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the absence of metadata, I doubt there's a way to prove definitively that the files are any particular age. And it's possible to add to the metadata with some programs and to change some of what's there. It also would depend on how the camera was set to begin with. And many people use them without setting anything (yes, not everyone cares).

 

IIRC, even back then, cameras could be told how to name the files. Though they could also be told to start over if numbering sequentially and you can set them for whatever date you want. We had a fairly early digital camera at the lab (late 1990s) - I only used it for non-casework, but I'm pretty sure I could choose whether it used the time and date to name the file or to use sequential numbers. I'm pretty sure they were jpgs. I used to have a couple of my old photos from it, but I have no clue where they'd be now. If I can find them, I'll report back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some early digital cameras also used TIFF- as already said, they are pretty large files as a rule.

 

Tiff allows for some lossless compression, at least for black and white images.

But yes, for most types of photographic images, the files will be big.

 

Well, except that the early digital cameras had much fewer pixels than we expect now.

-- glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...