During my career at Ford, as an expert witness, vehicle/part inspections
were memorialized on 35mm print film. At trial, when using these prints, we
always had both the prints and the original negatives with us just in case a
question was raised about the authenticity of the images. I was never
questioned about the authenticity other than being asked, under oath - 'are
these images a true & accurate representation of the vehicle/part on the day
of your inspection' - I was never asked to produce the negatives.
The last several years I recorded my inspections were digitally and prints
front these files were used in the courtroom when needed - with all the
hubbub surrounding digital images I was never questioned about them other
than the above stated - ' are these images a true.....'
IOW it was all about the creditability of the person using the images to
testify.
I'm sure there were frauds in these instances during the film era and
believe there probably are similar frauds with digital images.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message -----
From: "P. J. Alling" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: OT - Pixel Manipulation
Photographs have never been straight. You always had to "trust" the
photographer and editor not to lie to you. Just the crop can alter the
story, and having been overruled by a news editor, or two in my time to
tell a story at odds with the facts, I can say from personal experience
that it's not an new phenomenon.
On 8/2/2010 4:34 AM, Cotty wrote:
An article I found interesting with a link to the referenced work:
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10558258>
<http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/>
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
