Izitru: A Service that Helps You Prove You Didn’t ‘Shop that Photo


As digital photographs become easier and easier to create, edit, and share, it’s also becoming easier to doubt the authenticity of photos. There have been quite a few stories in recent days of photojournalists, news organizations, and contest winners throwing their reputations away by using Photoshop to manipulate the truthfulness of photos.

Izitru (pronounced “is it true”) is a new free service that aims to make it easier for honest photographers to prove the authenticity of their images.

The system revolves around a website that will automatically examine and validate uploaded photographs, allowing you to show off a 3rd-party stamp of approval if your integrity is ever challenged. There is also an izitru iOS app that will be appearing in the App Store starting today.

Here’s how it works: first, upload your original, unmodified JPEG photograph to the izitru website. The website then analyzes the image based on 29 dimensions of compatibility six separate forensic tests that are commonly used to test images (devise signature analysis, JPEG structure analysis, double JPEG detection, JPEG coefficient analysis, sensor pattern analysis, and JPEG ghost detection).

After analysis, izitru will create a dedicated page for the photo that displays one of five trust levels: high trust, medium trust, undetermined file history, potential file modification, and no trust. Photographers can share this page in order to “prove” the legitimacy of their image.

We did a quick test on the service by uploading a fake hurricane photo that made the rounds a while back. The service correctly identified it as not being reliable:


If you ever have an authentic image be marked as manipulated by izitru, the service also offers a challenge feature that can mark the photo for examination by human experts.

izitru is a new product offered by the company Fourandsix (pronounced “forensics”), which also offers a software suite and Photoshop plugin for detecting manipulated images.

  • Alan Klughammer

    This old discussion again?

  • Radu Babos

    All this site seems to do is tell you if the picture was re-saved or straight out of the camera. Not very uslefull


    It doesn’t work if you shoot RAW – it questions the validity of the resulting JPEGs once exported, even if exported with default settings.

  • chip renner

    a tool for photo snobs who dislike digital?

  • Martin Lindley

    There are cases for and against photo-manipulation. It’s not a cut and dried issue?!

  • bueller345

    Exactly! Just tried it out and they questioned the images based on being saved as a JPG after the image was taken.

  • Kevin Connor

    If you’ve got a raw file, then you’ve already got pretty strong evidence that the file hasn’t been manipulated. Until now, there’s been no way to deliver a similar level of confidence for JPEG files, and that’s where izitru comes in. Our primary intent with this site is not to proclaim that a particular file is fake, but, on the contrary, to certify that a file is trustworthy when we can find sufficient evidence to support that. (In theory, we could one day add the ability to accept and render raw files for sharing through izitru, but that wasn’t among our initial priorities.)

  • Kevin Connor

    Not at all, and in fact there’s no way to certify the file if you didn’t shoot digital. We’re not even anti-Photoshop. I actually led Photoshop product management at Adobe for 15 years. But, there are times when photos need to serve a reliable purpose in documenting reality, and izitru is intended to help add trust to those situations.

  • Kevin Connor

    It’s not especially useful if you’re the downstream recipient of a photo that has already been recompressed one or more times. It is useful, however, if you’re the photographer who shot the photo and want to make sure that the downstream recipients won’t question what they’re seeing.

  • Jon Peckham

    Absolute Rubbish! Truth is what was presented by the artist that was in their Mind’s Eye. Photoshop or no photoshop doesn’t matter. It just defines skills in one area or another. Neither is better or worse than the other. A photograph not photoshoped is no more truthful than one that is! A great photograph is always a deception. These people are nuts and sociopaths period . . . A camera or photoshop is just a tool. Its the mind of the image maker and his message that matters . . .

  • Kevin Connor

    Relax, please, and see my comment above. izitru is not part of the anti-Photoshop brigade. I love Photoshop and devoted a big chunk of my life to improving it at Adobe. There are times, however, when it’s critical to know whether a file was manipulated or not.

  • Vlad Dusil

    I think it’d be fair to disclose that you are the president of Fourandsix before you go defending the purpose of the product against its critics.

  • Jon Peckham

    Besides exif and obvious pixel halos, how does the software know? I wouldn’t trust it . .

  • blahjovic

    I agree, I saw all of Kevin’s comments and had to see if he was connected.

    It would be nice if you could get a validation from an exported raw photo through a lightroom plugin or something.

    When they use the word “forensics” I felt like it was implying something more in depth. In looking through their FAQ it seems it’s mainly based on saves. Also, if you just take a photo of a photo you may have an Isitru Verified Photo.

  • Fraser

    Spot on, couldn’t say it better..if a photo produces a reaction, thought, feeling then it doesn’t matter what tool was’s 2014 and we can use old and new techniques to create amazing voyages for the eyes and soul

  • Kevin Connor

    Sorry about that. I thought the first-person phrasing of my comments made that clear, but perhaps it was only vaguely implied. I had no intention to mislead. That’s even me sitting at the table in the photo at the top of the article!

  • Theo Lubbe

    Sociopaths? For providing a tool for ensuring elements were not removed nor added to a scene? Not all photography is about ‘presenting what was in the mind’s eye’ for artistic expression, you know…

  • Jon Peckham

    Finally, somebody who’s awake . . . Thank you

  • chip renner

    sorry if I got people riled up.Actually I could see this service working for news outlets or lawyers who want to make sure there is no hanky pankey.I do have problems with people who are Analog Snobs.Some people think that their way is the only way.The ends justifies the means.Yet they spot a print-or burn & dodge.All manipulation.