Not to be obstreperous or contentious, but... Rob Studdert wrote: > > On 23 Oct 2002 at 6:02, Chaso DeChaso wrote: > > > This is not a seminal point about whether one has a > > relationship to reality more than the other. However, > > wet photographs are valued differently than digital > > photographs in courts. > > Yeah, eventually wet photos will be usurped by digital photos with precise date > stamps...
Which derive from and depend upon the person who sets the date in the camera in the first place, of course... >...and accurate colour. Which depends upon the operator's attention to his camera settings before the image is recorded. All I'm saying is, if you want or expect some human-designed apparatus to free you from gettingerrors or pre-viewing manipulation, so you can TRUST the output as being whatever you might call "correct," merely going digital won't do it. Not in today's world... > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html Or, did I read your comments incorrectly? keith whaley
