Putting aside my questions regarding the original research policy, both answers to this question present a lot of original research. The only difference I can see is that one answer requires logical understanding whilst the other requires a slight technical understanding to comprehend the 'original research', but in the end they are both pure original research.
There is no difference between your answer and DVK's answer as regards original research.
Anyone can verify the correctness of the statements in your answer as easily as they can verify the correctness of the statements in DVK's answer.
Neither answer refers to third party analysis in order to establish that an expert has decided a particular analysis is appropriate.
Both answers follow lines of reasoning and analysis developed by the answerer alone.
This highlights a need for clarification of our no-original-research policy, as noted by Fabian:
Our policy on this could benefit from some clarifications.
The story so far, from my perspective:
DVK posts an answer.
- It includes the key item - which is the original picture.
- It also includes a number of claims about binders and EXIF and the like.
It gets wildly upvoted.
David Mulder posts an answer.
- It consists of two murky pictures that have been post-processed until nominated tools.
- It includes the following unsubstantiated claim:
Bright areas in a non bright picture (high contrast, different compression) will in general light up more, but it still seems more than clear that the second picture has gone through at least one more compression phase and that the whole of the sign differs from the surrounding image. Additionally the flag one is saved at a higher JPEG compression rate (80% vs 75%) and contains more metadata.
This relies a large number of prior assumptions about what the processing was, and what effect "photoshopping" has on the final processed image. In addition to that, it requires an expert call about what "still seems more than clear". We have no reason to trust the expertise of the poster.
Without a lot more substantiation, this is little better than the claims of This looks shopped.
With a comment, I invited the OP to provide more substantiation:
David, this appears to be original research. Please explain why we should trust your analysis.
The answer wasn't acceptable:
It used the "I could just post a blog article" line. That is covered here.
It used the "But what about the other answer?" line. That is covered here.
Most importantly, I interpreted the comments as declining to provide references, which, according to policy is a trigger for deletion:
If one week has passed and no-one has added references, or if the author explicitly declines to add references before then, that the moderator feels is necessary, then the moderator may add a comment and delete the post.
I did delete it. I hope it can be edited and reinstated.
In response to the informal complaint about the other question, I thought "fair point", and started the process again with the other question - asking DVK to justify the original research. That triggered even more response, which might be better dealt with in this closely related Meta question.
So the key difference: DVK's article had some content that didn't rely on DVK's expertise, and DVK's answer is still in the process of being discussed.