On 23 Oct 2002 at 7:41, Keith Whaley wrote: > 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...
You could however (as someone else mentioned) integrate GPS reception with the data (as is already available) which also contains absolute time data and use a fixed (predetermined) colour temperature in a universal colour space and add a an encoded checksum to the header of the image to prove that it has not been modified :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
