Re: law and image

[Pdgsurvey]

Folks: It's been my experience, as an insurance investigator, that the standard has become whether or not the photographer can testify as to the authenticity of the photograph.  That the substance of the photograph has not been compromised,  They, the judges and atorney's, do not appear to be concerned with the details, color, hue, etc., but rather the subject matter at hand.  So long as the original is available, duplicates can be enhanced, enlarged, sharpened or otherwise manipulated, so long as the subject remains constant.   Hope this helps a little. Paul G. Milwaukee, Wi. I agree totally...well said - particularly the part about digitally creating a film-based image.  Also, beyond photography, the world in general will be interesting when everything can be regenerated or simulated to appear as indistinguishable from an original and nothing can adjudicate reality. --- Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As I mentioned elsewhere, I think this distinction > will become even more > blurred when it becomes easier to create a > film-based image from a > digital one.  as I understand it, even now you need > someone to swear > that the photo was not manipulated, which diminishes > its value as > something closely tied to reality.   Even CCTV > images are ultimately > going to depend on someone vouching for their > authenticity.