Re: law and image

[Otis Wright, Jr.]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Folks: Snip>  So long as the original is available, Snip   And would someone like to define  "original"?   I'm always very careful about how much weight I give an "original."   A lot of things can happen between the object of interest and the film/sensor.   Or, am I missing something here? Otis Wright   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.