Generated product shots are now cheaper than a photoshoot, which is a problem when the item in the picture does not exist. Check whether a listing image came from a camera before you pay for what it shows.
Product imagery is unusually revealing: manufactured objects have rules, and generators break them in consistent ways.
Brand names, labels, spec panels and barcodes degrade into letter-shaped forms. On packaging this is immediate and obvious once you look.
Seams that don't meet, hinges that cannot move, cables entering nowhere, screws in decorative positions.
Reflections and shadows that correspond to no lamp in the scene, or a shadow falling the wrong way relative to the highlight.
A weave, grain or knurl that changes pattern across a single surface — physical materials do not do that.
Catalogue-grade lighting on a supposedly casual seller photo, with none of the camera metadata a real shoot leaves behind.
Sometimes the photo is real but the damage was removed. That is a manipulation question, and it shows as a region with its own compression history.
Full resolution, straight from the source. Screenshots and re-saved copies destroy most of the evidence we measure.
Three neural networks look at the image as a whole. Nine forensic methods examine it as a signal: frequency (FFT) analysis, noise pattern, pixel-level statistics, EXIF metadata, Error Level Analysis, texture coherence, colour distribution, Benford's Law and edge detection.
Every method reports separately, so you can tell whether the verdict rests on one weak signal or on nine that agree.
For images outside e-commerce, Start with our AI image detector — it covers any image type and runs the same twelve methods.
Most detectors give you one number from one model. We run twelve independent analyzers and weight them — three neural networks carry the majority, but nine forensic methods examine the file as a signal and can overrule them. Here is the exact weighting we use in production:
| Method | Weight in final score |
|---|---|
| Neural network #2 | 25% |
| Neural network #1 | 15% |
| Neural network #3 | 15% |
| EXIF metadata | 10% |
| Frequency (FFT) | 6% |
| Benford's Law | 6% |
| Noise pattern | 5% |
| Error Level Analysis | 4% |
| Texture coherence | 4% |
| Edge detection | 4% |
| Pixel statistics | 3% |
| Colour distribution | 3% |
These are our own numbers, not an industry estimate — every check run through FakeSec since launch. The split is closer than most people expect: roughly four in ten uploads really do turn out to be generated.
On our internal benchmark of 240,000 images (120,000 AI-generated, 120,000 real) the combined score reaches up to 98% on unedited, full-resolution files. That number drops, sometimes sharply, in four situations — and you should know them before trusting any result:
No detector on the market is 100% accurate — ours included. Treat a high score as strong evidence, not as proof. When a decision matters, look at which of the 12 methods agreed.
Marketplace images are heavily re-compressed by the platform, which weakens the forensic signal. Where possible, ask the seller to send the original file — a refusal is itself informative.
Create a free account and get 3 checks. Full breakdown across all 12 methods, no card required.