"John Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Interesting that the justice system should now be questioning the move to >digital for evidence. For years, I understood that a (film-based) >photograph would not be admitted unless the negative was also available to >support any print offered to the court as part of an argument, or that an >affidavit was sworn as to it's genuineness.
That's not true in the U.S. Any photo admitted as evidence is only as good as the testimony of the person who took it (and who swears under oath that the photo is an accurate representation of what it's intended to depict). I've prepared photos to be presented in court. In one case, some were digital capture and some were shot on film. ALL were printed digitally on my Epson 1270. Neither the judge or attorneys even *asked* how the photos were taken (or if slides/negatives or RAW files were available). They just wanted the expert witness who took them to swear that they were accurate. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
