[enigmo]

unlikely to be useful unless you're shooting in RAW and need evidence that a specific sensor took the shot. phones and cameras do a lot of post processing before an image hits the disk and the original is discarded.

[jcims]

Eh, the purpose would be to demonstrate that a camera took the shot. The fact that it id’s which one specifically isn’t particularly material but might be a little useful in some circumstances.

You wouldn’t need to publish the unprocessed photo, just keep it in escrow.

[londons_explore]

Nothing stops you editing the photo, printing it out, and taking a photo of the printout.

The new photo would still get signed, and look original.

And if you did this in the right conditions, it wouldn't be possible to tell it was a photo of a print.

[quonn]

Since all the metadata (exposure time, shutter speed and so on) in the photo is signed as well, it would be possible to tell.