How do AUTHORISED people manipulate bank notes?

JS
Posted By
jason_sheldon
Jan 14, 2004
Views
1260
Replies
50
Status
Closed
I know there is a HUGE thread on the issue of Counterfeit Detection Software that has been moved to the lounge, but this is now a technical question, not a rant:

I have a letter from the Bank of England (Notes Division) authorising me to reproduce or use images of bank notes in artwork, for clients or for my own artistic use.

As the message box in Photoshop says "Unauthorised processing" is not supported, I take it that it will support "authorised" use?

How do I enable this feature then?
(Fax of letter will be sent to any authorised Adobe representative. For obvious reasons, a scan is not going to be provided by a link here)

Jason Sheldon

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

P
pope
Jan 14, 2004
Paint Shop Pro
V
viol8ion
Jan 14, 2004
We are sorry to report that Adobe in its infinite wisdom has decided that you do not require this ability to do your job. Thank Adobe for making your job more difficult!

PSP has the same ‘features’ as PS, so that won’t work.

Try scanning the bills in at 150% or 75% of actual size, at high resolution… that should be enough to bypass PS’s built in babysitter.
TM
Thomas_Madsen
Jan 14, 2004
Paint Shop Pro

Not if you’re using version 8. It has the same feature as PS CS, as far as I know.


Regards
Madsen.
RL
Robert_Levine
Jan 14, 2004
Scan it in ImageReady and then bring it over to Photoshop.

I tested it with a new U.S. $20.00 and it worked fine including saving and reopening.

YMMV,

Bob
RM
Rick Moore
Jan 14, 2004
I had to got to 300% or less than 50%.

Try scanning the bills in at 150% or 75% of actual size, at high resolution… that should be enough to bypass PS’s built in babysitter.
PC
Philo_Calhoun
Jan 14, 2004
Bob’s solution is the correct one. You will need to change the dpi from 72 to whatever in PS after moving it through Imageready.
RL
Robert_Levine
Jan 14, 2004
But remember. This is for AUTHORIZED use only. 😉

Bob
SM
Stuart_McCoy
Jan 14, 2004
I’ll agree that this is poor implementation but Adobe had nothing to do with the design and development of the feature. You should be directing your ire towards the Central Bank and requesting that they find a solution to this problem post haste.
MV
Mathias_Vejerslev
Jan 14, 2004
Try scanning at 50%, double resolution.

Mathias
PC
Philo_Calhoun
Jan 14, 2004
"But remember. This is for AUTHORIZED use only" …. meaning "Do not attempt this at home. Only for professionals. Legal disclaimer below"
JS
jason_sheldon
Jan 14, 2004
I already have tried adjusting the scale and resolution.

Even using the imageready workaround – you are still limited in what you can do once the image is actually in Photoshop – eg: copying layers, running filters etc, and of course, then saving/loading the image at a later date.

And just to reiterate, I DO have written authorisation, but it just doesn’t cut the mustard as far as Adobe are concerned.

J
PC
Philo_Calhoun
Jan 14, 2004
Jason: you shouldn’t have any problem after the image is in PS. Yes, there can be a problem saving and reopening, but the easy workaround for that is to add a solid filled layer on top of the currency layer and hide/unhide it as needed (unhide before saving). Your filters should work fine. I haven’t tried dragging the currency layer to a different file, but if it didn’t work, you can always use "save as" and give it a different name and run the other filters/adjustment layers etc. on the second file. I am not proposing that I agree with Adobe’s censorship (I don’t); just that there are easy workarounds.
RM
Rick Moore
Jan 14, 2004
I am looking at a TIF file that is the new colorful $20 that I scanned directly into CS – it is 17.58 x 7.11 document size (300%) and it works. It did not scan at 100% document size.

I already have tried adjusting the scale and resolution.
DP
Daryl_Pritchard
Jan 14, 2004
One of the peculiar operations I saw regarding banknote manipulation was that if the new $20 fell within the 75%-150% size restrictions, then selection of the area defined by the bill was possible, yet upon performing a Copy, the command failed and the banknote warning appeared. I suspect that if any manipulation of the bill is to be peformed where it involves selecting the area defined by the bill, then it may be necessary to work with an image scaled up to more than 150% of actual size. While I did not try duplicating the layer containing the bill within the same image, the layer could successfully be dragged onto another image even if the bill was true size. From that, I’d expect that layer duplication within an image should also work. It’s odd that this form of copying the image will work yet a conventional copy of selected data will fail.

In any case, this observation suggests to me that the best way to avoid any problems during the course of editing an image of a banknote, is to double the size of the image and work with that. When edits are complete, downsize the image if need be.
RM
Rick Moore
Jan 14, 2004
That’s what I found, and resolution wasn’t a factor, it worked at 72, 300, and 600

In any case, this observation suggests to me that the best way to avoid
any problems during the course of editing an image of a banknote, is to double the size of the image and work with that. When edits are complete, downsize the image if need be.
PC
Philo_Calhoun
Jan 14, 2004
I’m curious that scaling works for some. A digital camera RAW image of a new $20 can’t be brought into PSCS. PS has no way of knowing the scale.
JS
jason_sheldon
Jan 14, 2004
Okey dokey.. I took a £20 note (Bank of England) and at the bottom right, there is some swirly text. Looks like a simple swirly line, but it’s actually text when magnified.

I tried scanning this in at 2400 dpi (optical) at 150% (acceptable size by Bank of England rules), and the error popped up.

That was with a TINY portion of the note.

I’ll try scanning 300% tomorrow. Giving up today.

I don’t want this thread to turn into a ‘political’ debate, there’s a long thread in the Photoshop lounge for that, so any replies, please try to keep technical, and to possible work arounds that don’t cause too much inconvenience.

J.
PC
Philo_Calhoun
Jan 14, 2004
Jason: as mentioned, don’t try to bring it directly into PS, but route it through ImageReady or Illustrator. Since I have a math background and the censorship issue was less interesting than the algorithm they used (to me), I tried a variety of scanning techniques out of curiousity. I am not sure why some can get their images directly into PS. Maybe their scanners are too low quality to pick up the background pattern. Or maybe it is poltergeists on my system.
JS
jason_sheldon
Jan 14, 2004
The Imageready route does work for getting the image into Photoshop in the first place, agreed, but once there, you still face getting the warning when you perform certain actions on the image, so the detection isn’t just during import, it’s at various processing stages too.

I’m also wondering if there is a difference in recognisability of certain currencies, as the British pounds seem to fall foul at even higher resolutions and scales than people are reporting with the US Dollar?

J.
PC
Philo_Calhoun
Jan 14, 2004
Jason: after getting it into PS, what specific processing steps give the message? I tried USM, adjustment layers, scaling, etc. and never had problems. If saved and reopened without a filled layer in front – yes, it gives the error message. Just curious.
RM
Rick Moore
Jan 14, 2004
My Epson 1650 ain’t a Heidelberg but it does give me the error if I try to scan in at 100% document size (or 50% or 150%) you just need to go smaller or larger

Maybe their scanners are too low quality to pick up the background
pattern.
PC
Philo_Calhoun
Jan 14, 2004
I didn’t mean to offend, Derrick. You may be right that you need to scan at 151% rather than 150%. I haven’t figured out the algorithm yet. If it is a scaling issue, I wonder why the RAW file won’t open.
RM
Rick Moore
Jan 14, 2004
That’s what I’ve been trying to say, I think I even had to go higher than 200%, I wound up using 300% and it worked. I know that on the low side I had to go lower than 50%, 46% worked for me. The camera RAW file is a mystery, though. I don’t own a digital camera so the terminology is foreign to me, but does RAW mean there is just pixels and no other data to give it scale? Maybe the algorithm takes that into account – no scale data so no "back door"

I didn’t mean to offend, Derrick. You may be right that you need to scan
at 151% rather than 150%. I haven’t figured out the algorithm yet. If it is a scaling issue, I wonder why the RAW file won’t open.
JJ
Jerry_Jensen
Jan 15, 2004
Wht not just go back to PS 7.01 and forget PS CS?
CR
Chris Roske
Jan 15, 2004
I Scanned at 2400dpi @100% in 3rds (vertical), then pasted together or used photomerge to bring images together.
PC
Philo_Calhoun
Jan 15, 2004
Derrick: you are right. I had no luck with 150% scaling, but 400% and 25% scaling can be brought into Photoshop CS without problems. This is actually a better way than routing the image through IL or IR, as it permits 48 bit/channel import (which the other routes don’t). You may be accurate that RAW inport has a stricter algorithm, as there is no scale to a RAW image.
P
pope
Jan 15, 2004
Wow…we can really crank ’em out now 🙂
RL
Robert_Levine
Jan 15, 2004
Wow…we can really crank ’em out now 🙂

No, you can’t. The government has secretly downloaded a change to all computer printer drivers that will prevent all printing of currency as well as any depictions of Disney characters.

An attempt will result in the sudden erasure of your harddrive as well as visit from the CIA.

Bob
J
jackthegiantkiller
Jan 15, 2004
Thanks Adobe, thanks for making the typical workflow unnecessarily difficult for the professional who works with legal monetary images. As if things weren’t bad enough for designers in today’s sluggish economy.
RL
Robert_Levine
Jan 15, 2004
Yup, time to start selling pencils on the street.

Bob
P
pope
Jan 15, 2004
printer crisis? not here…we live in a cave and i gots lotsa sticks.
JJ
Jerry_Jensen
Jan 16, 2004
Thanks Adobe, thanks for making the typical workflow unnecessarily difficult for the professional who works with legal monetary images.

Adobe’s unheard response brings to mind that famous last line from "gone with the wind". (Any chance that your middle name is Scarlett)?
CC
Chris_Cox
Jan 16, 2004
Jerry – please read Kevin Connor’s official response in the main thread (now moved to the lounge).
JJ
Jerry_Jensen
Jan 16, 2004
I read Kevin’s reply on January 8th, the same day he posted it. To quote:

"2. Legal use of notes: It is true that the current implementation of CDS will prevent you from scanning in your own banknotes even if your usage intent is entirely within legal boundaries. Regulations for using banknote images vary by country. It is the responsibility of the central bank in each country to provide images that can be used within the legal guidelines of that country. In other words, if you want to legally reproduce images of the new $20US bills on a Web site or in a marketing brochure, you can contact the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing for legal images that can be opened and manipulated in Photoshop CS. (You can visit them at www.moneyfactory.com.) Similar solutions should be available in other countries. If you find that your central bank is not providing adequate support to permit legal uses of their bank note images, then you should let them know."

In other words, it’s not Adobe’s problem, go solve it yourself. As Red Butler states, "frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn".

Chris, I fully endorse blocking the use of Photo Shop to edit currency images. What I don’t go along with, was the secrecy of inserting it into CS and now the current total disregard of those who legally can do it and need to do just that as a profession.

I built a company from zero to a 6 million dollar business ( <http://www.crosstechnology.com/> ) in 5 years, it was all based on customer satisfaction. I think that I know what that means, believe me, the current Adobe position isn’t that!
JS
jason_sheldon
Jan 16, 2004
Jerry – I fear that if this thread starts turning into a political debate about the technology, it’ll be moved to the lounge…

The huge thread in the lounge is where I think opinions about it should go.

If we keep this thread to the ‘technical’ aspect of how it affects us, and workarounds to allows us to work as we need, with the minimum of fuss, then it will stay here in this forum.

So please don’t flame me Jerry, I’m not on anybody’s side – I just don’t want this thread turning into a soap box. It’s for solutions, not complaints.

Cheers for your understanding.

J.
P
progress
Jan 16, 2004
Jason, its the area around the queens head that triggers it on a £20…i’m doing tests with texturise filter set to 4 & 50 % sandstone, on selected parts of that area, which isnt "that" noticable…will post exact results when i’ve solved it.
JS
jason_sheldon
Jan 16, 2004
The Bank of England notes have encoding almost EVERYWHERE on them.

I was trying to scan in the swirls on the bottom right hand side of the note, underneath the Queens head (where it says TWENTY and 20).

If you magnify this print, the lines are actually made up of the words "twenty" and "20", they aren’t just dotted lines as they appear to the naked eye.

Even if you just scan that tiny area in (4cm x 1cm) you get the error.
J.
P
progress
Jan 16, 2004
damn…just thought i had it…because if you obliterate the 1/2 of the note queen head size then it allows you to work with it, but texturize doesnt allow it if applied to that area. I havent been able to get away with anything less than texturizing the whole note.
PC
Philo_Calhoun
Jan 16, 2004
If you keep the scaling at 25% or 400% (increasing or decreasing dpi), you can work on any or all parts of the note. I still think this is a better workaround than the IL or IR routes I had tried.
J
JasonSmith
Jan 16, 2004
FWIW – in the name of ‘science’, I just scanned a $50us bill with a consumer grade scanner/copier at 100%, saved as Tiff. Opened with Photoshop CS with no warning, nothing.

I then printed said scan on a consumer grade Epson desktop inkjet just to make sure it was 100% size.

I was stunned. I can see why the Govt feels the need to have this protection – it looked just like the original.
P
progress
Jan 16, 2004
except that it was one sided, lacked a magnetic strip, security ink, watermark, and perhaps a hologram…u know, just the little things you check for when handling notes…

i’d be suprised if it passed the UV test as well, but then i guess thats easier to fake ?
PC
Philo_Calhoun
Jan 17, 2004
You’d be suprised how many of us were forced into a felony offense in the name of science.
DM
dave_milbut
Jan 17, 2004
You’d be suprised how many of us were forced into a felony offense in the name of science.

I imagine this forum’s going to get awful quiet as the feds come and take you all away one by one…
P
pope
Jan 17, 2004
I am deeply grateful to Adobe as I was preparing to embark on a counterfeiting career when CS arrived.
P
progress
Jan 17, 2004
i’m willing to lay good money on those that are seriously into counterfeiting and that do use PS CS to do it would be able to program their way around this anyway, just like those that pirate the program itself
DC
Dan_Crescent
Jan 17, 2004
i’m willing to lay good money on those that are seriously into counterfeiting and that do use PS CS to do it would be able to program their way around this anyway, just like those that pirate the program itself

But that is not the concern of Adobe. As long as the code was in place when the application was sold, they have alleviated themselves from a lawsuit, since altering the code is illegal.
P
progress
Jan 17, 2004
which shows you how daft the whole thinking is…adobe’s concern is legit users, who arent counterfeiting and makeing sure they dont, which they arent, but they dont even think about those outside of that scenario…
DC
Dan_Crescent
Jan 17, 2004
I think Adobe is just covering their butt from a lawsuit, no matter who the end-user is. I can’t really blame them for that.
Y
YrbkMgr
Jan 17, 2004
I think Adobe is just covering their butt from a lawsuit, no matter who the end-user is. I can’t really blame them for that.

No, it’s financial.

The whole thing is ridiculous anyway since in order to counterfeit, you need paper that can pass.

But technically, I would use PS 7 for this particular job Jason. Avoid it altogether.
B
Brian
Jan 20, 2004
I’ll agree that this is poor implementation but Adobe had nothing to do with the design and development of the feature.

But Adobe DID use exceptionally poor judgement in including this "feature" in the first place…

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections