If EXIF is present, is it a real capture?

It is one piece of evidence. EXIF can be copied across, so it has to agree with the other layers before it counts.

Can a photo received over a messenger be checked?

Most of the metadata is gone, leaving only forensic signals, so inconclusive is common. Asking the sender for the original is quicker.

Does GPS data make it more trustworthy?

It is part of the same statement and carries no extra weight by itself. What matters is whether it agrees with everything else.

Does stripping metadata before posting count against me?

No, because absence is never used as evidence of AI. It does remove the evidence in your favour too, which makes inconclusive more likely.

Does metadata prove a photo is real?

Metadata is a file's statement about itself. A statement is worth reading and is not proof. It is easy to remove and easy to rewrite, so what it means when present and what it means when absent have to be thought about separately.

What it tells you when present

Device, lens, exposure, time, sometimes location. When those values agree with each other and with the quantisation table and thumbnail structure that model actually produces, they argue for a human capture. They only mean something once that internal agreement has been checked.

What it tells you when absent

Almost nothing. Messengers and social networks strip metadata on upload. Measured across 75 real camera photographs, 40 raised a missing-metadata signal. Treating absence as evidence of AI puts half of all ordinary photographs under suspicion.

Rewritten metadata

Anyone can edit EXIF. So what matters is not the values but the contradictions between them: a capture time that does not fit the file structure, a thumbnail no such model would write, or an editor's traces sitting alongside capture information.

What is stronger than metadata

A signature. A C2PA manifest fails verification when the content changes, which makes it stronger than a bare statement. But a signature still needs its signer checked separately, and without that check it is no more than a statement either.

Frequently asked

If EXIF is present, is it a real capture?: It is one piece of evidence. EXIF can be copied across, so it has to agree with the other layers before it counts.
Can a photo received over a messenger be checked?: Most of the metadata is gone, leaving only forensic signals, so inconclusive is common. Asking the sender for the original is quicker.
Does GPS data make it more trustworthy?: It is part of the same statement and carries no extra weight by itself. What matters is whether it agrees with everything else.
Does stripping metadata before posting count against me?: No, because absence is never used as evidence of AI. It does remove the evidence in your favour too, which makes inconclusive more likely.